The Evolving Art of Leadership

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Miércoles 30 de enero, 2019

Winston Churchill once said that “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen”.

When speaking about how people can limit the gains being made by authoritarian populists, I often recommend that liberal democratic leaders learn to lead by listening to the voters and really trying to understand and address their fears, concerns, and desires.

Listening is essential if leaders are to relate to voters and connect with them.

It is what populists appear to do best, and, it bears results.

However, listening alone is not a panacea. It does not absolve leaders from thinking, developing sound strategies, and creating an environment in which positive results can be achieved without compromising political or human rights.

It does not absolve leaders from challenging voters by proposing difficult remedies for major societal challenges.

And it does not preclude leaders from taking unpopular decisions as long as the decisions demonstrate that major voter concerns were considered, that voters know why the decision had to be made so that they can believe the leader has been honest with them.

Leaders must learn to communicate effectively. They must learn the language of the broad mass of citizens whose vote and confidence they are seeking.

Nelson Mandela once said speak with a man in his language, and you will touch his heart.

This is the essence of politics.

An excellent example of this is what happened in France towards the end of last year and the beginning of this one.

President Emmanuel Macron is a technocrat who never ran for office until he ran for the presidency. On his first try, he was elected because of his youthful image and his lack of political affiliation with traditional political parties. He was also elected because the alternative-- extreme right candidate Marine LePen-- was unpalatable to the majority of French voters.

As a technocrat, educated in the most elite of schools, he and his cabinet took office behaving as if they believed that they knew better than the average voter what was needed thereby starting the process of leaving citizens to feel ignored.

“Trust me because I know better” is not a way to win hearts and minds, as the President and his ministers quickly learned when the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) took to the streets.

The current French presidency lacks a strong political organization with the ability to bring the concerns of society up to senior officials.

And this has proven highly problematic.

Trying to take advantage of declining fuel costs, his blindly aggressive carbon taxes ignited the “Gilets Jaunes” movement that has the support of a majority of French voters and has made an impact globally thanks to the power of social media. So, what started as a protest about fuel prices has now exploded to include tax reform, cuts to government services and myriad other frustrations.

After weeks of demonstrations, some violent, Macron capitulated to the protestors and reversed or delayed many of his proposed changes, including the increase to the fuel tax.

He also proposed a new nationwide dialogue so that voters could bring their concerns to the government.

France 24 reported on January 15, 2019, that, “Macron hopes that by introducing a more inclusive, participatory style of governing he can take some of the anger out of the Yellow Vest movement. In an open letter to the French citizenry on Sunday, Macron listed more than 30 questions to be put to a “grand national debate” and said he hoped as many citizens as possible would participate in Town Hall-style gatherings across the country. “We won’t agree on everything, that’s normal, that’s democracy,” he said in his letter. “But at least we’ll show we are a people who are not afraid to talk, exchange and debate.”

It’s a noble gesture and a start towards better policy, but is this enough?

Can this technocrat-led government rise to the challenge of really understanding the fears and concerns of those less fortunate, and translating this into policies capable of convincing voters that the leadership not only understands them, but is also working to ensure that progress is made?

Can the government develop the necessary political acumen and antennae quickly enough to recover their losses and prevent authoritarians from the hard right or the hard left from taking over the dialogue before the next election?

And, finally, can the Cabinet run a credible process of dialogue without appearing to have prejudged the outcome? As France 24 went on to say, “Many Yellow Vests and opposition politicians have reacted skeptically to Macron’s initiative, however, calling it a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to sap the strength of their movement. They cite the Macron government’s refusal to consider bringing back a controversial “wealth tax” on high earners as proof that it has already decided the outcome of the dialogue”.

Not an auspicious beginning.

There is a thin line between listening to the voters and letting the voters take charge. If one listens to the voters, one creates a basis for dialogue through which each learns from the other, and compromise is possible.

If the leaders in government capitulate and let the voters take complete charge, then the system is opening itself up to anarchy and a lack of control that authoritarian populists can exploit.

But if the leaders in government simply try to fool voters, they may well lose their own credibility permanently.

Indeed, messages must not only be true but they must also be perceived to be true.

In the words of Rudyard Kipling, the leader must walk with kings but retain the common touch.

This calls for listening to voters, knowing the political realities of the day, but also educating the voters to understand what is possible in the short, medium, and long term. Leaders must create a narrative that melds a strong understanding of the voters’ concerns – the microeconomic reality - with a clear vision of what is possible given macroeconomic realities.

Macron’s original actions proved disastrous for his relationship with French voters. He focused on macroeconomic realities without considering the day-to-day problems of the average citizen.

His government must now establish a basis for an honest dialogue and demonstrate an ability to assimilate opposing views to produce a productive compromise.

His communications team must then take these learnings and craft simple, effective messages to reach and convince voters that the government is indeed listening to their concerns and developing new policies to address these.

As witnessed in many countries recently, these challenges are not President Macron’s alone. In today’s world of instant communications, heads of government must have both the intellectual and emotional intelligence to connect with voters at all levels, and do so constantly

Can liberal democratic leaders learn this fine balancing act?

Let’s hope so.

[b][email protected][/b]