Politician or Statesman?
While today we exist in this multi-polar world, bi-polar forces seem to be rising within many individual countries. The United States has seen growing divides between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, elections fractionalizing the population. In the United Kingdom the current top-level competition of ideas is between Prime Minister Gordon Brown, leader of the Labour Party and his rival, Conservative David Cameron. Last week, Ukraine saw an election between Orange Revolution leader Yulia Tymoshenko and opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich, a bitter fight between the two sides that dates back to 2004 (ironically, Yanukovich had the assistance of political consultant Paul Manafort, who provided political counsel to the Republican presidential campaigns of John McCain and Ronald Reagan). 2009 saw elections in South Africa between the ANC and Cope, the opposition party who claimed South Africa would become a failed state should the ANC win. Only several days prior to this writing, the Dutch government collapsed, as the two largest parties could not come to an agreement on whether to pull troops out of Afghanistan. In one BBC interview on the collapse, a Dutch resident commented, “there’s two governments…one on the left side and one on the right side.”
Are these simple anomalies or are we, in fact, experiencing the rise of bi-polar trending? If this is becoming a trend, it begs the question, why is this happening? Are more people coming to agreement and thus feel comfortable aligning themselves closer to one side or another? Or is this the age-old story of political power grabs, with a coalescing of power? If it is just political power grabs, then is this trending in the best interest of the citizens of the respective countries? If it is a case of more people coming to some agreement on certain issues, the pertinent question then becomes, is the reason for their gravitation towards one particular side because people truly are coming to agreement? Or is it a case of, “I don’t like Party A, but I hate what Party B is fighting for, so I have to support A to defeat B”? Whatever the reasons, the results of this trending towards bi-polar internal conflicts seems to be leading to a higher rate of divisiveness, the tonality of the words ever becoming more bitter and in some cases apocalyptic, the dialogue turning from speaking with to talking over the opposite point of view.
It takes two to tango…and sometimes more
In the 2008 US presidential election, then Senator Barack Obama ran on a platform of change – change Washington’s modus operandi from partisan politics. While all politicians of late seem to preach that they will be bipartisan and reach across the proverbial aisle to work with their colleagues form the other side for the betterment of the people, Barack Obama was able to take this message to a new level, vowing to change the system of typical politics that occurred in Washington. His campaign was keenly observed by politicians around the globe. His success, once elected, in these endeavors of change and bipartisanship is an entirely different matter. The healthcare battle, which has turned bitterly partisan, along with such events as Senator Evan Bayh’s recent announcement at the disgust of Washington’s partisan ineffectiveness [paraphrasing], have not helped his cause.
Shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy brought with it reflections on the late Senator that he was the last true statesman, reminiscent of an era where political rivals could disagree and battle for their beliefs on the parliamentary stage during the day, but at night the same representatives of the people could enjoy drinks in celebration of mutual respect. Taming the bi-polar divide in the United States is a daunting task, some may say impossible. In this case, it takes two to tango. Should President Obama and Minority Leader John Boehner come out as true statesmen, put aside politics and elections (i.e. power grabs), look at each others’ ideas for merits, points of disagreement and commonalities, work together and change the tone of the dialogue from political rancor to debating issues based on facts, and lead their parties in this manner, then the United States may have a chance to move beyond the vitriolic bi-partisanship that currently exists. The benefits may outweigh the sacrifices, including more than likely winning more favorable approval ratings for both their branches of government and their parties, and certainly gaining the attention and possibly emulation by politicians in other parts of the globe.
Belgium may provide some insight into the direction that the EU may be heading, and the EU has the opportunity to lead politicians, again by example. Tension historically has existed between the two major Belgian regions, Flanders in the north and Wallonia in the south, and this friction every so often heats up. Most recently this happened in 2007 with talks of more autonomy coming out of the north. Ultimately, Herman Van Rompuy, as Prime Minister of Belgium, was able to bring a sense of stability and calm to the rather heated debate, no easy feat. Certainly he was not the first to try, but he was the first in this go around to succeed.
Not even one year into his term as Prime Minister, Van Rompuy is tapped to become the first ever President of the European Union. While there were certainly many political reasons for his selection, the fact remains that he now occupies the seat, and with it comes the opportunity to bring his talents of mediator and consensus builder, skills he is known for in European political circles. While he cannot interfere in the sovereign affairs of any member state, ultimately he is a leader in the public eye. Ambitious politicians in Europe may be taking note of this new reality, that being a unifier rather than divider has helped at least one politician accede to higher office. Will their ambitions lead to a change in political tactics? For success, it will take each side, the integrationists and eurosceptics, rising to a statesman-like level. This may be a challenge with politicians like Nigel Farage who seem to confuse the concepts of debate with insult. Cooler heads may however prevail and Van Rompuy may be given the chance to lead.
Opportunity to underestimate…
Should President Van Rompuy be successful at creating constructive dialogue between the eurosceptics and the integrationists, dialogue that leads to a truly consensus-based common economic and foreign policy, whereby certain personalities are not trying to steal the limelight for themselves and their countries, politicians around the globe will take note and learn from Mr. Van Rompuy. Should President Obama and Congressman Boehner create a series of truly bipartisan dialogues in the United States, some perhaps leading to solutions, again politicians around the globe will take note. If both these scenarios come to fruition, then we may have a solid beginning to a movement where bi-polar or multi-polar will not matter as much as polarity will be surpassed by dialogue. It will take statesmen to lead. Should they be successful, this will hopefully be a lesson taken to heart by their up-and-coming colleagues that the route of the statesman is the road to success – both for the constituents and the politicians. This is an opportunity to change history.
The inspiration for this piece came out of a discussion several months ago with a senior official of a European foreign ministry, shortly following the election of Van Rompuy. His observations on the reactions within political circles of this event, and theories as to possible impacts are what led to this posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment