1
Opinion
The Wrong People - Want the Job
I there a flaw in how we choose leaders?
The people who want power are not always the people best suited to use it.
We like to believe that those who run for office are driven by a desire to serve. And many are. But the reality is simpler: stepping forward, competing, and enduring public scrutiny requires ambition, confidence, and a high tolerance for conflict.
Those traits help people win leadership.
They don’t necessarily help them govern well.
A genuine public servant is usually different. More measured. Less interested in recognition. Focused on doing the job properly rather than being seen to do it. The kind of person you’d trust to manage something important—without needing to advertise it.
That personality rarely campaigns for power.
As Niccolò Machiavelli observed, politics follows its own logic. Not because bad behaviour should be accepted—but because the path to leadership filters for a certain type of individual. Those who are willing to push forward, stand out, and compete.
Many capable, thoughtful people simply opt out of that process.
What remains is a narrower field: those comfortable with authority, visibility, and pressure. Again, not a moral failing—but not a guarantee of suitability either.
And yet, we treat election as proof of merit.
We expect humility from people who had to promote themselves.
We expect restraint from people who had to fight to get there.
We expect quiet competence from people selected for their visibility.
Then we act surprised when those expectations don’t line up.
This isn’t just about individuals. It’s about incentives.
In most areas of life, the best operators are not the most self-promoting. They’re the ones focused on the work itself. Politics is unusual in that it often requires the opposite—putting yourself forward first, and proving your capability later.
That gap matters.
Because until we recognise it, we’ll keep confusing the ability to win leadership with the ability to exercise it well—and wondering why the results so often fall short.
The people who want power are not always the people best suited to use it.
We like to believe that those who run for office are driven by a desire to serve. And many are. But the reality is simpler: stepping forward, competing, and enduring public scrutiny requires ambition, confidence, and a high tolerance for conflict.
Those traits help people win leadership.
They don’t necessarily help them govern well.
A genuine public servant is usually different. More measured. Less interested in recognition. Focused on doing the job properly rather than being seen to do it. The kind of person you’d trust to manage something important—without needing to advertise it.
That personality rarely campaigns for power.
As Niccolò Machiavelli observed, politics follows its own logic. Not because bad behaviour should be accepted—but because the path to leadership filters for a certain type of individual. Those who are willing to push forward, stand out, and compete.
Many capable, thoughtful people simply opt out of that process.
What remains is a narrower field: those comfortable with authority, visibility, and pressure. Again, not a moral failing—but not a guarantee of suitability either.
And yet, we treat election as proof of merit.
We expect humility from people who had to promote themselves.
We expect restraint from people who had to fight to get there.
We expect quiet competence from people selected for their visibility.
Then we act surprised when those expectations don’t line up.
This isn’t just about individuals. It’s about incentives.
In most areas of life, the best operators are not the most self-promoting. They’re the ones focused on the work itself. Politics is unusual in that it often requires the opposite—putting yourself forward first, and proving your capability later.
That gap matters.
Because until we recognise it, we’ll keep confusing the ability to win leadership with the ability to exercise it well—and wondering why the results so often fall short.
