Is there any way to avoid being ruled by unthinking opportunists?

[Raphael]

Recently, I've thought a bit about how people in positions of power and influence usually get there in the modern world. And I've got the impression that people at the top usually spent a lot of the time before they got to the top as opportunistic followers of the people who were at the top before them.

Let's say, for instance, that a country is a dictatorship. In that case, you usually rise through the ranks of the government, and probably through the ranks of most other walks of life as well, by saying and doing exactly what the dictator and the people around the dictator want you to say and do. If you end up in a position where you have a serious chance to become the next dictator, either by overthrowing the previous dictator or by taking over after the previous dictator dies, you probably got into that position by saying and doing exactly what you were expected to say and do.

If a country is democratic, or at least more or less democratic, then voters usually have the choice between several parties. But within each party, people still usually rise to the top by saying and doing exactly what people in their party are expected to say and do. ("I thought so little, they rewarded me / by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy!")

And things probably work similarly in other powerful institutions within society, too. The business world, the civil service, the military and other security forces, academia - in all these fields, higher-ranking people might say that they don't want unthinking yes-sayers, but to which extent they actually practise that when they decide whom to promote is highly doubtful.

So, in theory, you'd expect the world to be run by mindless automatons, people who carefully make sure that they never think any original thoughts, or at least make sure that no one notices is when they do.

However, in real life, apparently, sometimes even fairly crusty and ossified systems produce leaders who make some cautious attempts at reform. How did they get there? I guess they either hid their real thoughts for a while, or they started out as party-line followers and then gradually came to the conclusion that some things had to change.

On the other hand, in the few cases when people who don't always follow a party line get somewhere, that's not necessarily a good thing. The most prominent example in our time of someone who came to lead a party although he disagreed with parts of what used to be that party's party line is probably Donald Trump, and that's not working out so well.

[zompist]

My offhand response is that you may be conflating two types of people here-- unthinking people and opportunists-- and you have to decide which type you object to more.

That is, unthinking people will simply continue the institution as they understand it, without reevaluation. There are certainly a lot of politicians, business heads, and heads of universities which fall into this category. They are probably not equipped for a crisis; on the other hand, if a visionary person starts up an institution, isn't the idea to pretty much continue what they started, not reinvent it?

"Opportunist" suggests someone who wants to take advantage of the opportunity to make changes. These might be good or bad changes, of course.

A cynical person might say that institutions always go downhill. And many do! But more normally it's a cycle.

[Creyeditor]

At least in Germany, parties have to work according to democratic principles internally. And since not many people want to go into politics, people can quickly rise to at least become members of the national parliament. We have (many?) people in our current parliament that joined their parties less than five years ago. And why did they join? Because someone told them to? I don't think that's the usual reason for joining a party. People want to change something (or stop some change) and then join a party. And it might be harder to rise through the ranks for them but they have much more intrinsic motivation to invest time and energy than a person who does as they are told.
Tl;dr: I think people might rise because they do as they are told but people who want change are more motivated to put work into rising.

[Ares Land]

Let's say, for instance, that a country is a dictatorship. In that case, you usually rise through the ranks of the government, and probably through the ranks of most other walks of life as well, by saying and doing exactly what the dictator and the people around the dictator want you to say and do. If you end up in a position where you have a serious chance to become the next dictator, either by overthrowing the previous dictator or by taking over after the previous dictator dies, you probably got into that position by saying and doing exactly what you were expected to say and do.

Yes, I agree -- and that is why dictatorships ultimately end up failing.

I think you might be a little too cynical Institutions in democracies aren't as bad as that.

If a country is democratic, or at least more or less democratic, then voters usually have the choice between several parties. But within each party, people still usually rise to the top by saying and doing exactly what people in their party are expected to say and do. ("I thought so little, they rewarded me / by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy!")

There is a certain amount of internal democracy in political parties. Imperfect, yes, and often pretty sordid; but it exists. There are multiple currents and tendancies at work.
As I recall, Friedrich Merz was not following the same line as Merkel. Keir Starmer certainly wasn't doing what Jeremy Corbyn expected.
Members of a given party have their own views and they are influential in who rises to the top. And of course, parties don't exist in a vacuum; people rise based on different factors, one of them being who stands a better chance of being elected. Another factor is ability to maneuver, and it's not all ass-kissing!
To some extent, it's probably best to be seen keeping some distance with the current leader/first secretary/whatever -- because the current leader will inevitably lose an election at some point.

Of course authoritarian and populist parties (I have examples on the left, center, and right alas) exist only as a vehicle for the leader and their members might as well be mindless drones. That's a relatively recent situation though -- and it probably won't last long in that form.

And things probably work similarly in other powerful institutions within society, too. The business world, the civil service, the military and other security forces, academia - in all these fields, higher-ranking people might say that they don't want unthinking yes-sayers, but to which extent they actually practise that when they decide whom to promote is highly doubtful.

I don't know much about the military or academia. But businesses and the civil service I know something about.
Businesses don't exist in a vacuum: they have a board, shareholders, competition and ultimately they do have to make money. There is a definitely a strong tendancy towards bureaucracy, mindless drones and plotting in business, often to stultifying levels. This is ideally kept in check by the fact that innovation brings more profits in, while lack of it while ultimately put a company out of business. (Though companies do fail.)
The civil service is ultimately answerable to elected officials; it also has legal obligations. It doesn't have a bottom line the way businesses do, but it still has to get results.

So, in theory, you'd expect the world to be run by mindless automatons, people who carefully make sure that they never think any original thoughts, or at least make sure that no one notices is when they do.

And there is no shortage of that, in politics and in business. But you can't run any institution with mindless automatons alone; such an institution would be bound to fail eventually. So these tendancies are kept in check in some way.
It's also one more reason to worry about authoritarianism, because it will hurt this process.

It's notable that, say, Elon Musk can't run a business and has to get into politics to prop them up.

[Raphael]

At least in Germany, parties have to work according to democratic principles internally. And since not many people want to go into politics, people can quickly rise to at least become members of the national parliament. We have (many?) people in our current parliament that joined their parties less than five years ago. And why did they join? Because someone told them to? I don't think that's the usual reason for joining a party. People want to change something (or stop some change) and then join a party. And it might be harder to rise through the ranks for them but they have much more intrinsic motivation to invest time and energy than a person who does as they are told.
Tl;dr: I think people might rise because they do as they are told but people who want change are more motivated to put work into rising.

Not sure about that. I don't think either the CDU or the CSU or the AfD or the SPD or the Greens or the Left or the BSW or the FDP would put someone in an important position who disagrees with a main point of the party platform. Yes, people join parties because they want change, but to get somewhere in those parties, they have to agree with their chosen parties on which kinds of change would be good.

[Ares Land]

Not sure about that. I don't think either the CDU or the CSU or the AfD or the SPD or the Greens or the Left or the BSW or the FDP would put someone in an important position who disagrees with a main point of the party platform. Yes, people join parties because they want change, but to get somewhere in those parties, they have to agree with their chosen parties on which kinds of change would be good.

Of course, but there's still a large amount of leeway. Both Schröder and Lafontaine have been leaders of the SPD. It's hard to imagine what they ever agreed on

[Raphael]

Both Schröder and Lafontaine have been leaders of the SPD. It's hard to imagine what they ever agreed on

Mainly hating them older people, and "the Establishment", when they were young, I guess. And liking Putin.

[jcb]

If a country is democratic, or at least more or less democratic, then voters usually have the choice between several parties. But within each party, people still usually rise to the top by saying and doing exactly what people in their party are expected to say and do. ("I thought so little, they rewarded me / by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy!")

Have a system of voting and representation that makes having many parties viable instead of a waste of energy. (So, no FPTP.) Then, just start a new party.

[Creyeditor]

At least in Germany, parties have to work according to democratic principles internally. And since not many people want to go into politics, people can quickly rise to at least become members of the national parliament. We have (many?) people in our current parliament that joined their parties less than five years ago. And why did they join? Because someone told them to? I don't think that's the usual reason for joining a party. People want to change something (or stop some change) and then join a party. And it might be harder to rise through the ranks for them but they have much more intrinsic motivation to invest time and energy than a person who does as they are told.
Tl;dr: I think people might rise because they do as they are told but people who want change are more motivated to put work into rising.

Not sure about that. I don't think either the CDU or the CSU or the AfD or the SPD or the Greens or the Left or the BSW or the FDP would put someone in an important position who disagrees with a main point of the party platform. [...]

I think this is true for the majority of cases but there are some notable exceptions.
Boris Palmer (Greens) became mayor of Tübingen even though he disagreed on several major points with the majority of the party members, such as immigration and the corona measures. He was ousted from the party and stayed mayor.
Sahra Wagenknecht (Left>BSW) had a minority position in terms of several issues, such as a positive view of Stalinism and the GDR. Nevertheless she was in several leading positions inside the party until she founded her own party.
Maximilian Krah (AfD) diagress with major points of the official platform of the AfD. He openly questions the universality of basic human rights and is open to transform Germany into an state where ethnicity determines your civil rights. (Of course, many AfD members might like the idea without openly admitting it.) Nevertheless he became top candidate for the Euopean election even though he was later ousted from the AfD group in the European parliament.
Winfried Kretschmann (Greens) became minister-president of Baden-Württemberg even though he disagrees on major points with a majority of members of his party. He is much more conservative on points such as immigration.
I think there are more examples if you go further back or look at SPD, CDU, and FDP (Thomas Kemmerich comes to mind). Why do these people get into high positions of parties they disagree with? I think, somewhat paradoxically, it is because of opportunists. They might vote someone into a high position because they think this helps to gain votes in elections, especially if that someone is charismatic enough. Also, and this might be specific to Germany, it is really hard to oust someone from a given party, even if a majority agrees on it. There are probably good reasons for it, one of it being that parties should not be able to gatekeep entering politics.

[hwhatting]

Of course authoritarian and populist parties (I have examples on the left, center, and right alas) exist only as a vehicle for the leader and their members might as well be mindless drones. That's a relatively recent situation though -- and it probably won't last long in that form.

Even here there are differences - yes, Trump has turned the Reps into a personality cult, the Front National is a family business, Reform in the UK is held together only by Farage, but e.g. the AfD in Germany has gone through half a dozen leaders / leadership teams since its foundation 12 years ago, reflecting both its shift from a conservative anti-Euro party to a party of the extreme right, as well as outcomes from power struggles between its internal wings. The party is also known for the lack of control the federal party has over its organisations in the states and for constant public infighting, especially in the state organisations. It has become the second biggest party by votes despite that.

It's notable that, say, Elon Musk can't run a business and has to get into politics to prop them up.

I dunno. He was quite succesful before he turned to politics; I'd rather say that his turn to politics (starting with buying Twitter) endangered his business. His is the case of a man who thinks his success in one area can be transferred into other, non-related areas, and who is now failing (but maybe he hasn't fully understood that yet). Sure, he hopes that him supporting Trump will help his business, but I also think that he genuinely believes in the shit he spouts and that he's saving America.

Not sure about that. I don't think either the CDU or the CSU or the AfD or the SPD or the Greens or the Left or the BSW or the FDP would put someone in an important position who disagrees with a main point of the party platform. Yes, people join parties because they want change, but to get somewhere in those parties, they have to agree with their chosen parties on which kinds of change would be good.

Well, if you want to do something that no existing party wants and that would be against their programs, then you'd have to found a new one. But parties and party lines change over time, and you can work on that. Just look how the former pacifist Greens are now among the parties that most strongly support defending Ukraine, or how the CDU moved to the center under Merkel.

[Raphael]

It's notable that, say, Elon Musk can't run a business and has to get into politics to prop them up.

I dunno. He was quite succesful before he turned to politics; I'd rather say that his turn to politics (starting with buying Twitter) endangered his business.

Yes, one of the main sources of his wealth was and still is a company selling electric cars, and then he got into hard right politics on a big scale. That's a bit as if you would have a thriving, prosperous business selling agricultural machinery, and then you would go on a very popular talk show, podcast, or Youtube channel and make a big speech talking at length about how much you hate farmers.

Sure, he hopes that him supporting Trump will help his business, but I also think that he genuinely believes in the shit he spouts and that he's saving America.

Agreed.

[Ares Land]

I dunno. He was quite succesful before he turned to politics; I'd rather say that his turn to politics (starting with buying Twitter) endangered his business. His is the case of a man who thinks his success in one area can be transferred into other, non-related areas, and who is now failing (but maybe he hasn't fully understood that yet). Sure, he hopes that him supporting Trump will help his business, but I also think that he genuinely believes in the shit he spouts and that he's saving America.

Good point. I was thinking of his buying Twitter as business... but it can definitely be seen as moving into politics.

Yes, one of the main sources of his wealth was and still is a company selling electric cars, and then he got into hard right politics on a big scale. That's a bit as if you would have a thriving, prosperous business selling agricultural machinery, and then you would go on a very popular talk show, podcast, or Youtube channel and make a big speech talking at length about how much you hate farmers.

I'm not sure about that.
Someone at Tesla (not sure it was Musk) had a great idea: you can sell electric cars to people who just like cars, regardless of the environmental angle. Tesla owners like having a cool, fast car with neat gadgets. That works just as well with conservatives.
And as it happens, the more environmentally conscious are not necessarily convinced by electric cars anyway.
So politically, it sorts of makes sense.