The Myth of the Hero Businessman

There was a time when society drew a very sharp distinction between government and business. Indeed, in many places, being a 'person of commerce' was looked down upon by the ruling elites. But as we entered the industrial age and more and more of our wealth derived from commerce, and power shifted accordingly, views on these so-called 'businessmen' (a term that didn't even enter our language until the early 19th century) shifted as well. By the 20th century, we had decided that those who prospered in business were not only worthy of our praise, but were to be emulated and followed. This is evident from the flood of self-help books that began to appear in the early 20th century, many of which focused on definitions of success that depended mostly, sometimes entirely, on success in business.

None of this is objectionable. There is nothing wrong with wanting wealth or desiring to be a success in the world of business. (Indeed, your dear writer here is a businessman and has been so his entire career.)  But objectively speaking, do those who succeed in business make for good political leaders? It's a question well worth asking, because to date we have simply assumed the answer ("yes") and  acted accordingly. In the United States, two of our three presidents in the 21st century have been businessmen (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). But given their track records, it's time to question our kneejerk assumption that it's wise to make our business leaders our political leaders.

So let's examine it. Let's look at the track records of business leaders as executive political leaders in the 21st century in every major country. We'll use a simple definition of 'major': every country with a population of at least 50,000,000 inhabitants (as of 2019 estimates). That gives us 29 countries to work with. Of these, since 1 January 2001, only five have had leaders with significant backgrounds as entrepreneurs:

Indonesia
Italy
Pakistan
South Korea
United States.

Our group therefore consists of seven leaders:

Joko Widodo of Indonesia;
Silvio Berlusconi of Italy;
Nawaz Sharif and Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan;
Lee Myung-bak of South Korea;
and of course George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump of the US.

Let's have a look at them.

Joko Widodo of Indonesia had a long and successful career as an entrepreneur in the furniture business before entering politics in 2002. By global standards, he is not exceedingly wealthy, with an estimated net worth of $3.5 million as of 2018. No great scandals have attached themselves to his presidency, and he is running for re-election in 2019.

Silvia Berlusconi of Italy is a media tycoon and billionaire. He served as prime minister several times. To list and detail all the scandals associated with his life would quite literally require a book (or two). Abuse of office, bribery of senators, defamation, sex scandals (including allegations of orgies that included minors), tax fraud, the list goes on and on. He is practically the poster boy for moral and political corruption.

Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan is a wealthy business who made his fortune in steel construction. He was involved in two attempts to seize or maintain power by illegal means. He's been accused of hiding massive amounts of illegal wealth offshore. He was ultimately removed from office after revelations from the Panama Papers, was barred from holding public office for life, and is currently in jail for corruption.

Shaukat Aziz, also a former leader of Pakistan, made his fortune as a successful global executive at CitiBank. His time as leader of Pakistan was marked by large-scale efforts to liberalize the economy and decentralize power. The Paradise Papers revealed that he had hidden and off-shored much of his wealth through the Antarctic Trust.

Lee Myung-bak of South Korea served one term as president of South Korea. Before that, he was CEO of Hyundai Engineering & Construction. As with Berlusconi, his scandals are legion: embezzlement, price-fixing schemes, tax evasion, bribery, etc. It is even alleged he accepted $6 million in exchange for granting a pardon. In October of 2018, he was convicted on multiple charges and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Which brings us to our two US examples: George W. Bush and Donald Trump, both of whom are associated with presidencies with multiple scandals, arrests, indictments, and prison terms of administration officials. Indeed, it's still to be determined if Trump may not end up in prison himself. Fact-checkers have documented literally thousands of lies he's told both prior to taking office and while in office. Multiple members of his administration have resigned in disgrace.

So, of seven leaders of major countries who have served in this century who have had significant business backgrounds prior to coming to office, all but one have been corrupt, most in the extreme. Several have gone to jail or potentially face jail time for their crimes. That's an 85.7% rate of corruption and scandal among businessmen-cum-political leaders.* And the sole person on the list who has not been implicated in serious corruption is not even very wealthy.

Conclusion: it is time to lay to rest the myth of the heroic businessman coming to the rescue of his country. It simply doesn't work out that way. The absurd idea (often floated by conservatives in the US) that business people are less corruptible because they are already wealthy (and therefore allegedly not tempted by the prospect of more wealth through corruption), just doesn't hold water. Quite the contrary: it is obvious that those who are accustomed to wealth and to getting their way continue to feel they are entitled to do as they please after entering office. Furthermore, their myriad business interests often present conflicts of interest that actually encourage corruption. Indeed, it may be that a person of significant wealth is simply incapable of holding high office without becoming ensnared in scandal. At the very least, this suggests that any wealthy person assuming such an office should be forced to place all of their wealth in an independently-managed blind trust. At the very most, perhaps we should just avoid such candidates altogether.

So let's bury this idea once and for all. Because history shows that our greatest leaders have been (unsurprisingly) those who understand the law and who understand governmental leadership.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*And I am excluding the Yingluck Shinawatra and Thaksin Shinawatra sibling duo of Thailand, both of whom have led their countries and both of whom have significant business backgrounds. They have both been accused of  corruption, but as the courts and the military strongmen of Thailand routinely use this tactic against elected leaders, it's difficult to sort out the truth, so they've been excluded.