Until I met some politicians. Until I realized my brother goes back and forth into politics.
Now I see politicians as well intentioned public servants. There are bad apples for sure - but in the human population in general, there are bad apples. In every profession there are bad apples. It is just that politicians are more in the public eye than any other profession, except say those in the media.
I was also despairing that political leaders can get anything done. The enormous complexities of a country like India. The middle eastern mess. The blight that was New York city. How can any one person take on problems that were years in the making with seemingly intractable complexities.
That changed when I experienced the leadership of Mayors Guiliani and Rendell and the Presidency of Bill Clinton. I will briefly touch on these three leaders. And it is through that experience that I have hopes that the new PM of India, Narendra Modi can indeed be a much needed transformational leader for India.
Mayor Guiliani
In short the city was considered ungovernable. Everyone, including me, wrung our hands in despair.
To put it in perspective, the GDP of NYC is $1.3 trillion. In comparison, the GDP of India is $1.8 trillion.
Then came Mayor Guiliani. Former public prosecutor. In your face. Brusque.
In the 8 years he was in office, he utterly transformed the culture of the city from universally acknowledged as ungovernable to a shining, world class city once again.
And he responded magnificently to the 9/11 attacks. During that period he became 'Mayor of America'
If there is one leader in my life time who truly showed he can govern, turn things around and did not care if you liked him, it was Mayor Guiliani.
He founded my faith in political leadership.
Mayor Rendell
It was so bad, that after 6 pm, you had to take a school shuttle bus from campus to your apartment.
It was not uncommon to hear gun fire in the streets after dark.
In Philadelphia, it was not that there was an accident waiting to happen; rather, accidents happened at regular frequency!
Into that breach stepped Mayor Ed Rendell.
Rendell's approach was in stark contrast to Guiliani. He was smooth, got people together, smoothed things over and found the middle ground.
Today, Philadelphia is much more cleaned up and safe and growing compared to twenty years ago.
Rendell proved to me that Guiliani was not a fluke.
President Clinton
http://agingonthevine.blogspot.com/2013/06/personal-impressions-of-clinton.html
Things were so bad in terms of governing the US, that the opposition party actually impeached President Clinton over infidelity. One of the most remarkable. bone-headed political acts I have ever experienced (both sides!!)
But President Clinton had two things going for him. First, a searing empathy for the public that could not be distorted. His popularity always was sky high. Second, an unerring political instinct to get a deal done. It was a pleasure watching him do business!
Narendra Modi
It is with this background, that I experience hope and excitement for the new PM of India.
I observe that he:
- Likes governing
- Has concrete ideas
- Has a track record of economic growth
- Has a workable majority
- Connects with the public
- Is making friends with neighbors (well, all maybe except one!)
- Is not making big splashy moves, but rather appears to building a foundation.
Nothing is predictable. There are concerns about right-wing tendencies.
But as I think about examples of political leadership I have experienced, and as I observe Namo, I have reasons to be optimistic.
Let us hope for the best!
4 comments:
You could argue that democracy in Singapore is pseudo-democracy because it has been a single party governance every since independence. I am not sure if such a term exists - but I would like to state that Singapore's model is "Benevolent Democracy". If the public choose to throw out the government (as they did in one specific block of constituencies in the last election), they certainly could. However, the folks who have seen where Singapore was and where the administration has taken it during the formative years recognize that this is a government that may be ruthless, but it is all for a good cause - and they have all been able to ride the wave.
The Gen X generation though may have never experienced living in poverty and to a large extent are spoon-fed by the government. They have really no experience with "Bad Governance" for them to ever compare different regimes. While there may be an odd exception here and there, the reality is that the administration is absolutely top notch and the Ministers, (amongst the highest paid politicians anywhere in the world) can easily qualify and excel as CEO's of any of the top MNC's globally. With advent of social media though there is a fair bit of dissent and it is increasingly fashionable to be critical of the government. Things have not been going all that smooth for the administration in the past few years.
Critics can point to Singapore's size and say that it is too tiny and therefore easy to govern. I guess that is right when you are sitting on a bed of oil or something else that automatically ensures your prosperity. The only real factor in my opinion is leadership. Funnily enough, the opposition here too recognizes this and it is their stated policy that their intention is not to form a government but to keep the government on check!
Sometimes I think that India and Singapore should exchange their political leaders so that:
a. Indians get to experience what really good political leaders - something that we have missed for decades now.
b. Singaporeans get to experience what bad leadership can really do to a country and be thankful for what they have.
This may be a long winded answer to your pointed questions. If I were to say it in simpler terms:
1. I do not bother about the fact that they continue to stifle political dissent because I know that they care for doing their very best for the country. And the opposition knows that.
2. Despite his age, when LKY talks everybody listens. He is not in active public life now but even as of a couple of years ago, I heard him speak on various topics and every word of his is a pearl of wisdom. Why would I not be happy having an elderly statesman guide the next generation?
I would like to reflect on this from the Dubai perspective which may not be out of step with what Chandru mentioned about LKY in Singapore.
Chandru - did you mean ‘Benevolent Dictatorship’ when you mentioned benevolent democracy?
Benevolent dictatorship is exactly what I would describe UAE federal governance and in particular Dubai Governance.
UAE’s government is basically aristocracy unlike Singapore which has elections. In that sense, there is not even a pretense of democracy here. While it is indisputable that the country of UAE as a whole developed originally due to oil, Dubai’s own magnificent rise in the last decade or two had nothing to do with oil (hydrocarbon is just 2% of GDP of Dubai).
The rulers of Dubai especially Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been a great visionary and a brilliant brilliant leader. Through a series of opportunities which by themselves were dynamic in nature, some with short window, he transformed the Dubai from a city of less than a million inhabitants to more than 3 million building world class infrastructure at a frantic pace.
In short, if the Arab world had a good time, Dubai capitalized on the opportunity. If the Arab world plunged in to turmoil, Dubai still made use of the opportunity, this time as a haven.
SPK’s original context in this thread was politicians; therefore the rulers in this part of the world strictly speaking will not fall under the classification. But, leaders, yes!
I did enjoy it. I have in fact recently come to see politicians in a better light. At least in comparison to journalists,
Yes. Over two hundred years, this country has produced great politicians and leaders. The country's tremendous progress and becoming the only super power is mainly due to the great political and business leaders. However, In recent years, mainly due to the influence of money on the elections and lack of term limits for politicians, the same people get elected again and again. If one looks at the advertisements for the elections, one only sees mud slinging on each other. Not a single candidate for congress or senate discuss national issues. With the result, congress has become completely dysfunctional. As an example, the present congress has become a completely 'do nothing' congress. If the country has to elect great leaders, there must be two restrictions. One is the money spent on elections and the other is the term limits. One wonders why the legislators do not have term limits when presidents have term limits. Unfortunately, both have to be brought in by the legislators themselves and they will never do it. But still the country is doing great and progressing way beyond any other country. The fundamentals f the country are strong and irrespective of the existing or otherwise of great legislators, the country is doing well.
Post a Comment