Positive selection: Why India needs a larger talent pool

Let’s start not with positive but negative selection. Negative selection, as a concept, originates in evolutionary biology, where it describes the process by which deleterious traits are removed from a population to ensure survival. In politics, however, it takes on a darker meaning: the deliberate elevation of incompetent or unqualified individuals to positions of power to secure the leader’s dominance.

This phenomenon is widely prevalent in authoritarian regimes and autocracies, especially the higher you go in the pecking order. But we often forget how it also poses a significant downside risk to large democracies, where the scale of governance and the complexity of institutions amplify its consequences. In a democracy, where leaders are expected to govern through competence and accountability, negative selection undermines trust, erodes institutional integrity, and jeopardises long-term stability.

Let us see how this plays out in the world’s largest democracy, India. In the United States, in contrast, the most watched and oldest democracy in the world, draining the proverbial swamp may be a fantasy if not delusion. It is, nonetheless, possible to bring in an entirely new set of leaders and administrators when a regime changes. Right now, for instance, Donald J. Trump, after his return to the White House in his second term as president, is effecting sweeping changes. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is just one example: the upending deeply entrenched interests and power blocs, not to mention the slicing through government departments and jobs with a hatchet rather than scalpel.

In India, however, negative selection manifests much more subtly. Given the power struggles as much within parties as across the political divide, leaders prioritise loyalty over merit to consolidate power. Sidelining capable individuals, even those who might not challenge their authority, is par for the course. This creates a negative feedback loop: loyal but incompetent appointees and apparatchiks are promoted at the expense of their more qualified counterparts. The result? Weaker governance, leading to public disillusionment. Unfortunately, populist leaders exploit this very discontent to further consolidate their power by polarising society and blaming the opposition.

Over time, the system risks devolving into a mediocracy — or worse, a kakistocracy — where the least capable hold sway. The United States, with its vast bureaucratic apparatus and global influence, is particularly vulnerable, as we have seen in their now controversial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Quite laudable to begin with, DEI, arguably, deteriorated from an insistence on equal opportunities to equal outcomes. I need not spell out the implications: a single incompetent appointee in a critical role, say in national security or economic policy, can cause ripple effects worldwide.

Historical examples abound when it comes to narcissistic and power-hungry leaders reducing the stature, if not literally lopping or chopping off, those around them. The Roman empire’s decline was hastened by emperors who surrounded themselves with sycophants, sidelining competent generals and administrators. Emperor Caligula (37–41 CE) is an infamous and oft-cited example. Caligula appointed loyal but incompetent sycophants to key positions, including his horse, Incitatus, allegedly as a consul (though likely exaggerated). Caligula’s assassination after four years underscores the volatility of kakistocratic governance.

In Weimar Germany (1919–1933), negative selection led to political instability because of faithful but ineffective officials. Chancellor Franz von Papen (1932), a mediocre figure chosen for his allegiance, failed to address economic crises or curb rising extremism. His weak leadership paved the way for Hitler’s rise, illustrating how negative selection can destabilise democracies.

More recently, Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro (2013–present) may be listed as a modern case of negative selection. Maduro has filled government posts with supporters, many lacking expertise, to maintain control amid economic collapse. The appointment of unqualified figures to head the state oil company, PDVSA, contributed to its decline, exacerbating Venezuela’s financial crisis.

In stark contrast, positive selection has been shown to work again and again. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945), with his “new deal,” arguably saved the US and much of the world from the Great Depression and won World War II for the Allies. He assembled a “Brain Trust” of highly qualified advisors, including economists like Rexford Tugwell and military leaders like General George Marshall.

Post-war Germany, under Konrad Adenauer (1949–1963), is another example. Adenauer rebuilt West Germany, with the help of the US and the Marshall plan, by appointing skilled leaders. Ludwig Erhard, to name one, was the architect of Germany’s “economic miracle,” which still persists. Adenauer’s merit-based appointments contrasted with Weimar’s failures, showing how positive selection can rebuild trust.

Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew (1959–1990) is perhaps the most famous case of positive selection. Lee prioritised meritocracy, selecting highly competent technocrats to transform Singapore into an economic powerhouse. Figures like Goh Keng Swee, a brilliant economist, readily come to mind. Singapore’s highly controlled and, some would say, quasi-democratic system, does, however, raise questions about its applicability to larger democracies.

In modern times, both India and Brazil have grappled with negative selection. The politicisation not only of bureaucratic, but practically of all important appointments, has repeatedly led to pervasive inefficiencies in government-run or funded institutions. Given the gargantuan size of the state machinery, already hobbled by widespread perception of inbuilt corruption, public trust is severely undermined. Today, ideological conformity is routinely prioritised over qualifications, leading to policy missteps.

Narendra Modi’s rise to power, both in Gujarat and at the centre, where he has been India’s prime minister for eleven years, is a great case of the country opting for positive selection. Modi has transformed India as no leader previously in the last 50 years has dared to.

Yet, many believe that there is a growing deficit of expertise and talent as one climbs up India’s pyramid of power. In an open society the best way to progress is not by trying the fix the system but by encouraging the jostle and juxtaposition of widespread proficiencies. Visionary leaders aiming for best outcomes, rather than place holders, need to be incentivised. Positive, rather than negative, selection is India’s urgent need of the hour.