Did Geroge W Bush beat John Kerry because of his ideology, or his personality as the more "likeable" person? That question can be asked in other democracies too where there have been recent elections, like India and Australia. |
The most important factors in the success of a political party in democratic countries are of course the ideology of the party and the personality of the leader. Very often the personality of the leader is more important since, in today's world, ideological differences among political parties have narrowed. |
Yet every successful leader has to espouse an ideology. Gandhiji had freedom through non-violence as his main ideology. Nehru had secularism and socialism. Indira Gandhi adopted "garibi hatao" as her ideology although it was degraded to a slogan for mere vote catching. |
Today the BJP has Hindutva, not as a slogan but as a deep-seated ideology. The Congress has "economic reform" and in Manmohan Singh it has the champion of reform. |
But having an ideology is only a part of the battle. The real battle is that of communicating that ideology to the masses. In India, with 600 million voters spread over 500 constituencies, it is a mammoth task. |
The US President has to appeal to less than one-fifth of this number. Although television has extended the reach of leaders, people still want to see and hear the real person. |
That is why even in the US, with its much greater television density, presidential candidates have to canvass intensely around the country. In India, Mr Vajpayee today has an edge over all other leaders, as a mass communicator. |
However, his communication skills appeal largely to Hindi-speaking people. The other half of India cannot follow his chaste Hindi. His advantage is that no one in the Congress has that skill even in Hindi. Compared to Mr Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh is more like a professor addressing a class. The Congress leader with the greatest potential for mass appeal is Priyanka Gandhi. |
The other key factor in the success of a leader is charisma--a word derived from the Greek word Kharis, or grace. It enables a person to gain the confidence of others. Most people, including the illiterate and the poor, can recognise grace in a person. |
Mother Teresa had charisma. Indira Gandhi developed charisma of a different kind. Bill Clinton got away with the Monica Lewinsky affair mostly on the strength of his charisma. Mrs Thatcher on the other hand had little charisma but succeeded because of her ideology and steely determination. Manmohan Singh communicates a transparent humility and honesty. |
The fourth quality a political leader needs is the ability to be ruthless when necessary, and to show compassion whenever possible. Most of us have an inbuilt urge to be compassionate to our fellow human beings but are often reluctant or shy to exhibit this openly. |
On the other hand, when we are upset we tend to show readily our negative emotions. The world would be a better place if political leaders were as demonstrative of their compassion as they are of their ruthlessness. This could certainly have helped to make George W Bush a less divisive leader. His image is that of a war president. |
Manmohan Singh does not come across as a ruthless person, although his reforms were seen as not helping the poor. His handlers would do well to create opportunities to show his compassionate side--which certainly exists. Occasions are provided in times of tragedy, which are plentiful in our country. He must demonstrate his compassion more often. |
A quality much valued in politics (and in business) is loyalty. It flows in several directions--upwards to one's leaders, downwards to followers and sideways to colleagues. Some people find it easier to be loyal to those above, as rewards may follow. |
But equally important is loyalty to one's followers. Leaders can abandon you. Also, usually they are older and may pass on. Followers are not likely to abandon you easily and are likely to be younger. They are also the source of one's strength. |
Therefore, their loyalty is probably more important. Commanding loyalty depends on the cultivation of relationships and responding to the needs of those whom you are trying to cultivate. One has to spend time to meet them, listen to them, take up their cause with others and give the feeling that one is there for them. |
However, one's loyalty to someone should not make one insensitive to the needs of others or result in extending undue rewards. Many political appointments demonstrate a blind loyalty which in the long run can do harm to all concerned. |
The most difficult quality that a politician has to maintain is that of honesty--not only in financial matters but also in a more general sense. In India this is made much more difficult because of our laws with regard to accounting for political contributions. Running a parliamentary election campaign requires an amount far in excess of what an average aspirant to political leadership can afford. |
Therefore, an aspirant MP has to depend on contributions to meet a significant portion of these expenses. But any sizeable contribution comes with an unwritten obligation in return. The most successful politicians spend a major part of their time listening to people from their constituencies, taking up their cases and following with officials and colleagues. |
Some ministers have also to provide meals and accommodation for people who come from faraway places to see them in Delhi. Their homes become like an ashram, especially during Parliament sessions. |
In addition to all this, a politician requires perseverance. When one election is over, even if he wins he has to start preparing for the next although it may be five years away. If he is defeated he has to start regrouping supporters, who may be demoralised, identify weaknesses, and evolve a new approach. This requires perseverance and tenacity, as well as imagination. |
If we were to compare the characteristics of a political leader with those required for a leader of a business enterprise, there are differences but also a lot in common. Unlike political leaders, a company CEO is not really elected but appointed by the controlling shareholder. |
Once he is appointed, he is formally elected at the annual meeting of the company if it is a public limited firm. In most cases this is a foregone conclusion once his election is supported by the controlling shareholder group. In turn the CEO is expected to serve the interests of those who appointed him. |
In most cases there will be no conflict of interests between the CEO and the controlling shareholder group. It is only when that group wants the CEO to act in a manner that is not fair to other shareholders that there can be a conflict. In such a situation a professional CEO will have to evolve a solution that is fair to all shareholders and persuade the controlling shareholder. |
This is a risky job but it can be done. When India introduced rules regarding the level of foreign shareholding, many foreign companies had to choose whether to comply with the rules or to sell and exit. Some chose the latter route because the CEOs (Indian or foreign) of such companies could not persuade the controlling foreign shareholders to conform to the new rules. |
This happened specially in the petroleum and pharmaceutical sectors in the 1970s. In a way their exit facilitated public sector companies in petroleum and Indian companies in the pharmaceutical sector to become major players. Some years later the MNCs who exited tried to re-enter India. |
But by then the game had changed. On the other hand, those CEOs who persuaded the foreign shareholders to comply with the rules and enter into a dialogue with the government did a better job. |
Their companies grew with the Indian economy. The difference between the two categories of companies was the quality of leadership provided by the CEOs. Yet there are very few CEOs who have also made it in the world of politics. |
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper