| | I rarely have much
that’s useful to say
about elections, not out
of any sense of humility
but because I normally
despair at the choice on
offer. It’s sometimes
less painful to watch
the US primaries than,
say, the London mayoral
contest, because at
least I won’t have to
make a decision.
On the face of it,
there aren’t many points
of agreement between the
two contests. How can
you compare Ken
Livingstone to Barack
Obama, or Boris Johnson
to John McCain? It’s
amazing how
heterogeneous democracy
can be.
But both these
elections will have the
same theme – change.
These campaigns will
revolve largely around a
rejection of the past
rather than a vision of
the future. In the US
it’s hard to see how any
change from a Bush
administration could be
seen as less than
radical. Even so, the
Republicans have gone
the extra mile by
choosing an unusually
liberal candidate. The
Democrats have gone even
further by deciding to
abandon the white male
stereotype altogether,
facing their own
faithful with the
unenviable task of
having to choose whether | |
|
| | they want to break the
mould on gender or race.
In this context Barack
Obama has the edge, as
Hillary Clinton can
easily be portrayed as
part of the old
political establishment.
This is all only likely
to confuse and enrage an
electorate for whom
“Senator Notbush” would
have been the ideal
candidate.
In London the case
for change seems
overwhelming. I recently
went to a meeting in the
old County Hall in
London, now a hotel, and
was struck by the plaque
they have there
detailing all the
leaders of the old GLC
and LCC. Livingstone
took power in London in
1981, which means that
if he achieves his
stated goal and hangs on
until after the London
Olympics it will be 30
years since London had a
leader other than Ken.
That would pretty much
seal it for most people
until you see the
alternatives. True, in
Brian Paddick the Lib
Dems have a man who
would normally be
disqualified from
politics by having held
down a real job with
serious responsibility.
But electoral maths –
unusually for the UK
this election is on a
single transferable vote
basis – means his | |
|
| | candidacy will only act
as a resting place for
ballots on their way to
either Livingstone or
his opponent, Boris
Johnson. Johnson is one
of those awkward
phenomena that democracy
sometimes throws up.
Despairing of anyone
heavyweight putting time
and effort into what was
then seen as an
unwinnable contest, the
Tories settled for
someone who was prepared
to take a bullet for the
Party and at least give
the incumbent an
entertaining run for his
money. Now he looks as
if he will win the
thing.
So in 2012, could we
well see Mayor Johnson
welcome President Obama
to the opening ceremony
of the Olympic Games?
The worrying thing about
that is that it’s hard
to put too much in the
way of content behind
that image – it will be
different, for sure, but
how exactly?
This kind of aversive
change can be very
dangerous. It’s the sort
of change that only
comes after long periods
of inertia. It happens
very often at a personal
level: CVs showing a
series of supposed
“career moves” that only
occurred because one’s
immediate position
became intolerable. Do
you stick with the devil | |
|
| | you know, or take a leap
into the unknown?
At a political level,
there can be a lot to
say for the devil you
don’t know, and for
picking someone
relatively
inexperienced.
Perversely, this isn’t
about making a radical
leap or importing fresh
blood at all. Remember
that when the relatively
inexperienced Bush was
elected to the White
House he was immediately
surrounded by the best
neo-conservative brains
the country could
muster. All he had to do
was remain genial, say
his lines and remember
which country he was in,
and in the final
analysis the first of
those alone proved to be
enough.
Similarly, the
allegedly untried Obama
would surely feel the
need to surround himself
with wise counsel, and
it’s hard to imagine
that the Conservative
Party would allow Boris
Johnson a completely
free hand in London. A
lot of people might find
the “time for a change”
argument a lot less
scary if this was
spelled out in more
detail in advance.
One of the problems
that presidential-style
elections bring with
them is that they take
democracy further away | |
|
| | from consensus and
reinforce the myths
surrounding leadership.
In business, too, we
still look to
charismatic leaders to
turn things around, as
if, say, the future of
ITV rested solely on the
contents of chairman
Michael Grade’s head.
Instead we should look
beyond our leaders and
probe more deeply about
the teams that they will
bring with them and the
advice they are prepared
to take.
Unfortunately, we
live in a business
culture where leaders
still maintain the “I
did it my way” myth.
Somehow our consulting
industry manages to turn
over billions of pounds
every year, yet very few
business leaders will
own up to having paid
those fees.
Maturity will only
come – in democracy as
well as business – when
our leaders not only own
up to having stood on
the shoulders of giants,
but are prepared to own
up to the experience and
expertise that they will
bring with them in
future. Then, and only
then, can people begin
to opt for change in a
positive, rather than a
negative sense.
| |
|
Previous Page 