Democracy, by its very essence, is about representation, not necessarily qualification. Where the electoral process is free, fair and untainted, democracy ultimately triumphs through the arithmetic of numbers: quantity can prevail over quality.
But this raises an uncomfortable question: In which democracy in the world have you seen the smartest consistently defeating the less capable at the ballot box?
The question is uncomfortable because democracy does not award leadership to the person with the highest qualification, the deepest knowledge, the greatest experience, or even the most compelling policy ideas. It awards victory to the candidate who secures the required number of votes.
That is the beauty of democracy, but it is also one of its enduring tensions.
A professor does not receive more votes than a market trader because of his academic qualifications. A policy expert does not automatically defeat a popular politician because his understanding of governance is deeper. A candidate with decades of professional experience does not necessarily have an electoral advantage over someone with a stronger connection to the electorate.
The ballot box counts votes, not credentials.
This is why democracy is fundamentally different from a meritocracy. Meritocracy seeks to place the most qualified person in a position. Democracy seeks to give citizens the power to decide who should represent them.
The two objectives can coincide, but they do not always do so.
A highly competent candidate can lose an election to a less competent candidate simply because the latter connects better with the electorate. Political success requires communication, persuasion, trust, organisation, coalition-building and an understanding of what voters consider important.
This also means that being intelligent and being electable are two different things.
The smartest person in the room may not be the person who best understands the concerns of the people outside the room. A brilliant economist may understand inflation perfectly but fail to communicate with the trader struggling to feed a family. A distinguished technocrat may design an excellent policy but lack the political ability to persuade citizens that the policy deserves their support.
Democracy therefore presents another uncomfortable reality: people vote according to what they value, not necessarily according to what political experts think they should value.
Some voters prioritise competence. Others prioritise identity, ideology, religion, ethnicity, geography, personality, economic interests, party loyalty, personal relationships or simply the candidate they trust most.
None of this makes democracy inherently defective. It makes democracy human.
However, democracy becomes vulnerable when the quantity of votes can be manipulated through misinformation, fear, patronage, propaganda, financial inducement or emotional mobilisation. At that point, the problem is no longer that numbers prevail over quality. The problem is that citizens may not be making sufficiently informed choices.
This places a significant responsibility on political leaders, institutions, the media, civil society and citizens themselves.
A healthy democracy requires more than the freedom to vote. It requires citizens who are sufficiently informed to exercise that freedom responsibly.
Perhaps the real challenge is therefore not to make democracy select the “smartest” person. That would contradict its fundamental principle of equal political participation.
The challenge is to create a democratic culture where competence, character, integrity, ideas and performance become electorally valuable.
After all, if voters consistently reward competence, politicians will have a strong incentive to become competent. If voters reward integrity, politicians will have greater reason to demonstrate integrity. If voters reward results, political leaders will understand that performance matters.
In the end, politicians often respond to the incentives created by the electorate.
So perhaps the question is not simply:
Why does quantity defeat quality in democracy?
Perhaps we should also ask:
What kind of quality are voters being allowed to choose from?
What qualities do voters reward?
Are we educating citizens to distinguish between popularity and competence?
And can a democracy remain truly healthy when citizens demand good governance but consistently reward poor leadership at the ballot box?
Democracy gives the people the power to choose.
The enduring challenge is ensuring that the wisdom of the many is not defeated by the manipulation of the many.
What do you think? Should democracy place greater emphasis on popular choice, or should there be stronger mechanisms for ensuring that competence and character influence who ultimately leads?
Tunde Ojo
Learn · Leap · Lead
Its very intricate. There are reasons the popular candidate must have become popular. He must have earned the trust of the crowd, possibly through track record, support to the community, empathy, accessibility or delivering other values. If he is visionary and has character, he could build a strong team, that would deliver on mandate, even better than the brilliant competitor, who is detached from the people. Emphasis should be on building the system, which would critically interrogate the process and deliver credible oversights, even when the government is in place.
Thanks for your thoughts. This is well said: “Emphasis should be on building the system, which would critically interrogate the process and deliver credible oversight, even when the government is in place.”
The statement that democracy thrives on quantity has proven true in many African countries, and this, among other things, is one reason many African political leaders have benefited more from democracy than the people they were elected to serve. democracy as a system of government will begin to yield its dividends when our priorities move from who has more political influence to who is more credible and competent for political positions. True democracy should not merely be a game of numbers, but that of accountability, responsibility, moral rectitude, and competence. A big THANK YOU to the author for this insightful article.
Sincere appreciation for your comment. Accountability has become a strange idea, particularly among African political elites. Why should they be accountable? To those they have previously bought their votes? Accountability has been sold and bought.
The statement that democracy thrives on quantity has proven true in many African countries, and this, among other things, is one reason many African political leaders have benefited more from democracy than the people they were elected to serve. democracy as a system of government will begin to yield its dividends when our priorities move from who has more political influence to who is more credible and competent for political positions. True democracy should not merely be a game of numbers, but that of accountability, responsibility, moral rectitude, and competence. A big THANK YOU to the author for this insightful article. Looking forward to more.
QUALITY WITHOUT VISIBILITY IS A WELL-KEPT SECRET
This article raises a provocative question: Does democracy thrive on quantity?
But it triggered another thought for me:
What happens when QUALITY exists without VISIBILITY?
The most competent person doesn’t automatically become the most influential.
The best professional doesn’t automatically get the biggest opportunities.
The person with the deepest expertise doesn’t automatically become the most recommended.
Why?
Because the world does not reward what it cannot see, understand, remember or trust.
The ballot box counts votes—not credentials.
The marketplace counts attention, trust, relevance and perceived value.
And careers, businesses and professional opportunities increasingly work the same way.
You may be exceptionally good at what you do.
But if nobody knows what you do…
If nobody understands the value you bring…
If nobody remembers your name when an opportunity appears…
If nobody can confidently recommend you…
Your competence may remain invisible.
This is why I have become increasingly passionate about BRANDING, VISIBILITY, INFLUENCE AND CREDIBILITY.
Not as vanity.
Not as self-promotion.
Not as shouting about yourself on social media.
But as strategic positioning.
Your expertise is the product.
Your brand is how people perceive it.
Your visibility makes it discoverable.
Your credibility makes it believable.
Your influence makes people act on it.
And together, they create something every professional ultimately needs:
OPPORTUNITY.
This is not just for politicians.
It is not just for influencers.
It is not just for CEOs or entrepreneurs.
It is for everyone.
The accountant who wants to be recommended for a board appointment.
The lawyer who wants the right clients.
The consultant who wants bigger mandates.
The executive who wants to be considered for leadership.
The entrepreneur who wants investors and customers.
The young professional who wants to stop being overlooked.
Because here is the uncomfortable truth:
Being good at what you do is no longer enough.
You must also become known for what you do.
And more importantly, known for something valuable.
Don’t confuse visibility with noise.
Don’t confuse branding with vanity.
Don’t confuse influence with popularity.
Build competence.
Build credibility.
Build visibility.
Build influence.
Because when opportunity knocks, it rarely asks:
“Who is the most qualified person nobody knows?”
It asks:
“Who comes to mind?”
And that is the real visibility gap.
Be excellent. But don’t be invisible.
Thanks, Wendy, for articulating the critical importance of personal branding. Visibility- strategic visibility- must embrace competence. Logic dies alone without the magic of awareness. The days are gone when the man with a better mousetrap would have the whole world tracing its steps to his house. A better mousetrap must be promoted and be perceived as such.
Good evening, Sir
A very good write-up, well-articulated and thought-provoking. May the Lord grant the electorate wisdom and discernment, and deliver our nation from myopic and self-serving politicians.
Calling our politicians “self-serving” is almost equivalent to qualifying them for veneration as saints. Bishop, thanks for refraining from calling them what they deserve. Thanks for being so kind.
This is very fine write up and educative
I appreciate you, Prof.
A very good read! I agree that people may not be informed enough to value competence and maybe good leadership when voting or choosing their leaders. At the end of the day, leaders will often reflect the people. Very thought provoking as democracy can be powerful but also complicated!
Thank you for your thoughts. An uninformed electorate can hardly make rational decisions.
Interesting and instructive.
Mindful that numbers determine the outcome, shouldn’t quality qualitatively access the minds of the generality of voters?
Curious question though is, who incentives who between the politician and the electorate?
Austin, thanks. Incentivisation is a different kettle of fish that is worthy of being discussed.
I thank God for the knowledge and wisdom you acquired to pen down the thought of yours on the article of ‘Does Democracy Thrive on Quantity.’ Come to think of it, how many of our populace really understand democracy? Majority of our people especially the economical disadvantaged or underprivileged people are looking for what they will eat, so they end up voting for someone who can put food on their table through giving of probably money to them at that particular time of voting not really underscoring their competences.
Thanks a great deal for your encouraging words. Are politicians not pursuing a deliberate strategy of making the electorate needy rather than being needed?
Kudos to you sir,well articulated and accurate 👏.
Thanks, Femi. I appreciate your comment.
A very captivating write-up. I want to add that a popular choice of the electorate may also be regarded as someone who is competent with no character flaws. Sometime ago, if you remember, the electorate rooted for someone they thought was popular yet competent and with high integrity. At the end of the day we were disappointed. So the problem is not about the choice of the electorate alone but the willingness of the candidate to perform after receiving the mandate.
Annabella, I like your perspective on this conversation. Thanks. A good politician may need more than competence to deliver good governance.
What a mine of knowledge, wits and sagacious write up
Hmmmmmm! herewith is my thought on each in built questions
* In which democracy in the world have you seen the smartest consistently defeating the less capable at the ballot box?
Answer: honestly largely virtually, if I will not be “erroneously committing error of generalization” I would say scarcely nowhere or preferably in elite circles with enlightened members and not on large scale of national elections. I may be wrong.
* Why does quantity defeat quality in democracy?
Answers:
In your words: connectivity; real time basic needs; ethnicity; misinformation; propaganda; fear; ignorance; manipulation and many more of such
* What kind of quality are voters being allowed to choose from?
Answer:
Truthfully it depends on individuals and collective social value system-structure, hierarchy, knowledge and truth.
Value varies as shown below:
TYPES OF VALUES
Classifying values has always been a complicated task since there is no hard and fast rule to classify values as they are closely interlinked. Some of the important values are as follows.
• Personal Values – It is personal to an individual both in terms of their possession and their use. It is a desire and cherished by the individual irrespective of his social relationship. These values make a person good for himself. Examples being ambition, cleanliness, discipline etc.
• Family Values – Family as a social institution is based on certain universally defined value system which are nurtured and cultivated within a family system. Mainly, these values comes from the lead of the family mostly father who transfer these values to their children, who further impart these values to future generation.
• Social Values – It refers to certain behaviours and beliefs that are shared within specific cultures and social groups. These values are good for the society and form the basis of the relationship of an individual with other people in society. Examples being courtesy, charity, civic duty etc.
• Moral Values – These values constitute attitude and behaviour that a society consider essential for co-existence, order and general well-being. It enables an individual in making a distinction between right and wrong and good and bad etc. Example being fairness, justice, human dignity etc.
• Ethical Values – Ethical values are a set of moral principles that apply to a specific group of people, professional field or form of human conduct. These values presuppose moral courage and the power to act according to one’s moral convictions even at the risk of financial, emotional or social security. These relate to our personal behaviour with our fellow beings. All moral values are also covered under ethical values.
• Spiritual Values – it refers to the process of reflecting on non-material dimensions of life and acquiring insights into personal experiences. They affect the individual in his relations with himself and concerned with the realisation of the ‘Self’ and being one with ‘Divinity’. Examples being truth, beauty, goodness etc.
• Cultural Values – Cultural values are the standards of what is acceptable or unacceptable, important or unimportant, right or wrong in a society. It gives importance to preserve cultural practices, ceremonies, traditions etc. which might be threatened by the materialistic culture of modern times. Examples being hospitality, social order, tolerance etc.
• Trans-cultural values – Values that are similar in practice among different cultures throughout the whole world. These can be categorized as universal values since these values are followed across the cultures.
• Intrinsic Values – They are the ends in themselves, not the means for achieving some other end. In the hierarchy of human values, these values stand at the highest place and are superior to all other values of life. Examples being goodness, beauty, happiness, bliss etc.
• Instrumental Values – These are such values that are useful in deriving some other benefit through them such as economic gain or an increase in status. A subject is said to have instrumental value when it is pursued, not for its own sake but for some ends beyond itself. Example being education for success in life, political power to do public service etc.
• Aesthetic Values – It seeks to emulate the beauty of the Divine through the arts. Things and activities which gives joys of beauty are aesthetic values. Example being beauty, taste, architecture etc.
• Democratic Values – These values are characterized by the respect for individuality, equal treatment to all, ensuring equal social, political and religious rights to all, impartiality and social justice and respect for the democratic institutions.
• Dis-Value – Values which demoralize and undermine the human growth and development can be termed as dis-value. This includes jealousy, envy, revenge etc.
https://www.insightsonindia.com/ethics-integrity-and-aptitude/human-values/types-of-values/
However, what will determine a balanced, well informed, objective, transgenerational, non-partisan short term value is individual and collective-communal relationship with Christ either personified, or conceptualized as any of the above appended value concepts or subsumed into any as terminal values and ploughed with corresponding wits as instrumental value or quality.
* What qualities do voters reward?
Answer:
As shown – short term, immediate objective values myopic and replete in blind spots about the future, enduring truth, outlasting legacies we live behind as we live now, completely oblivion that we are
1. In our sojourn on earth — we are PILGRIMS AND PASSERS-BY.
2. Wherever we find ourselves across life’s time lines and precincts — we must live aware: we are daily:
✓ BY WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO OR NOT TO DO
✓ BY HOW WE TREAT OTHERS AND MAKE THEM FEEL
✓ BY WHAT WE STAND FOR AND OPPOSED
✓ BY WHAT WE SAY, HOW WE LIVE AND WHAT OR WHO WE SOLD OURSELVES TO LIVE FOR SOWING FAIL-SAFE FUTURE SEEDS THAT WILL
GERMINATE, SPROUT AND BRING FORTH INEVITABLE HARVESTS AND FRUITS THAT REMAIN
3. Whatever we are privileged to own, keep, or assign to manage — we are ONLY STEWARDS OF GOD’S RESOURCES AND NOT OWNERS
BILL TO GIVE ACCOUNT ONE DAY.
4. We must live aware that we are in the TRAVAIL OF BECOMING BY OUR JUDGEMENT CALLS, AND CHOICES WE MAKE OR CHOOSE
NOT TO.
5. On the sand of time — we are writers of our own EPITAPHS, sculptors of our own LIFE’S history and story statues AND autobiographers
of our contributions to:
✓ The Field of KNOWLEDGE we find ourselves in or choose;
✓ HUMANITY REFINEMENT;
✓ DEVELOPMENT;
✓ GROWTH;
✓ PROGRESS in general;
✓ HEAVEN’S EARTH CAUSALITIES and ultimately
✓ Future generations’ LEGACY OR WARNING SIGN POST
— Oluwaferanmi O N I J E S U D E
* Are we educating citizens to distinguish between popularity and competence?
Answer:
Literally- ‘NO’ for number of reason which includes:
1. Narcissism
2. Ignorance
3. Folly
4. Manipulation
5. Idiocy
6. Desire to want ‘lie become true’
7. Laziness
8. Desire for status quo to remain
9. Resistance to change
10. Poor leadership skills or values etc.
* And can a democracy remain truly healthy when citizens demand good governance but consistently reward poor leadership at the ballot box?
Answer:
Truthfully, ‘NO’
Because when we violate principles we violate ourselves and set in motion the law of retribution – ‘Karma’ if I may say.
**Closing Reflection Questions**
* What do you think?
* Should democracy place greater emphasis on popular choice, or should there be stronger mechanisms for ensuring that competence and character influence who ultimately leads?
Answer:
I submit to the later school of thoughts.
Thank you for these reflection goad
Oluwaferanmi, thank you for your long read comment. Values are essential, but they must be functional to help individuals and groups that hold them succeed. Dysfunctional values function in the opposite direction.
A thought-provoking piece. Democracy gives power to numbers, but numbers do not always produce wisdom, competence, or good leadership. The majority can choose, but the quality of that choice depends greatly on the information, values, and judgment of the people making it.
As the saying goes, “The voice of the people is powerful, but the wisdom of the people determines where that power leads.”
Another timeless thought comes to mind: “A crowd can be large without being right.”
Ultimately, democracy may be won by quantity, but good governance must be sustained by quality, competence, character, and accountability.
Perhaps the real challenge is not whether the majority should rule, but how we ensure that the majority is informed enough to choose wisely.
The piece gets something right that many miss: democracy isn’t broken when a “less qualified” candidate wins. It’s working exactly as designed. The ballot box was never meant to be a credentialing exam. Where the essay stumbles is in framing this as a tension between quantity (votes) and quality (credentials), as if the two live on the same scale. They don’t. A vote isn’t a diluted unit of expertise, it’s a claim of representation. Conflating the two makes democracy sound like a broken meritocracy rather than a different thing entirely.
Not all poor democratic outcomes come from manipulation or ignorance. Sometimes voters know a leader is flawed and choose them anyway, because the alternative feels alien, because identity matters, because immediate gain outweighs distant principle. That’s not manipulation. That’s human preference operating honestly. The essay’s focus on “informed choice” is noble, but it risks implying that if only voters had better information, they’d agree with experts. They might not. And democracy has to live with that too.
The closing reframing is the strongest part. “What kind of quality are voters being allowed to choose from?” hits the real issue. The problem isn’t that voters prefer popularity over competence. It’s that our systems, party structures, funding rules, media incentives, often filter for performative populism and against grounded capability. Fix the pipeline, and you don’t need to fix the voters.
Conclusively, democracy doesn’t need to become more meritocratic. It needs to become more democratic, meaning more candidates who are both competent and actually representative, more media that informs rather than inflames, more institutions that earn trust rather than demand it. The wisdom of the many isn’t defeated by the manipulation of the many. It’s defeated when the many are given too few real choices and too much noise to sort through.
Thanks for your salient contribution to this discussion, Oluseun. Your summation, “Ultimately, democracy may be won by quantity, but good governance must be sustained by quality, competence, character, and accountability”, is profound.
Oluseun, your statement that ” the majority can choose, but the quality of that choice depends greatly on the information, values, and judgment of the people making it” is apt. The official slogan of the Washington Post newspaper puts it this way: “Democracy dies in darkness.” Thanks for your comment.
Wow! This write up is a good one, more grace sir
just that people could not differentiate between their rights and force things, people do things to meet their needs. but forgotten the future results.
They just vote for whoever quench their taste at a moment not minding the result
Like you rightly said in the write up, competent may loose the votes while the other won.
may God open our eyes to do needful.
I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Democracy requires the opening of the eyes of the electorate, or else the blind may be leading the blind.
My thoughts, sir.
I think democracy does not thrive on quantity alone looking at the issues from different parameters; it also thrives on the quality of participation and institutions. In Nigeria, the danger is that democracy can be reduced to a mere arithmetic exercise: who has the numbers wins, and whoever wins controls everything.
Democracy may depend on numbers, but it can not thrive on numbers alone. The majority rule is not the same thing as the majority of tyranny. The true strength of democracy lies not merely in how many people who votes, but in the quality of institutions, integrity of elections, respect for the rule of law, protection of minorities and accountability of those entrusted with power.
This distinction is particularly important in Nigeria, where corruption, nepotism, ethnic considerations and the “winner-takes-all” mentality have increasingly made political power appear like a prize to be captured rather than a responsibility to be exercised.
Therefore, Nigeria does not simply need more people participating in democracy; it needs better democratic values. Numbers can determine who wins an election, but integrity, justice, accountability, and inclusion determine whether democracy actually works.
Democracy should not be “the majority taking all.” It should be the majority governing responsibly while protecting the rights and dignity of all.
Theophilus, my sincere appreciation for your thoughts on this crucial conversation.
“Therefore, Nigeria does not simply need more people participating in democracy; it needs better democratic values. Numbers can determine who wins an election, but integrity, justice, accountability, and inclusion determine whether democracy actually works.
Democracy should not be “the majority taking all.” It should be the majority governing responsibly while protecting the rights and dignity of all.”
The piece gets something right that many miss: democracy isn’t broken when a “less qualified” candidate wins. It’s working exactly as designed. The ballot box was never meant to be a credentialing exam. Where the essay stumbles is in framing this as a tension between quantity (votes) and quality (credentials), as if the two live on the same scale. They don’t. A vote isn’t a diluted unit of expertise, it’s a claim of representation. Conflating the two makes democracy sound like a broken meritocracy rather than a different thing entirely.
Not all poor democratic outcomes come from manipulation or ignorance. Sometimes voters know a leader is flawed and choose them anyway, because the alternative feels alien, because identity matters, because immediate gain outweighs distant principle. That’s not manipulation. That’s human preference operating honestly. The essay’s focus on “informed choice” is noble, but it risks implying that if only voters had better information, they’d agree with experts. They might not. And democracy has to live with that too.
The closing reframing is the strongest part. “What kind of quality are voters being allowed to choose from?” hits the real issue. The problem isn’t that voters prefer popularity over competence. It’s that our systems, party structures, funding rules, media incentives, often filter for performative populism and against grounded capability. Fix the pipeline, and you don’t need to fix the voters.
Conclusively, democracy doesn’t need to become more meritocratic. It needs to become more democratic, meaning more candidates who are both competent and actually representative, more media that informs rather than inflames, more institutions that earn trust rather than demand it. The wisdom of the many isn’t defeated by the manipulation of the many. It’s defeated when the many are given too few real choices and too much noise to sort through.
Sunny, your critical but balanced review of the essay marks you out as a thought leader. I am delighted with your premises, deductions and conclusion.
” Conclusively, democracy doesn’t need to become more meritocratic. It needs to become more democratic, meaning more candidates who are both competent and actually representative, more media that informs rather than inflames, more institutions that earn trust rather than demand it. The wisdom of the many isn’t defeated by the manipulation of the many. It’s defeated when the many are given too few real choices and too much noise to sort through.” This is worthy of being framed in the hall of fame of democratic ideals. Thank you very large for your thoughts.
Brother Tunde the peace of God passing all understanding abound to you and the family. I have read the piece as requested about democracy. You are on point of democracy in its pure sense. Let me make a few comments as follows:
A. The concept of democracy was started in Genesis 11 God Himself stopped it. I still believe pure democracy will not never serve the need of man. As the Israelite were on their way to the promised land Moses’s father-in-law advised on governance structure Exodus 18:25. Then when they got the promised land the Israelite rejected God’s method of governance though they did yet come up the concept of democracy.
B. The Romans and Greeks came up with some form of democracy. The United States of America studies all forms of governance and came up with a form of democracy they termed republican in style. In which the president is not elected by the popular votes of the country but by the electors each state elected through their popular vote. It is these electors that elects the president. Nigeria currently is attempting that method. In the United States of America each local government actually run the election without the interference of the state of federal government but under stringent rules from both the state and federal government. This make rigging more difficult on wholesale.
It is my counsel that we the believers should participate vigorously in every aspect of our national governance process. Jesus Christ commands us to occupy till He comes Luke 19:13. The earth is the Lord and fullness of thereof and they that dwell in it.
Thank you once again for your thoughts and sharing it.
Remain blessed.
Thanks, Ahunsimhenre, for bringing both the historical and biblical antecedents to the idea of democracy. Your call to Christians in Nigeria to be fully involved in the democratic process is a wake-up call.
Sir,
First of all, permit me to commend your writing style and skill. It’s profound and incredible.
I know you have heard it time and time again, please just spare me to say it again. You are an amazing writer.
I read this twice and truly tried to give it a thought before answering.
Sir, the part that blew me away was when you said “democracy is human”…. Really, I couldn’t agree more…
And because it is human, I really don’t see competence and character alone prevailing over the people’s choice…
Like you stated “people vote according to their values”. Therefore, as people differ so do their values. Now, in times as these with increasing darkness (ignorance I meant, even when there seem to be increased knowledge), people are easily manipulated and distracted for quick gains and pleasures – not minding tomorrow – we just want it now – too lazy to think or reflect and even research.
Anyway, my take is this – communication is a key factor the ”competent and character” must learn and understand. They must learn the skill of communication. They must also try to be consistently visible to the people.
The knowledgeable has become enlightened to know that the Majority had and will always prevail over Merit and because of this knowledge, they choose their battles and don’t even try to compete. Eventually, they end up walking on foot and have their servants ride on horses.
Here is my conclusion. Democracy already places emphasis on the people’s choice. Understanding this alone is already an advantage. The Merit or would I say “competent and character” must then use this to his or her advantage. Placing stronger mechanism for ensuring competence and character influence who eventually leads already takes a part of the people’s choice and freedom. Then it’s no longer fully democracy.
In all my thoughts, reading this article reveals to me that indeed a chosen leader is a reflection of the people’s mindset and values.
I am really open to learn and hear from you.
Thank you Sir