With elections looming in 2025, this writer is amazed at the audacity of celebrities and movie/TV personalities who have signified their intent to run for senator position, no less. The problem is that as a people, we tolerate and even vote these people into office. Because these celebrities calculate good probabilities of winning, they run the course with confidence, even if lacking the necessary competence. One wonders if the real reason for running for office is not public service but some other agenda.
Competence refers to the ability to perform a task successfully due to skills, knowledge and experience, while confidence is the belief in one’s abilities to perform effectively. Ideally, confidence should stem from genuine competence, creating a positive feedback loop. But confidence without competence, if tolerated, can spell disaster for the nation.
Confidence without competence — sometimes referred to as the Dunning-Kruger Effect — occurs when individuals overestimate their abilities despite lacking the necessary skills. David Dunning and Justin Kruger’s 1999 study demonstrated that people with low competence in specific areas often fail to recognize their deficiencies, leading them to display unwarranted confidence. For example, in their experiments, participants with the lowest scores in logic, grammar, and humor rated their performance as above average, significantly overestimating their abilities.
Overconfidence can manifest in various harmful ways, including poor decision-making, risk-taking, and alienation of others. Research by Barber and Odean (2001) on financial markets found that overconfident investors traded excessively, leading to subpar returns. Their confidence in their judgment blinded them to the risks and lead to irrational behavior.
This phenomenon can have real-world implications. For instance, in medicine, healthcare providers who overestimate their abilities may misdiagnose a condition, putting a patient’s life at risk. In the political arena, leaders lacking expertise may struggle to address complex issues, resulting in ineffective policy-making and governance. Decision-making may prioritize popularity and public appeal over long-term societal benefits. This can exacerbate problems such as corruption, inefficiency, and policy inconsistency.
In extreme cases, overconfidence can erode trust and damage reputations when promises or claims fail to materialize. The effects of overconfidence are particularly troubling in the high stakes environment of politics and good governance. The inability of such leaders to perform can tarnish the image of democratic institutions, reducing public trust. Critical sectors like the economy, education and healthcare may face neglect or mismanagement.
Is this phenomenon as sign of weakness in our democratic system? Democracy, particularly in its electoral form, often rewards visibility and emotional connection rather than competence and experience. Modern democracies are heavily influenced by media platforms where celebrities dominate the narrative due to their visibility. Voters who lack the tools or awareness to evaluate candidates based on their qualifications are led to choose based on personality or fame. With critical thinking out of the way, name recall and reliance on superficial narratives dominate the landscape.
The way out of this vicious cycle of putting in position incompetent and over-confident personalities is for our people to wake up, realize the big mistake and make the correct choice. This starts by reducing the glamour of politics that makes it seem as if it is a convenient career move. Media and civil society should critically evaluate and publicize the consequences of incompetence in governance. Expose the failures. Deter opportunistic entrants. Media outlets should avoid giving disproportionate attention to celebrity candidates based on their fame. It is time to focus on substance.
But the root cause must be addressed, and this refers to the standards for political candidacy. Our legitimate lawmakers must introduce basic educational, professional or public service aptitude tests or competency examinations to deter unqualified individuals. This is a difficult ask, but it is a procedure worthy of study and consideration. Applicants to corporations and other formal organizations require some pre-qualification. But in the Philippines, it is easier to apply to be a senatorial candidate, provided one has the name and the money.
The biggest hurdle remains voter education and awareness. For as long as our electorate allows fame and name to be the primary consideration for election choice, this rut will remain. Civic education should start in school and with the masses to introduce critical thinking and in-depth introspection for their candidate choices.
Discouraging incompetent celebrities from our political landscape requires systemic reforms, voter education and shifts in perspective. Society should create an environment where political participation is guided by genuine public service rather than popularity alone. We can all do our share, starting with our individual decisions to not elect these celebrity candidates while explaining in our small circles why this makes sense. It is high time we restore the quality, prestige and honor of our upper chamber to assure well-crafted laws for the country’s development.
The views expressed herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as FINEX.
Benel Dela Paz Lagua was previously EVP and chief development officer at the Development Bank of the Philippines. He is an active FINEX member and an advocate of risk-based lending for SMEs. Today, he is independent director in progressive banks and in some NGOs.
