The re-election of US President Donald Trump and the negative effects his policies are having on the global economy reignite a question that has quietly lingered since his first campaign. How did a real estate developer and reality television personality ascend to the most powerful position in the world with so little preparation for its practical demands?
This is a question that is perhaps best answered by the Peter Principle, which states that in a hierarchy “every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence”. Originally formulated as a critique of corporate bureaucracy, the Peter Principle can also be seen in politics, where excellent campaigners often fail to deliver once elected to office.
The American political system in particular has become dominated by media spend and showmanship, rewarding those who master the optics of leadership rather than those who methodically acquire the competencies required to govern. For many, Trump is a prime example of this, with plunging approval ratings following both of his election victories.
In contrast, leaders such as China’s Xi Jinping have taken a quite different path to power. In China, political ascendancy is slow, gruelling and driven by competency. Xi’s long journey through the labyrinth of Chinese provincial and party governance, from the dusty fields of rural Shaanxi to the highest echelons of Beijing, forged a leader expert in state management.
This fundamental difference in how leaders emerge may explain the divergent trajectories of an advancing China and an increasingly chaotic US. While China lifts hundreds of millions out of poverty and moves up the manufacturing value chain, Americans have faced one cost of living crisis after another as a direct result of government policymaking.
Trump and his advisers (many of whom have more experience in real estate and television than government) embody this divergence. Showmanship made him an effective celebrity and helped him make headlines during elections, but running a country requires a different skill set, and success in the attention economy doesn’t guarantee success in the real one.
There is a famous idiom in Chinese philosophy that says governing a country is like frying a small fish. The metaphor conveys the importance of simplicity and getting the basics right even when governing a large nation. In contrast, Trump, trying to juggle sanctions, tariffs and multiple wars, appears to have set the kitchen on fire.
Showmanship made him an effective celebrity and helped him make headlines during elections, but running a country requires a different skill set, and success in the attention economy doesn’t guarantee success in the real one.
The US under Trump has seen a revolving door of cabinet officials, chaotic policy shifts and a preference for unilateral action over sustained diplomacy. It has been leadership at the level of social media — impulsive, aggressive, and often irrational. And, with oil, gas and fertiliser prices skyrocketing due to the recent attacks on Iran, negative impacts are being felt worldwide.
The Peter Principle warns that systems that prioritise status over competence eventually promote individuals who are fundamentally incapable of doing the job because the criteria for success at lower levels (such as winning elections) diverge from the actual skills needed at higher levels (such as governing effectively).
By contrast, Xi’s path to power was not built on charisma or media savvy. Indeed, for much of his early career Xi was considered an unremarkable man. His father’s revolutionary credentials opened some doors. Nevertheless, China’s political system required him to prove himself over and over again, often in challenging, low-profile assignments.
Xi spent decades moving through county, city and provincial posts, managing everything from rural economic reforms to large-scale urban planning in major provinces such as Zhejiang. Along the way he learnt how to navigate China’s complex party-state apparatus of patronage networks while mastering social and economic policy.
By the time Xi entered the Politburo Standing Committee, he was not merely a figurehead but a deeply embedded player in the system. Xi’s leadership style reflects this process, with long-term strategic planning and institutional co-ordination characterising his ability to maintain political stability while achieving sustained economic growth.
While the Chinese government model has been accused of centralising power in the hands of one man, a lifetime of appropriate experience has made Xi Jinping a highly effective leader. His governance of China has been marked by the relentless pursuit of national rejuvenation, and in economic terms he has already established himself as a historically significant figure.
While the Chinese government model has been accused of centralising power in the hands of one man, a lifetime of appropriate experience has made Xi Jinping a highly effective leader.
Across Brics nations, political leaders tend to emerge from a form of apprenticeship in governance. India’s Narendra Modi served for over a decade as chief minister of Gujarat before becoming prime minister, while Brazil’s Lula da Silva and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa both spent years managing labour unions and building coalitions before ascending to the highest office.
In business it is understood that a good salesperson is not the same as a good CEO. However, in modern mass media-dominated democracies, the ability to sell oneself as a strong leader is increasingly becoming confused with an actual ability to lead. This is dangerous.
The result is not just bad policy but systemic fragility. Institutions might endure temporary incompetence, but when successive generations of leadership are selected for brand value rather than ability, the rot risks becoming structural. The Democrats’ handling of an ageing Biden’s re-election campaign is arguably another example of this trend.
Trump is not unique in this regard. Emmanuel Macron of France and Boris Johnson in Britain are two further examples of excellent campaigners whose popularity plummeted when they were confronted with the real demands of governance, while celebrities such as Conor McGregor and Kanye West’s flirtation with politics further illustrates a slide towards populism.
Plato warned about the risk of populism in democracy, advocating for limited suffrage in which only philosopher-kings would have the right to govern and vote. While this is not a credible solution in a modern context, democracies will have to get better at selecting for technical competence rather than mass media appeal if they wish to remain competitive.
As the world accelerates towards multipolarity, national leadership will matter more than ever. Decoupling supply chains, volatile commodity markets and geopolitical conflict are challenges requiring administrative competence. Campaign slogans and social media buzz may win elections, but they are unlikely to produce leaders able to address these issues.
Trump’s political career is a fascinating study of the Peter Principle in action. A cautionary tale about what happens when the skills needed to ascend no longer match the skills needed to lead. Meanwhile, leaders like Xi, shaped by decades of incremental advancement and technical competency, remind us that governance is not a performing art.
• Shubitz is an independent Brics analyst.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.