Indirect Competence-based Selection

The measure as written

In POWER STRUGGLE AND ITS PREVENTION, competence is put before the majority, under "Majority Backing":

Though it is a determining factor in efficiency, it is not always a priority (i.e. where the majority and competence part ways, competence comes first, as discussed under ICS). ... (Such acceptance is seen in the willing participation of the people in the model, rather than in a count of votes.)

Under "Command-and-Control system", command descends from level to level, and control ascends through selection:

The control is mainly by the selection of capables at every level on the basis of efficiency and respect level (both are under consideration). (i.e. a leader who loses efficiency or respect is replaced through the same selection by the level below him; this is how control ascends.)

Under "Real Democracy", it sets the basis of that selection:

So, the selection of commanding authority is a matter of competence and sincerity rather than changing the basis for personal interests (the process that is dominant in a non-ideal society and which is the driving cause of power struggle in the society). This means that democracy is not the direct selection of the leadership at higher levels by the people at the lower stratification levels of the society, nor the selection of representatives from land-area-based constituencies.

and under "Indirect Competence-based Selection", it gives the selection and the measure:

It is a strategy for the selection of commanding authority based on competency. What does this mean? To provide a context, let’s take an example: some local farmers gathered at a place to discuss some regulatory issues regarding land limitation and water channel distribution. The clash of interests was with farmers of a nearby locality. They agreed to nominate a person who could negotiate on their behalf. What do you think: would it be better to select someone from another occupation (craftsman, labourer, doctor etc.) who has neither deep knowledge of the issue nor any experience in this regard, or someone of the same occupation with a high level of competence and experience in the field? No doubt, the second case is more efficient or stronger, even if the majority of farmers are selecting otherwise (this would be due to personal or priority reasons rather than fact-based ones). This competence is the basis of ICS (note that competence is given priority rather than personal selection) ... (The steps of this selection, from the sub-sectors of a county up to the head of the state, are shown in the life story of Ahmad below.) (In practice, competence is a person’s wisdom that proves itself over a long period, i.e. it is judged by the output of his decisions and by his knowledge of the field, which the peers of the same field are best placed to assess.)

In the life story of Ahmad, the steps of the selection are these:

... the process is that, firstly, the representatives are put forth by each sub-sector of the county; I was the representative from the farming sub-sector of the major sector, Agriculture. These sub-sector nominees are then subjected to selection by other sub-sectors to appoint the regulator of the major sector; these major-sector regulators from different counties then select the nominee for the head of the state; the same is done by the different major sectors of the county; there is a rotation for the major-sector selection as well as for the nominee selection

how a position that falls vacant is reviewed:

... the revision committee (the body that reviews the competence of the nominees whenever a position falls vacant), after a thorough analysis of my strategic competence, retained the status for me.

and how the nominees choose among themselves:

A graph displaying the progress level of different nominees was on the table of each attendee. The nominees had already burnt the midnight oil to analyse the competence of every other nominee based on different standards, and they were in a good position to make the right decision. There was a debate as to which standards must be prioritized in accordance with the needs at hand.

This sub-section measures how far the commanding authority of each society is selected by competence, as it was given: wisdom that proves itself over a long period, judged by the output of decisions and by knowledge of the field, as the peers of the same field assess it, rather than by personal selection.

What it measures, in plain words

The farmers in the example chose their negotiator from among themselves: "someone of the same occupation with a high level of competence and experience in the field", even where the majority would have chosen otherwise. The measure asks whether the commanding authority of each society is chosen in this way today.

What is measured.

· The people in command. In each society, the head who holds the most power (the head of state, or the head of government where that office holds more), and the heads of the fields that meet the NEPs: food, health, teaching, shelter, energy, labour, and the two that keep peace and security, defence and the interior. They stand where "the regulator of the major sector" stands in Ahmad's steps.

· From the field they command. Whether each head of a field worked in the occupation of that field before taking command: a farmer at the head of food, a doctor at the head of health, a teacher at the head of teaching, an engineer or builder at the head of shelter and of energy, a worker at the head of labour, an officer at the head of defence and of the police. A person who only held posts governing the field is counted apart, and so is one who came from outside it.

· Over a long period. Competence "proves itself over a long period": the years each person worked in the field before taking command, as the record of their career states them. For the head, the years in public office before first reaching the top.

· How chosen. Whether each was chosen by those of the same field, as was asked, or appointed from above.

Read in people and in years. Each person is read from the published record of their career; no money is used, and no opinion about them.

How to read the result. Say a society shows 2 of 8: two heads of fields came from the work of the field they command, and six did not. Three points keep the reading true to what was written:

· Competence is "judged by the output of his decisions and by his knowledge of the field". A head of a field who never worked in it has had no chance to prove it there, whatever their gifts elsewhere.

· Governing a field is not the same as working in it: the negotiator is one "of the same occupation". Those who only governed a field are shown apart, so that both can be seen.

· In this selection "competence is given priority rather than personal selection", and "the peers of the same field are best placed to assess". A head of a field appointed from above is not chosen by the peers of the field, however able.

How we measured it

The measures. Each person is read from the published record of their career, and counted; the years are years of work, as the record states them. No money is used.

· The people. In each society, the head who holds the most power (the head of government in India, the head of state in the other six), and the heads of eight fields: agriculture (food), health, education (teaching), housing (shelter), energy or power, labour, defence, and the interior or public security, holding these posts in 2026. Their names and posts were taken from the published lists of heads of state and cabinet members (September 2026), and checked against each government's own list and the appointments announced since.

· The records. The official biographies of the White House (United States), of the Government and the President of Russia, of the Chamber of Deputies and the ministries of Brazil, of the Lok Sabha (India) and of Egypt's State Information Service and Ministry of Health; the official career listings published with each appointment in China; and, for the others, the published announcements of their appointments.

· From the field. A person is counted as from the field when their record shows work in its occupation or in its enterprises: a physician at the head of health; a teacher or university teacher at the head of teaching; a civil engineer, architect or builder at the head of housing; an engineer or manager in energy companies at the head of energy; a factory worker or union officer at the head of labour; a military officer at the head of defence; a police officer at the head of the interior (and, for a ministry of justice and public security, a public prosecutor). A person whose record shows only posts in the government of that field is counted as having governed it; any other, as from outside it. Where a record gives a profession but no years in it, the person is counted by the stated profession, and this is marked.

· The years. From the first year of work in the field to the year of taking the post, where the record states both; otherwise the years are not counted.

· The head. The years in elected or appointed public office, including posts on the staff of a government but not service in the armed forces or the security services, before first reaching the top.

· How chosen. As each record or announcement states it: appointed by the head of state or government, with or without the approval of the legislature, or chosen by the peers of the field.

Measured years only. The holders in 2026, each read as their own record stands; 13 of the 56 posts changed hands during 2026, and their new holders are the ones read.

Checks.

· Every holder is checked against a second list: the government's own, or the published appointment. Where the first list was older than a change, the new holder is used.

· Where two posts are held by one person, both posts are counted, and the person once in the years.

What the seven societies show

Of eight heads of fields in each society, in 2026. *By stated profession only (agriculturist); no years of farming are stated.

The farmers' negotiator is rarest in food. Of the seven heads of agriculture, one comes from farming, and only by a stated profession; three had governed agriculture before, and three came from outside it. Ahmad says of himself, "I spent the next 25 years raising different crops", before his fellow farmers chose him. Energy is led from its own field in two of the seven societies, and labour in one; health and teaching in four each, and defence and the interior in eight of the fourteen posts.

Over a long period. Where the record states the years, those who came from their field had worked in it 11 to 43 years before taking command. The heads had held public office for none to 33 years before first reaching the top.

Chosen from above. In all seven, the heads of fields are appointed by the head of state or government, in four of them with the approval of the legislature; none is chosen by the peers of the field. The heads themselves came to the top by direct popular vote in five societies, through the legislature in one, and through the ruling party in one.

By this measure, the commanding authority of the seven societies is not chosen by competence proved in the field. Of the 56 heads of fields, 23 came from the work of their field, 12 had only governed it, and 21 came from outside it; none was chosen by those of the same field. The field that feeds a society is led by one of its own in one society of seven, and there only by a stated profession.