The objective: Prove the theory that excellence over one's peers in certain or all aspects elevates one to leadership roles or the winner's podium.
70 Students, 1 Class Rep
What qualities differentiate the class rep from all the other students and even from those that contested to become the class rep too.
50 Lecturers, 1 Dean
Some assistant, some Doctors, some Professors, but an election was held and one person became the Dean. This does not ignore the fact that contestants or candidates can and at times, punch below the belt or break established rules to take the pot. It nevertheless highlights the fact that at beating rules, they have excelled. If they had been caught, tried and found guilty of cheating, with their peers ending up with the podium instead, they would have failed and established themselves *not superior*.
On the question of equal opportunity at the pot, it is not always the case. Or is it? Even at birth, a man might be given access to more resources than his peer (at resources or at the competition). Nevertheless, this is not the sole qualification for success. A rich man can lose his wealth. A poor man can build his wealth.
Shalom Dickson answered a question about how one can beat a competitor who is both talented and hardworking. He came to the conclusion of enlisting people's help. What would have been the outcome if your competitor, talented and hardworking, also enlisted other people's help? And then you have the same access to those qualities and resources. There will be a winner, or not. But if there's a winner, it is because they have something or did something the other did not.
Sprinter all have the same starting line. Maybe not the same physical qualities or the same training time or equipment but one person will win and as much as the best of observed qualities in a person suggests he will win, it does not guarantee it. There, it might not even be a case of addition but subtraction. The most likely to win based on resources and inherent qualities might just lose because of the unfortunate event of pulling a hamstring. Whose fault is that? Someone wins.
My point? Acknowledging the winner for what they are, the winner, and appreciating the qualities or process that got them there. The loser lost for a reason. Spectators that did not even compete have almost next to no grounds to challenge the winner.
A student union election, gubernatorial election, presidential election or straight-up appointment. The person on the podium, he or she, has or lacks something (at least one thing) that the others don't. Or (leaving nothing out of scope) people not on the podium lack or have something (at least one thing) that the winner has. The thing they have could just have been an unfortunate incident; that the person on the podium lacked.
This applies to groups and countries too. After acknowledging that the winner of an election won based on some quality or action, it is prudent of observers or in this case citizens of a country to assess that defining quality and further assess whether that quality is going to continue to contribute to future contests.
Opeyemi Olugbemiro said, "Win, always".
When a president is at some international negotiation, were the qualities that won him the election going to contribute to victory in that situation. Does he need to solicit those qualities and bring them to his team? What does he need on his side to win? Do his qualities include perception and ability to understand one's deficiencies and then take conscious decisions to correct them even though those items abound in his former competitors, allowing him to invite their help?
When faced with internal problems, do we take note of actions taken and decisions made and then assess them based on their contributions to the final outcome. We look back on those contributors and support or criticize them. And in machine learning fashion, encourage those contributors that are good and discourage those that are bad -- helping the president to learn and evolve, while we evolve intellectually, collectively ourselves.
Shalom Dickson said something about separating the person from the idea. It applies here too, separate the person from the actions/processes, attempt to instill the better qualities in the person and if one of his quality is not being able to adapt, learn and evolve, we note that and wither move him out or on the next run keep in mind that we need someone with qualities that involve ease at evolution.
Moving him out, how much do his other qualities contribute to winning. How much do we value those qualities? Not being able to learn and evolve should then be decided if it is enough to move him out. Or if we keep him there, will his other qualities help us win more than we lose.
I have been trying to make this point based on scientific and/or quantitative substance not just on my premonition alone. I told Gabriel Famosipe that it is "something that someone has". That it is that thing that they have that determines whether they win or not. Not whether they studied a course or not. Not whether they have access to funds or not. Not whether they have friends or not. It might just be that that "thing" they had was what brought about all those things that contributed to their win.