I once read a paper, which I cannot since find, by several well respected anthropologists who make the claim that in the early stages of our evolution, when we were unconsciously selecting for higher intelligence, there were few mechanisms that could be used to demonstrate a high cognitive level (intelligence) in a prospective mate.
And, humour; the ability to envisage an alternative, or even warped reality in such manner as to prompt a pleasurable reaction, was such.
We still see it in the descriptions of ideal partners in the dating sites: “Must like long walks on the beach, dogs and have a great sense of humour.”
There are echoes of three very ancient things in that simple message. An appeal to our early migratory patterns, we are likely the only primate that did - an appeal to our wolf/dog hunting companions, and humour as an indicator of intelligence.
We come now to the political space. How many of our current ’leaders’ can ease out (sans angst) of a difficult conversation by referring to their last outing on a beach, the time their dog (or even their neighbours dog) made a mess of some big social event - Or delivered the slightest excuse for humour without rehearsing it? If you cannot pinpoint any such time draw your own conclusions of what constitutes elite, funny or even intelligent leadership.
Thing is, in the social contract entered into when we deliver our collective future to those who will govern we expect intelligence plain and simple. What we have been getting consistently - since the euphoria of breaking the colonial bond, is merely cunning leadership. Arguably, the mechanism we’ve been using is not as adequate as the [time] proven method of selecting the most capable. But if Cunning isn’t suitable and Funny just can’t cut it what’s next for the democracy?
A checklist of desirable traits perhaps? The idea of selecting candidates by virtue of past achievements in favour of the general population or the natural environment is a good start. A background in over the counter Finance? Not particularly. However an economist with a background of real social involvement might be a good fit. Funnily enough having great candidates to hand doesn’t actually guarantee anything. If the party apparatus requires and creates its own demands, the choice of candidate matters little. A past prime minister once quipped “even a crapaud would suffice” himself no doubt recognising the power of organisation over individual. So there you have it, the great leader, the father of the nation and a demonstrably intelligent man, making jokes about the validity of your vote.
The author has no ties to any political party but recognises the method by which parties are selected to run this country, is a joke.
There is no real answer but