Monday, April 12, 2010


While reflecting on 'doubting Thomas' in yesterday's Gospel, my thoughts turned to choosing the right candidate in next month's presidential elections. So far the campaigns, if they might properly be called campaigns, appear to revolve around one basic issue: lying. That candidate is lying. My opponent is twisting the truth. The other camp is fabricating stories. That candidate cheated in the past. This candidate is making false claims, and so on. I have never even heard of campaign platforms bandied about, as the campaign issues mainly revolve around destroying the credibility of one's opponents. Being the case, the electorate is steered towards rejecting certain candidates based on perceptions of dishonesty, most of which are devoid of evidence and are simply innuendos. It is a very unsound way of evaluating presidential candidates, yet we cannot totally blame the electorate who are wounded by our painful political history.

But let us assume for a while that all the candidates are telling the truth, and let us give everyone the benefit of the doubt that each one will rigorously drive their political platforms once elected. No accusations of dishonesty will be made. The contest would now be focused on the political platforms, and how well the candidates justify and defend those platforms. Secondly, we must look at the qualification and track record of each candidate to give us a reasonable idea that the person has what it takes to drive results. In HR, we have this tried and tested assessment technique. The record of personal accomplishments (or lack thereof) in the past is a reasonable indicator of the suitability of the candidate to fulfill future requirements. While I do not discount personal re-engineering, usually a duck does not turn into a lion overnight.

No comments: