Populists’ elections, or tough selection?

    In almost all situations involving decision-making in everyday life, we rely on our own experience, competencies, and common sense. We engage critical thinking, analyze options. In all cases except when choosing our politicians. When the time comes to vote, we stop acting rationally. Past experience tells us that no matter whom we choose, nothing good will happen, and every new one will claim the previous ones were criminals. Competencies tell us that something needs to change, because if we leave everything as it is, it will only get worse. Common sense tells us that no matter how we vote, good and right people have no chance of getting in, and those who do get in will not make our lives any better.

    So what should we do? As is well known, if we keep doing things the same way as before, we can’t hope for a result different from the previous one.

    Let’s imagine for a minute that when choosing a team to renovate your apartment, you look at their brochures but don’t check the results of their previous work. Or you sign up for surgery with a doctor who talks about dealing with the disease best on social media, rather than one you’ve known for many years, or whom your best friend, who has already been treated by him, recommended. If I choose a generator based on the color of its casing instead of its technical characteristics and user references, what would you think of me, what would you take me for?

    When it comes to elections, we—who always prioritize substance and only then evaluate form—change our approach. We prioritize form at the expense of substance. Of course, there are many excuses for this. No time to figure things out, what’s the point of reading anything, it’s all just promises anyway, at least this one looks nice, seems more pleasant, etc. Yet, these people will gain power and influence over your life for the next 4-5 years. And that’s how we end up with a country characterized by enormous, but still unrealized, potential after more than 30 years. Our geopolitical position is excellent, our resources are rich, people are hardworking, the climate is good, and the land is fertile… Yet, GDP per capita over 30 years has “climbed” from 52nd to 120th place in the world. What does this mean? Is it a sign that others have developed at a faster pace, or that we have done something wrong? Of course, there is a war now, the economy is destroyed, survival mode is on. But what will happen when the war is over? Will we continue our steady movement towards Somalia, Congo, and Afghanistan—the poorest countries in the world?

The task of politicians and officials.

    And what do you think is the main task of politicians? In my opinion, it is to use available resources to create conditions in which life gets better, people feel happy, and are not afraid for their future. In other words, incomes should grow, purchasing power should increase, stability and confidence in the future should not be in doubt, life expectancy should rise, child mortality should decrease, crime should disappear, and the environment should be restored. I’m not saying that politicians must ensure all this themselves—their task is not to interfere and to create the conditions in which we can achieve all this ourselves. Are such conditions created by increased fiscal pressure, corruption among officials, low efficiency of state enterprises, declining quality of education and healthcare, embezzlement of resources…? Judge for yourself.

 So it turns out, there is us—the smart, beautiful ones, those who want a happy life in a better country—and there are them, those who resist this. Politicians, officials. But the problem is—they are us. A politician or an official coming home is unlikely to demand a bribe from his son who asks for help with homework, and when choosing a doctor, seeks the one who treats better, not the one with the higher position or fancier office. So what happens in the morning when they return to work? At what moment are they replaced and made to be indifferent, inept, inefficient, greedy?

    I have come to the conclusion that there are people who

• create rules and follow them,
• create but do not follow them,
• do not create, but only follow them, and
• neither create nor follow them.

So. Our politicians and officials belong to those who create rules but do not follow them, while most of us are forced to follow the rules but have no access to their development and creation.

    But we need politicians and officials who not only create rules, but also definitely follow them. That is, the rules are created not just for us, but for everyone, including themselves. And what are rules for? To achieve set goals. These very top-level goals are what we should set for politicians and officials. So what are these goals?

Goals!

   Top-level goals are considered those whose achievement is the result of reaching subordinate, or lower-level, goals. For example, increasing GDP per capita is a good goal, but if income distribution within the country is unfair, it’s just a figure resulting from a mathematical operation, not evidence of growth in an individual’s income. I am not the first to wonder what goals the government and politicians should pursue so that I would adopt them and feel that achieving these goals would improve my own life. The international Gallup research center and the UN have been monitoring the Happiness Index (Happy Planet Index) for many years. This is an integral indicator that measures the level of happiness and well-being of populations in different countries around the world. It is based on a number of criteria, including GDP per capita, expected life expectancy, social support, freedom of choice, trust in government, satisfaction with salary, and attitudes toward corruption. What do you think, where is Ukraine ranked? That’s right, 105th out of 149 countries in the world, and in 2021 it was not far off at 110th place. 

    So it turns out that in order to be happy in the best country—which is the ultimate goal—it is necessary to achieve the second-level objectives. 1. The country’s GDP, when distributed fairly, should ensure a high standard of living for the population. 2. Increasing life expectancy cannot be achieved without modern medicine, improvements in the environment, water quality, air, food, and reducing psychological pressure. 3. Social support is only possible in a society with a high level of empathy and a sense of belonging, which is only feasible when all the necessary conditions are present. 4. The freedom to make vital decisions independently, without pressure. 5. The level of trust in the government is equivalent to how much this government acts in the interests of society—how transparent and professional it is! 6. Attitude towards corruption—corruption erodes trust, hinders development, and kills healthy competition. If the population considers it a problem, it must be fought.

    Maybe, taking all of the above into account, it’s time to start doing things differently? Well, who doesn’t want to be happy in the best country? There probably aren’t many, if any at all.

So what should we do differently?

1. Stop being a victim of circumstances, take a mature, responsible life stance—regain your agency.

2. Accept that the ultimate goal is a happy life in the best country, and the KPI by which we can track progress towards this goal is the international happiness index. If we are currently ranked 105th, the aim is to do everything possible to reach 1st place. And not in 100 years, but in a maximum of 10. After all, Finland has managed to stay at the top for more than one year! 

3. Approach elections as a rigorous selection of professionals with a proven record of achieving challenging goals. Their proposed programs should clearly define projects whose implementation will help advance the country toward leadership in the happiness index.

4. Introduce performance evaluation for officials based on improvements in key KPIs—not contrived or easily manipulated ones, but concrete indicators. If you’re the minister of health, it’s about increasing life expectancy, reducing infant mortality, and improving access to medicines. If you’re the minister of the economy, then it’s about GDP growth rate, purchasing power, the number of industrial processing stages within the country, decreasing the share of raw material income while increasing revenue from further processing, boosting the volume of direct foreign investment, etc. Not too many—just 3-5 key effectiveness metrics that we can assess at the beginning of a term, monitor their dynamics, and record the final results at the end. And if, in the course of work, interim results show no improvement, that official should be replaced as soon as possible. Put an end to negative selection and finally give the best people the opportunity to prove themselves when tackling large-scale tasks.

5. Seek out and empower a leader who has a concrete program for the duration of their term. And this program should be accessible for study and evaluation. During elections, the focus should be less on choosing a person and more on selecting a development program for the country and a leader capable of implementing it.

    I understand that there are other problems right now. And the most important thing is to end the war and return to… what? Personally, I am not satisfied with things going back to how they were! Officials are appointed and dismissed, positions are bought and sold, there are still no specific work plans for development within their zones of responsibility. Politicians make promises without any intention of fulfilling them. Corruption is rampant. It is common for officials and politicians to spend more than they earn.

Are you satisfied with this?

Tomorrow is shaped by today! Maybe our current problems are also related to a temporary loss of agency and the hope that things will somehow work out on their own, or that someone else will solve everything for us?