 |
| It doesn't take very
much to be a politician or a President. The Constitution of
India doesn't specify educational qualifications; nor does it
specify a minimum IQ. |
A
country is not a company and can't be run like one. That's an argument
popular with members of the polity keen to take on the mantle of
knowledge workers. The contention isn't made-in-India; it gained
currency during Ross Perot's first run for the American Presidency
in 1993. Sure, said his political opponents, he was the best salesman
IBM ever had-he fulfilled his sales quota for 1962 in a mere 19
days; sure, he founded a tech hothouse that compares well with some
new economy stars-the company, EDs went for an IPO in 1968 at $16
a share and saw the price zoom, almost overnight, to $160; sure,
Fortune magazine put him on the cover and called him the "fastest,
richest Texan"; but-here comes the rub-he didn't have the political
experience and leadership qualities to run a country.
So, what's Ross P doing in an essay that is obviously on Avul Pakkir
Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, the man set to be India's next President?
Only this-the fracas created by the Marxists last fortnight over
Kalam's emergence as the NDA-Congress-sp candidate for the presidency,
and the arguments put forward by them are reminiscent of L'affaire
Perot. First, a disclaimer: this isn't a plug for Kalam. While the
man has enough political-savvy-he's been advisor to the Defence
Minister and the Prime Minister-something in his professorial attitude
(he actually asked journalists at his first press conference after
being named the NDA's presidential candidate to repeat something
after him) tells me that we are in for a very different (not good,
not bad, but different) kind of Presidency. His obvious intelligence
will prevent him from making the Dan Quayle kind of gaffes-remember
potatoe?-but he'll certainly provide for moments of mirth if he
keeps up the choir-master act.
The Marxists are variously unhappy at the way
Dr Kalam has been picked, don't think he has the requisite political
experience to be President, or believe having a nuclear scientist
in Rashtrapati Bhawan will send out the wrong signals to the world.
The first and the third are best dealt with elsewhere; it is the
second that is of relevance to us.
It doesn't take very much to be a politician
or a President. The Constitution of India doesn't specify educational
qualifications; nor does it specify a minimum IQ. Maybe it should,
and maybe India will be a better place to live, work, and do business
in if it does, but it doesn't. Anyone can be a Member of Parliament
in India-and actually some very strange people are. That's the way
it is in a democracy. So, from where did the Marxists suddenly get
their notion of a meritocracy?
The truth is, a country is a lot like a company
and can be run like one. Pick the first corporate vision or mission
statement you can find, replace the word stakeholder with citizen
and chances are you'd probably hold in your hand a far more significant
vision statement for the country than any political party can come
up with. Hang on to it.
That's not to suggest all CEOs hold dual doctoral
degrees in microbiology and cybernetics, but most professional ones
do boast educational qualifications of some note. Nor are CEOs the
smartest people in their organisations, but they're smart enough
for the job.
If anything, it is the reverse of the statement
with which this essay opens-A company is not a country and can't
be run like one-which is true. Kenneth Lay's Enron, and Gary Winnick's
Global Crossing are excellent case studies in what could happen
to companies run like countries.
|
