Make Xenophobia History: Introducing the Consortium of the Competent
At a time when many national governments are shameless in favouring their own family, tribe, ethnicity or class, we need to question the assumption that voters’ interests are best served by politicians who happen to be compatriots. In countries the world over, the gap between politicians and ordinary citizens is gaping and growing. Even in democracies, many people effectively vote for ‘none of the above’ either by spoiling their ballot paper or simply not turning up at the polling station. I suggest that we give this large minority of the electorate a more edifying choice: the opportunity to vote for politicians or ex-politicians of any nationality, who comprise a consortium that transcends ethnic and class divisions, and have a proven record of governing with integrity and competence. Every other form of discrimination is rightly being banned or, at least, frowned upon. There is no longer any reasonable case for denying the long-suffering citizens of countries currently ruled by the tribal, corrupt, criminal or even the disastrously incompetent the chance to be governed by politicians from well-run countries, such as Denmark, Switzerland or Singapore.
There is a high price to pay for the ingrained assumption that political leaders should be citizens of the country they govern. Leaders of some countries - North Korea comes to mind – are not above using their citizens as hostages, threatening to starve them if the rest of the world doesn't accede to their demands. Others are almost as bad: provoking internal conflict, looting the national treasury, while actively or passively encouraging emigration of their less docile, more ambitious citizens. Why not let people, if they so wish, to be led by politicians who happen to have been born in a different country? This would introduce a dose of healthy competition: voters would have the opportunity of picking people who have a proven record of governing with competence and integrity – and who are less beholden to domestic vested interests. There are plenty of such potential office-holders around the world, kicking their heels with their own foundations or frustrated by their hard-won ability to see what needs to be done and their inability to do anything about it.
Are there any downsides to temporarily handing over the reins of government to foreigners? It’s worth noting that we already entrust many aspects of our lives to the unelected people who run multinational corporations – and that we have little real knowledge of the influences of foreign entities on our current, domestically generated, leaders. The consortium of international statespeople that I envisage would get involved only when, and only for so long as, the electorate demands it.
The implicit assumption has always been that only leaders of the same nationality can truly care about the interests of their citizens. That assertion should and does provoke hollow laughter if anyone these days is ever silly enough to make it.
The demand for more care and competence is present even in some of the less benighted countries – as shown by the numbers of non-voters. The supply should be a relatively simple matter these days of respected statespeople, ex-politicians and politicians getting together – over the internet at first – to thrash out the composition and structure of the Consortium of the Competent. (The no-frills, unflashy name befits its role.) My guess is that the Consortium would be overwhelmed by demand from disgruntled citizens everywhere. Translating that demand into the toppling of corrupt or useless governments is likely to be more difficult: the rulers of those countries that need it most are those who are most resistant to change. But sullen submission to the existing order is partly a result of there being no more appealing alternative on offer. The Consortium would provide such an alternative: it could act as a type of government in exile, ready to step in as soon as the existing hierarchy is either overthrown or induced in some other way to depart from office.
The practicalities should not be too daunting. If overhauling a country’s constitution would be too difficult, members of the Consortium could be granted temporary nationality status. Every country would be different. Where elections are fairly run, members of the Consortium could simply be put on the ballot paper, along with all the usual suspects; the winners taking their place in Parliament with other members if that is a precondition for being given real powers.
People in the many countries in which there is no real democracy would have to find other ways of supplanting their rulers in favour of the Consortium. We can have no idea how that would happen, except to say that the existence of a viable alternative could help to tip the scales. What we can say is that the possibility of greater involvement in national governments of experienced, uncorrupt politicians with a sound record of success must be better than the way we are headed, with the growing cynicism on both sides of the divide between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. To the potential members of the Consortium of the Competent I say: governing failing, fractious countries will be a difficult and probably thankless task. But it is also your duty.
© Ronnie Horesh
July 2021