Is it better to have a meritocracy or a political system when it comes to executive appointments?
In the US, the best of the best can be appointed to executive leadership where as in the UK members of Parliament are the ones chosen for executive leadership. Are people better served by generalists who know the political system or specialists in the field?
In the USA, Timothy Geithner was appointed to be Treasury Secretary. Geithner was He faced many challenges in trying to get his agenda through the political system. Eventually, he was able to chip away and get some of his agenda passed. He had served in various other political positions before becoming Treasury Secretary all relating to economics and finances he just did not have the political muscle that some members of Congress might have had. Geithner has since been replaced by Jacob Lew who is more familiar with the budget as he worked at the Office of Management and Budget along with several other positions after working for Citigroup. (http://www.treasury.gov/about/Pages/Secretary.aspx)
In the UK, there are the MPs with political influence and experience in Parliament. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is an MP. Cameron has experience at various levels of government and has done some media work according to his biography on number10.gov.uk. Nick Clegg, the deputy PM, has been an academic and done business consulting (number10.gov.uk). Though they have political experience, they have done more than work in and for Parliament.
Does having political muscle necessarily mean the best for the people? Is knowledge of the area more important? Is there a way to have both?
Bibliography
"Timothy Geithner" http://www.biography.com/people/timothy-geithner-391494?page=1
"Jacob Lew" http://www.treasury.gov/about/Pages/Secretary.aspx
"David Cameron" http://www.number10.gov.uk/the-coalition/prime-minister-david-cameron-biography/
"Nick Clegg" http://www.number10.gov.uk/the-coalition/deputy-prime-minister-nick-clegg-biography/
Becca, I think that you need to have a good mixture of both political acumen, as well as knowledge in the field that you're heading. Obviously, under the UK system of only choosing Ministry heads from within the ranks of Parliament (and only from the ruling or majority party, at that!) this becomes extremely difficult. However, in the United States, sometimes the political acumen part gets left out, as you pointed out with Geithner. What good does it do the country if the brightest mind in the country for a particular field is heading that Department if he can't work with the players on Capitol Hill to get the necessary changes made?
ReplyDeleteIt seems a difficult hurdle to get over. Many of the brightest shun politics, or aren't diplomatic people (and thus not suited to such a position). It's issues like these that can make a person detest political maneuvering in general!