As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue tostruggle with the Democratic primaries while John McCain seems set to be theRepublican nominee, a more fundamental debate is taking place in the US thanmerely whether the Democrats or the Republicans are better placed to take theWhite House in November. Clinton and Obama are presenting two very differentvisions of leadership to the Democratic voters.
When Clinton argues that "you campaign in poetry but you govern inprose" she is merely expressing her belief that the Presidency is moreabout pushing difficult legislation through a divided Congress than it is abouttransforming society. Clinton has likened the job of President to that of a"chief executive officer" who has "to be able to manage and runthe bureaucracy." Obama, on the other hand, has made a case that thePresidency has little to do with running an efficient office, arguing that"it involves having a vision for where the country needs to go…and thenbeing able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agendafor change."
Similarly, on the Republican side, Mitt Romney, who has now withdrawn from therace, tried to make his case by pointing out his record as a business leader andthe governor of Massachusetts. He suggested that given the impending economicrecession, America needs a President who understands the ins and outs ofeconomic policy, taking a jibe at McCain who is said to be not particularlyinterested in economic and domestic policy issues. McCain responded that he wasa leader, not a CEO and a President can always hire policy wonks to run hisagenda. Thankfully for the Republicans, McCain’s substantial lead over hisrivals has sorted this debate out, at least in the near-term. But the debatecontinues in the Democratic camp and the inability of the Democrats to make uptheir minds about Obama or Clinton makes it clear how difficult it is to come toany conclusion on this issue.
There is little doubt that Obama is a highly inspirationalfigure to many. He is inspiring a kind of reverence and excitement in theyounger generation not seen in decades, at least since John F. Kennedy. He isbeing viewed as a transformative figure who can bridge the deep divisionsafflicting the American society and polity. And he remains as mellifluous asever. When he speaks, you hear the cadences of a sermon, not the nuances ofpolicy. Policy, however, is Hillary’s strong suit who views politics "asthe art of making what appears to be impossible possible." She is toutingher long career as an advocate, the First Lady, and a Senator that, according toher, has given her the experience to bring out progressive change in anincremental manner.
Advertisement
She cannot match Obama in poetry but is hoping to match him up in competence.To support her contention, she has argued that Martin Luther King’s vision ofracial equality in the US began to be realised only when President LyndonJohnson was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the US Congress.Though this statement generated a lot of controversy, it remains historicallysound. Even Hillary’s detractors admit that her record as a Senator isoutstanding, emerging as a centrist, cooperating with Republican colleagues andforging a national agenda beyond the extremes of the Left and the Right.
It is this that gives her an edge vis-à-vis Obama whose rhetoric, for all itsability to uplift, hasn’t moved beyond lofty idealism. On most importantissues, his views remain blurred and incoherent. This is especially true offoreign policy where he has moved from being ready to bomb Pakistan to agreeingto sit across the table with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the Democratic basemight love his anti-Iraq war declarations, the fact remains that his absencefrom the US Congress saved him from making tough choices on the Iraq war thatmost Democrats who were in the Congress were forced to make.
The Democrats will continue to struggle with two differing conceptions ofleadership and Presidency that their front-runners project for weeks, possiblemonths. However, the search for an ideal leader will not end. Whoever wins theDemocratic primaries, the question will re-emerge when Obama or Hillary willcome face-to-face with McCain.
In many ways, it is healthy for all democracies to havesuch a choice. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown’s unedifying and almostvertiginous descent in recent months is one of the most spectaculars in recentBritish political history and is a testament to the fickleness of publicattitudes in times of crisis. Brown’s is a formidable intellect and his graspof policy minutiae is probably stronger than any of his contemporaries. But ifpolitics is more than just policy then Brown’s ability to inspire and shapethe collective consciousness of the British people is being questioned. This wassomething that Tony Blair achieved by leading from the front, and even when theBritish public was not particularly supportive, he had the courage of hisconvictions to have his ideas out in the open and to take intellectual andpolitical risks. Brown today is in desperate need for a larger politicalnarrative that inspires his people and gives a coherent view of what a Labourgovernment under his leadership stands for.
Elsewhere in Europe, Nicholas Sarkozy came to office as a transformative andvisionary leader but his failures as France’s CEO has put him on a back foot.Angela Merkel, on the other hand, has turned out to be an effective manager ofGermany’s policy problems though there is nothing even remotely visionaryabout her leadership.
For all the talk of the influence of money and interest groups in the politicalprocess, the American political system remains one of a kind, aspiring for thehighest forms of democratic ideals by allowing ordinary citizens to shape thetrajectory of their nation and celebrate their liberty. It is difficult to findanother system that engages with the electorate in a similar manner forcing thecontenders for the most powerful office in the world to elaborate on theirvision for the country as well as the policy details of their agenda.
Advertisement
Indian democracy, for all its vibrancy, has long ceasedto animate the public. The agenda of the political parties is largely setinternally, allowing little participation and conversation with those who havethe greatest stake in these policies. Given the woeful state of intra-partydemocracy and the tolerance for alternative views, it is not surprising that somuch reliance is on the force of personalities with all its negativeconsequences.
The political landscape of contemporary India tragically is devoid of both,effective CEOs and visionary leaders. One television channel recently chosePrime Minister Manmohan Singh as the Indian leader of the year, a choice that ismind-boggling given the setbacks that the Indian government has faced in thepast year. The Prime Minister, despite his noble intentions, has singularlyfailed to either manage the country well or to provide a vision for thenation’s future. Yet, it is not his fault. He didn’t earn the politicalcapital in the last elections. Sonia Gandhi, as the leader of the Congress, didand yet she seems to have failed to use the capital that she had earned againstheavy odds to carve out a vision of where the Congress should be leading Indiain the crucial years.
Regrettably, there is hardly any choice for Indians. Today’s political classseems incapable of either inspiring or effectively managing the country’smyriad problems. It says something about the dearth of political talent in thecountry when the best that the Indians are offered are either the derivatives ofvarious dynastic legacies-- the Gandhis, the Scindias, the Singhs, the Pilots --or are those who play to the worst fears and anxieties of their countrymen-- theNarendra Modis, the Thackerays, the Mulayam Singhs, the Mayawatis. No wonder,India continues to look to the film industry and its cricket pitches in searchof its idols. They may be faux gods but at least they have some talent!
This nation is in dire need of leaders who can not only spell out an idea ofIndia that this moment in history demands but can also effectively manage tobring that vision to fruition. Surely, this about-to-be the most populous nationon earth can produce leaders who can dream big and help Indians realize thosedreams by embracing "the better angles of our nature." Learning fromthe American experience might just do India’s political class some good.
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London.
