ANWARISM WITH MALAYSIAKINI: Leadership is about more than charisma

Anwarism is a new thing. An older one, Mahathirism has laid down solid foundation on leadership issues. Anwarism being new, is yet to be seen the extent of leadership on forming the future. Because Anwarism hinges heavily on charisma, I find it relevant to share this short article as an eye opener. A charismatic leader may pose a danger as he is about to leave. Remember Bush junior has to engage Iraq on the most deadly war to stay another term. Bush case amplify the need to emerge as a hero out of brutality. Please read further.

Leadership is about more than charisma

by Fay Schopen

If there is a cult of the chief executive, then Steve Jobs must stand at its head. Many business leaders have been closely associated with their brands, but none more so than the chief executive of Apple. Mr Jobs, with his understated black polo necks and round glasses, has come to personify his company, a fact highlighted when recent news of his medical leave of absence caused Apple's share price to tumble.

“Apple is surprisingly dependent on Steve Jobs,” Tim Morris, director of the high performance leadership programme at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford, said. “He has the magic combination of a fantastic technical insight and an ability to understand the market. He's also a master communicator.”

And he is an archetype, in his case the model of a charismatic leader - and that, in turn, is both a towering strength and a potential devastating weakness.

“Charismatic leaders can gather people behind them,” Jo Hennessy, director of research at the Roffey Park Institute, said. “They're inspiring and strong and, if they're able to engage staff, the results will follow.”

Maria Yapp, chief executive of Xancam, a business psychology company, said that “a big magnetic personality” can launch and revitalise brands, products and companies. “Tony Blair was great for new Labour to kick-start it,” she said, “and Steve Jobs has revitalised the Apple brand.”

But, Ms Hennessey said, “they're like the central pole in a big top: take the pole out and the tent will collapse.”

Rob Goffee, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business School and co-author of Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?, said that strong leaders were good at developing disciples, but not successors. “The people that make leaders charismatic are their followers. Barack Obama, for example, is clearly charismatic, but he's also enigmatic. You can't pin him down and so he allows us to project our dreams and hopes on to him.”

Ms Hennessy said: “A charismatic leader who likes fame and glory may be more concerned about results today than a long-term legacy. When we coach chief executives to develop their own succession plans, we say: ‘Does it always have to be you? Can you spread the leadership around more?'”

Gareth Jones, visiting professor at Insead, the international business school, said that people were fascinated by how leaders got results. “We're interested in those who excite others to exceptional performance. For instance, when Martin Johnson led England to victory in the Rugby World Cup, people were saying: ‘How the hell did he do that?'”

Johnson's successors might have wondered the same thing and, perhaps, if some of his magic might rub off on them. Sadly, in Professor Jones's words: “You can't borrow someone else's charisma. The task for leaders is to work out what it is about themselves that is compelling. We're all looking for the next Richard Branson or Steve Jobs and we're not looking at the different ways people are leading.”

Professor Goffee said that figures such as John Major, the former prime minister, used their very ordinariness to lead: “I get worried about the use of the word ‘charisma', as people think that these are extraordinary qualities that ordinary mortals haven't got.”

Moreoever, the tide of popularity can turn quickly. Ms Yapp warned: “If you're known on the strength of your personality, it's much easier to fail. People in the City tend to panic and see Steve Jobs as being Apple, in the same way that they see Richard Branson as being Virgin.”

There are several things that companies can do to ensure that they do not fall victim to the cult of the chief executive. They can build the loss of a leader into disaster recovery plans, Barry Spence, chairman and chief executive of Cubiks, an HR consultancy, said. They should ensure that they have a strong organisational structure and management team underpinning the leader and that all those in that team get a chance to shine. Crucially, companies should build the product's reputation as strongly as they build personalities. “While James Dyson is regarded as an innovator, the product has been developed in parallel. So if Dyson went under a bus tomorrow, people would still buy Dyson vacuum cleaners,” Mr Spence said.

And while we may love inspirational but fallible leaders, only one thing matters to the markets: results. Last week Apple posted record revenue of $10.17billion (£7.19billion). As Mr Spence said: “The numbers will always win out.”

Famous Four

Henry Ford The founder of the Ford motor company revolutionised mass production and brought car ownership to middle-class Americans. An avowed anti-Semite, he was admired by Adolf Hitler

Sir Richard Branson The self-made entrepreneur launched the “world’s first spaceline”, Virgin Galactic, in 2004 and was ranked the 236th richest person in the world by Forbes magazine last year

Jack Welch The former chairman and chief executive of General Electric increased its value from $13 billion to several hundred billion. Dubbed “Neutron Jack”, it was joked that he eliminated employees but left the building standing

Dame Anita Roddick Founder of ethical cosmetics group the Body Shop, she was a high-profile environmental campaigner before her death in 2007

[Leadership is about more than charisma
Times Online, UK]

beritadarigunung

Blagojevich "The Antithesis Of Leadership"

The political currents are running strongly against Rod Blagojevich, with a former state official saying if the Illinois Governor does not resign, every measure must be taken to remove him from office.

Yesterday in an unprecedented move, the state's highest law enforcement official asked the state's highest court to strip Blagojevich of his powers.

"The state government is paralyzed by a governor who is incapable of governing," said Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan.

Madigan is petitioning the State Supreme Court to temporarily remove Blagojevich from office, kicking him out while the legislature works toward a permanent exit through impeachment, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds.

But does the Illinois attorney general have the power to force the governor out of office?

Former Ill. attorney general Jim Ryan said the attorney general is the right person to file an action in the state Supreme Court but adds, "Whether or not she'll prevail is still problematic because there's no precedent."

Appearing on The Early Show Saturday Edition, Ryan told anchor Chris Wragge, "I think she did the right thing because if Rod Blagojevich won’t go voluntarily, then we have to use every legal means at our disposal to try to remove him."

Under the Illinois Constitution which references the reasons for removing a sitting governor ("If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability …"), a question is whether the federal indictment into Blagojevich's alleged attempts to financially benefit from selling a political favor means he is "disabled" from serving in his position as governor.

Ryan said this reading of the law is technical, and remarked, "That's untested, unchartered waters that the attorney general is in right now. We have to wait for the court to decide that. But from a practical standpoint, I think he's incapable of governing. No one trusts him and no one is going to listen to him. He is the antithesis of leadership right now.

"He has to go either voluntarily or we have to force him out," Ryan said.

Ryan said the charges against Blagojevich indicate "reckless" behavior which would taint any decision he makes - whether appointing a successor to Obama, issuing executive orders or spending state money - as a "travesty."

The Associated Press reported that on Saturday, Blagojevich's vehicle was seen parked outside the offices of high-profile defense attorney Ed Genson, whose clients have included newspaper magnate Conrad Black and R&B singer R. Kelly.

Blagojevich "The Antithesis Of Leadership"
CBS News, NY

The evolution of leadership

A new article on leadership and evolution contends that leaders in the groups that we evolved from led small face to face groups. Stanford Management Professor Bob Sutton says that "may help explain why leaders of large organizations fail so often -- it isn't something that humans as a species have much experience doing." Sutton also notes that experts on evolution of leadership contend that early leaders rose to power because they could meet the needs of followers rather than through bullying. Bob Sutton's Work Matters blog (12/13)

In praise of weak leadership

Maclean's began its issue on "The Leaders" with: "That every federal election is about leadership is axiomatic." Well, axioms are worth challenging - parallel lines never intersect, the free-market is self-correcting, etc. It's how people progress to new systems and visions. I'd like to know how they know that, and if it's even true.

Take John McCain's move this week to "suspend" his campaign in order to save the U.S. economy. Everyone realizes it's not a genuine action; it's a gesture, a sign, meant to "show" leadership. He "is hoping that his abrupt decision will be seen as the kind of ... leadership he believes Americans want." (Washington Post). It's like he's auditioning for the part of Decisive Leader in a movie. Then it gets offset by another gesture: shots of him on Katie Couric's news set while David Letterman plotzes on his own set because the candidate cancelled on him! Same stuff up here. Jack Layton has a sign on his podium reading Strong Leader. They could just superimpose a caption with an arrow: Strong head of strong leader, pointing at him, buffed and bulked up for the part. When asked if he "fears" a Harper majority, he recoils as if programmed to never use that word, because he's Strong.

This is politics as culture, as entertainment. The Leader is just one member of an ensemble. Elections as shows can be riveting - like the Barack and Hillary show. What may occasionally interrupt them is a genuine, personal threat such as an economic crisis - it's like a fire breaking out in the theatre. Suddenly, people aren't preoccupied with being entertained but with being saved. What do they care then who gives the best performance as leader?

Stéphane Dion is an odd case. He keeps yapping about his green plan even as party hotshots tell him the story line has changed, we're off that stuff. Could he think it isn't a show - that the planet really is in danger? Would that count as real leadership rather than the acted kind? Poor Stéphane. Could he ever play a leader? Doubtful, although if he got elected somehow, and everyone onstage - journalists, MPs - treated him as a leader, he might start feeling, and acting it. Ah, the magic of theatre.

Print Edition - Section Front

Enlarge Image

Is strong leadership even desirable? FDR, whom people think of in harsh economic times, wasn't elected as a strong leader. Once in office, he did things that made people think of him that way. Self-proclaimed strong leaders tend to come from the populist tradition - Huey Long, Maurice Duplessis - or totalitarian leadership cults. I wonder if Jack Layton ever cringes at the label. Before you can say it, I'll mention Churchill, a strong leader all his life but given the top job only when his country was already at war and a real bastard was needed. Even before war's end, the voters kicked him out in favour of a weaker leader whose policies they liked.

Why hasn't Harper the Strong pulled away from the field? Why is the Layton NDP stuck? How has the weak, frail Dion hung in - as if voters are seeking something outside the strong leadership box? Such as - weak leadership. Isn't that what real democracy would be about? It would disperse leadership among its citizens. In ancient Athens, they chose most leaders by lot, after policies were established in public debate. They made an exception only for leaders chosen in wartime.

So maybe the leadership axiom isn't so axiomatic. An Ipsos Reid poll this week found 62 per cent of Canadians say they're most "swayed" by party stances on key issues versus 21 per cent by leaders. Pollster Darrell Bricker was so stunned, and so committed to official theology, that he insulted voters by saying he didn't know if they meant it or were just trying to give "the right answer." To gain what, his approval? Maybe someone should poll the pollsters on whether they think Canadian voters have any brains.

source: In praise of weak leadership
Globe and Mail, Canada

Leadership with Integrity Vital in Troubled Times

“Our nation has never been in greater need of strong, reliable, get-the-job-done leadership,” states organizational performance expert, Liz Bywater, PhD. In the October ’08 issue of the Bywater Journal, Dr. Bywater stresses the importance of ethical leadership in troubled times. She writes:


From the White House to the boardroom, our nation has never been in greater need of strong, reliable, get-the-job-done leadership. Faced with a financial crisis of historic proportions, an increasingly heated presidential race, and a host of domestic and international uncertainties, now is the time for our best leaders to reveal themselves.

But how are we to recognize strong leadership in trying times?

To be sure, there are many hallmarks of effective leadership. Clear and powerful vision. Sincere passion. Stellar communication skills. The ability to inspire trust, commitment, and decisive action. Not one of these, however, makes for great leadership without a solid foundation of ethics and integrity.

Now is the time for each of us to reflect upon our actions. Are we truly leading with integrity? Step back for a moment and ask yourself the following critical questions:

What are the ethical principles I hold to be most important in my personal and business dealings? Do my actions consistently reflect my commitment to these principals? Where do I draw my line in the sand?

Being an ethical leader means relying upon your internal moral compass to guide you. But herein lies the challenge. A moral compass is an intangible thing. It’s personal. It’s subjective. So how do you know whether you’re on the right track? How do you avoid being one of those leaders who, while seeming to follow sound values, is, in fact, far off course from behaving ethically?

Take stock. To be certain that you’re leading with integrity, you’ve got to regularly reflect upon your decisions and behaviors. Challenge yourself. Ask: Do I feel good about what I am saying and doing? In what situations do I struggle with unspoken pangs of conscience? What are these pangs trying to tell me? Am I really listening?

Enlist feedback. Don’t hesitate to invite honest feedback from others. Ask colleagues, friends, or family members to help you evaluate your actions. Let them be tough with you. Ask them to keep you honest and accountable. You’ll emerge from the experience a far better leader for your company and your community. And in these turbulent times, your leadership has never been more urgently needed.

source: Leadership with Integrity Vital in Troubled Times (The Bywater ...
NewsReleaseWire.com (press release)

NEWS UPDATES: UMNO leaders.

Muhyiddin

He’s competent, professional, smart, approachable, talkative and a quietly confident man. And quite importantly he won’t make you wince in embarrassment every time he ventures onto the podium.

TAN Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the 61-year-old Muar-born International Trade and Industry Minister isn’t an easy politician to ‘read’.

First impressions, and let’s be frank, are generally pretty negative. He seems dour, unsmiling and distant — a shadowy player (perhaps even a Malay ultra?) with a checkered reputation stemming from his stint as Mentri Besar of Johor in the early ‘go-go-go’ 90s.

However, with Muhyiddin, his stern appearance (he really needs to smile a little more) masks a relaxed leader who’s very much at ease in his own skin. .. more here Muhyiddin a tactical player The Star

Mukhriz and Khairy

The Umno Youth contest has become the race to watch as the underdog candidate has clinched the coveted nomination count to contest while the once mighty are struggling to catch up.

DATUK Mukhriz Mahathir was probably as surprised as many others in Umno to have zoomed ahead of the assumed strongman candidate Khairy Jamaluddin.

By the end of the first weekend round of Umno Youth divisions meetings on Sunday, he had 40 nominations, more than the minimum 38 he needed to contest the Umno Youth leadership.

Getting the requisite nominations is a key psychological milestone and that he got there before Khairy and Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo has been pretty stunning. more here Winds of change in Umno Youth The Star

Khairy

From Malaysiakini

Umno nominations resume, eye on Khairy

Wong Choon Mei | Oct 14, 08 11:11am

Divisional meetings resume, with the focus still very much on the Youth candidates Mukhriz, Khairy and Khir Toyo, while Wanita aspirants Rafidah and Shahrizat are also closely

Najib

Letter questions 'shady' chopper deal
14, 08 2:02pm
A retired army captain questions the logic of paying more for less when the government could pay less for more and save almost RM1.5 billion.MORE from Malaysiakini.

For the benefit of fellow Citizen B, there is an allegation of an exchange of text messages between Najib and Datuk Shafee Abdullah, the prominent lawyer ... more here: Anwar wants probe on Najib
Malaysia Star, Malaysia

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak however said that all private companies were encouraged to build up a local vendor system to benefit small and medium-sized enterprises.

“So, all big non-bumiputra companies, particularly those which have received licences or contracts from the Government, should give priority towards the development of local small firms, including those owned by bumiputras. More here: Parliament: Keep race out of business, says Najib Malaysia Star, Malaysia

Abdullah Badawi

But outside the House, Abdullah rebutted Anwar’s contention, maintaining that the Malaysian banking system is not facing a liquidity crunch. “Malaysia is not going into recession now. We have very strong economic fundamentals. And we have very strong reserves. Our trade surplus is still strong, our savings are also very high,” Abdullah insisted at a press conference. “We have a currency that today is stable. Our banking system is still strong.” ... DEWAN DISPATCHES: No Anwar Ibrahim power grab…again but he ... New Straits Times, Malaysia

Nigeria: The Progress, the Problems

Hussein J. Ibrahim
Abdullahi Y. Bello and Suleiman M. Odapu

Nigeria's 48th independence anniversary was devoid of fanfare. President Yar'adua's speech marking the day was short both in its content and in its promises of what good things lay ahead, a usual feature of Independence Day speeches.

The president's speech rather highlights the challenges that the country had tried over the years to surmount, describing it as "the trying terrain we have had to traverse these past forty-eight years, while setting our sights firmly on the boundless opportunities and exciting possibilities that lie before us." He said his administration would not resort "to quick-fix methods and short-cuts in approaching fundamental problems which require methodical and sustainable solutions."

"This is not the way Independence Day celebration is celebrated in other parts of the world," said Comrade Issa Aremu, General Secretary of the National Union of Textile and Garment Workers Union. He countered that the president's speech "lacks the needed sense of history of what independence means and promises, a sense of mission and service delivery."

In a way what has robbed the Nigerian nation of the mirth and fanfare needed to celebrate the day it won independence from its former colonial masters is the perpetual downturn in its economic fortunes and the resultant poverty, instability and social vices it has spawned. The unhealthy state of the economy could also be blamed for the dissatisfaction which the different regional blocs harbor about the concept of one nation. Forty-eight years after, there are still clamours for the entrenchment of true federalism, equitable revenue sharing formulas and the resource control war that has gradually been taking over the whole of the Niger-Delta. Underlying this clamour is the need to gain access to what has euphemistically been described as the national cake, it being nothing short of gaining access to the vital necessities that make life meaningful and easy.

As access to these key necessities of life- sufficient healthcare, adequate shelter, sumptuous nutrition and a modicum of prosperity- continue to elude the country, disillusion also continued to set in. Recognising this, subsequent administrations in the country began celebrating the Independence Day anniversary in low key. It was the same this year with the Yar'adua administration, an administration that has up till now been trying to find its bearings and footing. This was remarkably different from the spirit of hope that pervaded the atmosphere prior to the October 1st celebration in 1960 when independence was granted to the country. Describing the day in his book 'Beckoned to Serve,' former president Shehu Shagari wrote: "When the great day arrived at last, it was celebrated with pomp and pageantry and with great hopes for the future. For now, one thing was certain: British colonialism was gone and gone for good!"

But the colonial masters were subsequently replaced by a new ruling class who though espousing the rhetorics of a one and free nation, nevertheless maintained the kind of privileges the colonialist had cornered for themselves. It was a far departure from the dreams and visions of the nation's founding fathers. Today, it is virtually as if the founding fathers never existed. This is evidenced by the degree of rot that has taken over some of the monuments that at one time were used to commemorate their lives of achievements and struggles. Take the Sardauna of Sokoto for instance. That icon who single-handedly set in motion, the mechanism to free a region from the shackles of poverty, illiteracy, provincial backwardness and political dormancy. Even though he is oft talked about with fond memories, his hometown of Rabah which holds some of the evidence of his early life, is run down. The schools, mosques and other monuments that bring his memory to mind are all crying for a facelift.

This neglect is symbolic of a much larger neglect which has meant the failure of the country's ruling elites to draw the necessary inspirations that will help sustain the vision that was set for the nation by its founding fathers. Now, topmost on the list of reasons that has stalled Nigeria's march to progress is the prevalence of poor leadership at all levels of the society. Poor leadership has meant pervasive corruption, mismanagement, absence of clear national goals, the exploitation of sectional interests to further personal or political interests. The myriad of woes is long. And just as long is the series of palliatives put in place to address the problems. National orientation initiatives were promoted, inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogues organised, war against indiscipline and corruption launched, new economic development plans rolled out. But somehow they seem not to have worked effectively for the nation as some of the old problems still persist. The painful irony in all this is that it is unanimously accepted that the country has all the necessary human and material resources it needs to reverse its decline and make it great.

So why has it not been able to tap into this deep well of advantages? The popular view is the Nigerian elites are still slumbering or they are yet to discover their purpose. If the elites champion any cause at all it is often bound to have a regional or sectional tinge to it. While the hope was that after a bitterly fought civil war that severely tested the unity of the nation there will follow some deeper level of reconciliation and understanding, but grievances remain fresh nevertheless. In the south-east today, there are sections who still declare themselves living in the Republic of Biafra. In the Niger-Delta, the latest theatre of violence, kidnaps and battles, the dominant threat has been that of secession. Elder statesman and the man widely credited for moving the motion for independence, Pa Anthony Enahoro, in a recent chat with our correspondents, blamed this on a leadership class that exploits the divisions amongst the people. He said: "The consequences is that Nigeria has lost so much in terms of human and material resources with a faint hope of having the matter redressed except the people take the initiative and ownership of a national dialogue and negotiations that could facilitate an equitable structure for the country."

But even the question of national dialogue is bogged down by politics that is largely of its own making. Enahoro's group, PRONACO, which at a time was united in the pursuit of the agenda of national dialogue and was preparing to set up a parallel national constitutional dialogue to rival a government organised political reform conference, was itself divided by in-fighting and conflicts that led to some notable members of the group pulling away. It is symbolic of the absence of a clear consensus even among those who constitute the nation's intelligentsia about the way forward. Most of the measures to address national problems, if they prove effective at all, come usually from the trade union bodies. Efforts by the National Assembly to carry out a review of the constitution to address deep-seated problems have been met with suspicion when the administration of former President Obasanjo attempted to use the exercise as a means to secure an unconstitutional tenure elongation. A recent bid to revive the exercise has so far been slow in taking off.

In his Independence Day speech to the nation, President Yar'adua said the "Nigerian economy is on a strong footing with an average growth rate of about 6.9per cent, a single digit inflation rate, external reserves of about 63 billion dollars and the naira appreciating steadily against the major currencies." While this hopeful hypothesis by the President was dismissed by the opposition as untrue, foremost economist, Professor Ibrahim Ayagi, agrees the economy has grown but picks holes with how its benefits has trickled down to the ordinary Nigerian. He told Weekly Trust: "I will not say the Nigerian economy has not performed at all. The Nigerian economy has performed well to some extent; it has done well in some areas, it has not done well in many areas. If you take it overall, we should say we should have performed better than we have performed already. Which is not exactly agreeing with those who say it has not performed."

But the hopeful figures and projections of economists about the viability and growth of the Nigerian economy since it attained independence in 1960 contrasts with the stark picture of poverty on the streets and the low rating Nigeria have been garnering in the human development index and the assessment of development agencies. This paints a picture of unequal distribution of wealth, wealth corruptly siphoned into few pockets or outrightly embezzled or mismanaged. The topmost position the country has been occupying in the corruption rating equally says much about this. Despite his optimistic projection about the growth and size of the Nigerian economy relative to its status in 1960, Prof. Ayagi said nevertheless, that it could have been better. "The reason why I say it could have been better," he explained, "Is even after the growth and overall performance which is not too bad, we have poverty in the country. And we have been accumulating revenue in the country. We never thought we could have been getting what we are getting today in terms of revenue."

He identifies the problem thus: "The problem I think is that revenue has been accruing to states and local governments and I am not sure that these local governments and states are really spending them in the right way. I don't think they are spending them on investments that will improve the Nigerian economy or that will improve their own state or local governments' economy. I think there has been a lot of wastage of resources."

In a way, the story of Nigeria has in a way been one of wasted opportunities in areas generally agreed to be crucial and important to nation building. Countries that in the sixties were less developed than Nigeria or were at par with it have in a way, surpassed it both politically and economically. But that is not passing the death sentence on the country despite some of the dismal actions of the ruling class. In forty-eight years Nigeria has been getting wiser to its problems and the solutions that need to be applied to solve them. What is lacking in applying the solutions is the will. Who knows, it might just come one day, ushering in an Independence Day celebration that would be filled with pomp, pageantry, glamour and vivacity.

source: Nigeria: The Progress, the Problems
AllAfrica.com, Washington

Brown says his serious style is what UK needs

MANCHESTER, England (AP) — As a mutiny swirled in his ranks and pundits took aim, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stood before his party's faithful Tuesday and argued that the qualities his critics disparage — his seriousness and lack of flair — are exactly what Britain needs as it faces economic turmoil.

Joking about his gloomy demeanor, a relaxed Brown thrilled his governing Labour Party's annual meeting with an address studded with pledges on totemic issues for loyalists and sharp attacks on the main opposition Conservatives.

"Everyone knows that I'm all in favor of apprenticeships, but let me tell you this is no time for a novice," Brown said with a grin, delivering a swipe at his two young rivals: Conservative leader David Cameron and, within his own party, Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Plummeting poll ratings and public anger over rising gas and food prices have prompted a simmering rebellion within the Labour Party, whose members fear the statistic-spouting micromanager lacks the presence and eloquence to win over voters in the next election. Dissidents have urged Brown to step aside — perhaps for a leader more charismatic and telegenic than the paunchy Scotsman. One junior minister resigned last week rather than offer his backing.

The Conservatives hold a huge lead over Labour in opinion polls and are predicted to win a landslide victory in the next national election — which must be called by mid-2010.

But Brown, Treasury chief for a decade under former Prime Minister Tony Blair, hopes jitters in the world economy will give him the chance to prove his leadership credentials and expose the inexperience of his rivals.

Brown used his address to the party, crafted with a new team of speechwriters, to quell any mutiny.

"I know who I am, I know what I want to do in this job. And I know the best way to deal with tough times is to face them down," he told delegates.

His wife Sarah, who is rarely heard from, set a warm tone when she walked on stage and reminded the delegates that as well as being prime minister, Brown is also a husband and father. A video clip featuring Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama praising Brown while visiting London drew thunderous applause.

Skirting over foreign policy challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq, Brown rooted his speech in domestic concerns: child care, the health service and education. He posed a direct challenge to the Conservatives — promising to expose them as a party of the few, not the many.

"What has become clear is that Britain cannot trust the Conservatives to run the economy," Brown said, speaking in a vast conference hall in the northern city of Manchester.

He spoke with confidence and offered a rare glimpse of his emotions. He said a revolt over income tax changes that would have raised levies on Britain's poorest workers had jolted his confidence.

"It really hurt that suddenly people felt I wasn't on the side of people on middle and modest incomes. ... From now on, it's the only place I'll ever be," Brown said.

His voice cracked as he recalled care he received from Britain's health service after a rugby accident which cost him his sight in one eye, and almost left him blind.

Tony Travers, a political scientist at the London School of Economics, said Brown's strategy seemed to be to humanize his image, which has long been derided as wooden.

"He obviously tried to warm his message up a bit with the use of his wife. She's certainly a softer and more user-friendly image," Travers said. But he stressed voters will be the judge of Brown's success in remaking his image.

Loyalists whooped with delight at pledges to make sweeping cuts to Britain's carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and to scrap charges for cancer drugs. While Brown basked in rich applause, the acclaim didn't match the fervor once commanded by Blair. Brown acknowledged he is very different from his charismatic predecessor.

"If people say I'm too serious, quite honestly there's a lot to be serious about," he said.

Rebels insist defeat in a tricky special election pending in Scotland — or during new Parliamentary battles over unpopular terrorism laws — could still lead to Brown's ouster.

But Brown's prospective challengers have held their fire during the five-day party convention, which closes Wednesday.

Miliband, Brown's likeliest rival for the leadership, praised the speech as he left the conference hall.

"I think Gordon found his true voice," he said.

source: Brown says his serious style is what UK needs
The Associated Press

Sri Lanka: SWRD Bandaranaike - a unique statesman

by: Dr. Tilak S. Fernando

REMEMBERED: On September 26 1959, Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was assassinated in cold blood, by a person clad in yellow robes. Bandaranaike had an enlightened philosophy, the full realisation of which suffered certain setbacks.

SWRD Bandaranaike was educated at Oxford, UK, according to his father's wish. Solomon Dias Bandaranaike was determined that his son graduated from one of the best seats of learning in the world and the result was, he was 'packed up' into a ship to England to study at the Oxford University.

As an undergraduate at Oxford University in the UK, he viewed the Asians at the English universities as a long-dragged and an urgent problem. In one of his writings to an Oxford magazine, for which he became famous, he considered it as a problem with many aspects. While Royal Commission dealt with this problem at the time and university professors, Anglo-Indians wrote articles about it in newspapers, many others with or without knowledge of the subject gave their opinion on the matter.

A student himself, SWRD Bandaranaike's point of view as a student who finished his course at Oxford was: "There are those who come here to take up some qualifying examinations, such as the I.C.S., or go through a course, such as that of Forestry, at Oxford or Cambridge, which make their sojourn in this country imperative. About these, there can be no question of the desirability or otherwise of their coming here.

But there are a great many - certainly the majority of those who do come to this country - who are under no such constraint. They come to the English Universities, as the average English public school does, for the advantage of a University training, to put a final finish and polish, as it were, to their education to take up at Oxford, the B.A. degree in some School, who after getting a moderate second class at best, return home, being in some cases, called to the Bar in the meantime.

---

Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike

(January 8, 1899 – September 26, 1959)

the 04th Prime Minister (1956-1959) of Sri Lanka

---

To these people, the mere fact of having the degree of B.A. (Oxon) or having passed the Bar exams, cannot be of much use. They could probably have taken up corresponding examinations at home, and in some cases, of more practical use too".

Delving into the past political history in Sri Lanka, one could follow the developments which moulded SWRD Bandaranaike to be an enlightened statesman.

The dawn of Independence, on February 4, 1948 did not usher in true independence to 'Ceylon' since the commanding heights of the economy and the bureaucracy in the judiciary, and the administration of the country perpetuated a colonial culture. Being a Minister of the D. S. Senanayake Cabinet and a member of his United National Party, SWRD Bandaranaike proposed certain changes.

These proposals in the form of resolutions were debated at the Madampe sessions of the UNP conference in June 1951. Such proposals were aimed at ushering changes to establish the just aspirations of the Sinhalese who have had a raw deal during the colonial era.

SWRD proposed these changes with a sincere conviction, without harbouring plans to achieve political power. What he wanted was to bring about three changes without leaving the UNP, of which he was a key founder member. This action was testimony to his statesmanship, which his critics have overlooked and have condemned him as an 'ambitious politician who was out to grab power'.

When his resolutions were thrown out at Madampe sessions, SWRD Bandaranaike resigned from the UNP and the Cabinet on July 17, 1951. Subsequently this paved the way to build the new political philosophy and the SLFP was born to give expression to that creed.

After a few years of campaigning, SWRD Bandaranaike was able to weld a united organisation comprising the progressive elements of the political spectrum but with a nationalist hue to contest the 1956 General Elections.

This organisation, MEP (Mahajana Eksath Peramuna) was supported by the Buddhist Commission whose slogans of discrimination against the Sinhalese by 400 years of Christian rule and unremedied by eight years of the UNP rule had an impact on the electorate. The result was the sweeping victory of 1956 which was a path-breaking one.

"The Sinhala Only Act," which was the flagship of the new government's political programme became one of the foremost Bills to go through Parliament with a provision for reasonable use of Tamil.

It also enacted procedures for those officials who were not proficient or prepared to work in Sinhala to retire with enhanced pensions.

It is regrettable, yet relevant, to state that during this stage even some Sinhalese officers made use of these procedures to retire rather than work in Sinhala medium. By making compensatory provision for those officials who were likely to be adversely affected by changes flowing from the enactment of the Sinhala Only Act, SWRD Bandaranaike was able to provide relief and prove his compassionate approach - a key feature of enlightened statesmanship.

An interesting episode to illustrate SWRD's compassionate nature and to strengthen his credentials as a true statesman was the way he treated Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, The Governor General of Sri Lanka, after the UNP defeat in 1956.

The Leftist parties who were in the opposition at the time were dismayed that Sir Oliver was retained as Governor General and, a cut in the vote for Governor General's salary and establishment was moved in August 1956.

At this moment SWRD Bandaranaike, with great dignity replied, "It is only fair on my part to state that His Excellency, The Governor General, has placed his knowledge, experience and constitutional powers at the full disposal of the present Government, and as constitutionally proper, been most helpful to the Government. He acted in a very constitutional manner and the government has received great assistance from him on many pressing problems". Finally, l the move to reduce Governor General's allowances and salary was rejected.

The way SWRD Bandaranaike handled the abrogation of the 1947 Defence Agreement with the UK and the take-over of the Naval Base at Trincomalee and Katunayake Air Base speaks volumes for his achievement. He was able to negotiate in a civilised and effective manner without antagonising the British and maintaining cordial relations simultaneously.

To hail SWRD Bandaranaike as a great statesman and reinforce the view that he was able to see far ahead could be gleaned from the way he forged the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact with the aim of achieving a JUST settlement of the Tamil separatist question.

The pact was a well thought-out diplomatic move and satisfied the Tamil nationalist aspirations, which would on hindsight have prevented extremist terrorist groups such as the LTTE springing up to claim a separate unitary state.

The Pact had to be abandoned due to Sinhala chauvinistic groups who labelled it as a "sell-out" to the Tamils! They were so short-sighted to foresee that such a settlement would have stopped extremist, separatist Tamil groups in their tracks spawning terror, death and destruction and destroying the democratic beliefs of the country.

SWRD Bandaranaike had the vision and Chelvanayakam the prudence to agree in order to avoid future developments of an extreme revolutionary nature.

Had the 'B-C Pact' been implemented, it would have served as a solid base to build on, to solve the other related ethnic problems and would have immensely contributed to a just and peaceful settlement.

The developments that took place after the abandonment of the Pact led to the TULF adopting a militant approach which increased its intransigence in dealing with the subsequent governments. It is a tragedy that such a situation had to develop, and today, as a result, Sri Lanka is paying a heavy price in experiencing the most intractable problem in the North and East.

SWRD Bandaranaike's other claims to earn the coveted crown of a true statesman was the way he had to solve the problems of recurrent strikes fomented by the extreme left-wing elements in the Port of Colombo to undermine the new government.

The approach he adopted to stand up to certain individuals in his own party, whose aim was to further their business interests, was with fortitude and courage. But in the process, he became the unfortunate victim of those unscrupulous elements in his own party.

The greatness of SWRD Bandaranaike's statesmanship lay in the courage of his convictions to restore to the ordinary people of rural areas, opportunities to better themselves by way of easy access to employment, which was denied to them in the past, due to a lack of an English education.

By fostering a sense of national identity, as expressed by the adoption of Sinhala as the national language, he lit a flame of national consciousness, which will be hard to put out.

Critics have branded him as an expedient opportunist, but only stubborn facts will always attest to his sincerity and dedication in ushering a political way of life based on social democratic principles and also the adoption of non-alignment as a creed when dealing with other nations of the world. Such criteria have reinforced and established S.W.R.D Bandaranaike as a true statesman.

source: Sri Lanka: SWRD Bandaranaike - a unique statesman
Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka (press release), Switzerland

Malaysia turns a page, and over a new leaf?

AS many had anticipated, the leadership transition in Umno, and by extension Barisan Nasional and the country, will come earlier than previously announced. The process will wend its way forward in a way the party knows best.

Whatever else one may feel about its consequences and implications, this latest development should come as a relief to party insiders. For some time already, tension bordering on factionalism had been building up as to compromise governance.

The latest situation sees no winners or losers. There is no need for some to be disheartened, or for others to feel vindicated. What remains of utmost importance is that governance of service to the people will prevail.

In the larger span of things, this particular transition will be seen as not too unlike many others.

When the time comes for a change of leadership, that event must be embraced in the larger interests of the nation.

However, this does not mean that the Umno General Assem­bly, now rescheduled again to March next year, will not see its share of theatrics.

The party presidency is likely to be contested, as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has said it would, with all its ramifications for the national leadership.

The debate over the degree of internal party democracy will also continue.

However one looks at the issues, such debates are invariably healthy in opening up legitimate if differing points of view.

In this connection, the opposition Pakatan Rakyat will have to reassess the situation and recalibrate its strategies. It is to be hoped that whatever it chooses to pursue, it will be in the interests of the people and seen to be so.

There is no denying that Malay­sia enjoys a vibrant political culture, and there can be no doubt that Malaysians thrive on a daily diet of political discourse. We do need more and better avenues for political discussion free from the encumbrances of outdated restrictions.

Let us hope that a new leadership also opens up the prospect of a more enlightened and progressive approach to political discussion.

So long as the rights of the various groups are respected, there is no reason for continuing with old-fashioned inhibitions.

source: Malaysia turns a page, and over a new leaf?
Malaysia Star, Malaysia

Malaysia's Leadership A Trinket

The latest UMNO shenanigans effectively reduced the party's (and thus the country's) leadership to a Sunday market trinket, to be haggled between a desperate discredited seller trying to get the best possible deal, and a bankrupt buyer who has only his incumbency to offer as currency.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

M. Bakri Musa

Tengku Razaleigh, in referring to the tussle between Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak, said, "… [W]e are embarrassed at the sight of two grown men playing this endless children's game of 'yours and mine' with the most important responsibility in the land, oblivious of the law, oblivious to the damage they are doing to the nation." The Prince's observation on the damage wrecked on Malaysia is spot on, declaring that Malaysia had been reduced to a banana republic and a laughing stock

What Abdullah and Najib do not realize is that the value of the trinket they are frantically bargaining over keeps dropping. While the two are consumed with striking a deal between them, they fail to notice that Anwar Ibrahim is on the sideline, ready and willing to take over, thus effectively reducing the two protagonists and their trinket to irrelevance.

Meanwhile the important business of running the country is neglected. They have been consumed with lobbying their followers, as well as engaging in hours of "four eyes only" meetings, haggling over when, how, and at what price the trinket would be handed over. They are oblivious to the nation's compounding problems, from the massive public health hazard of contaminated milk products imported from China to the American credit crunch that will soon spread around the world.

It is time to make these two characters irrelevant. It is time to let this desperate drowning duo strangle each other and sink to the bottom of the cesspool they have created for themselves.

Our priority is to make sure that they do not drag the nation down with them. This responsibility falls heavily on those leaders of the opposition, in particular Anwar Ibrahim. He has to be ready to take over and make the necessary preparations now, especially with regards to policies and personnel.

The Price Keeps Dropping

Right after the March 8, 2008 electoral debacle, Abdullah declared that he still had the people's trust. Then with confidence borne out of ignorance a la the village idiot, he asserted that he would serve his full second term. He even intimated that he might lead his coalition to its third electoral victory in 2013!

Such detachment from reality! It was merely out of courtesy (that is the trademark of our culture), and respect for the highest office of the land that Abdullah was not laughed off the stage. Unfortunately he mistook that as acceptance, if not rousing endorsement, aided by his cronies, advisers, and family members feeding his fantasy. The world knew better.

On the surface Abdullah did seem to have a mandate. After all, his coalition secured a comfortable though not the usual two-third majority in Parliament. On closer scrutiny however, his Barisan coalition barely scrapped through the popular vote, while many of the seats won were only with the slimmest of majority. That election also saw five states, including some of the most developed, repudiating Abdullah's leadership.

When the rumblings of discontent over his leadership became louder, especially after his coalition's thumping at the Permatang Pauh by-election, Abdullah was forced to lower his bid, but just a tad. He now thought he could satisfy his detractors by agreeing to hand over power by June 2010. He set it far enough ahead such that should circumstances shift, he could conveniently change his mind. Abdullah was counting that people would not see through his not-so-sly scheming.

Again, he misjudged the public, and his party's mood.Following a ruckus September 2008 UMNO Supreme Council meeting in which a few finally caught on to the reality and spoke up, albeit tentatively and a little belatedly, Abdullah lowered further his asking price. Now he did not rule out on an earlier transfer, clarifying that the June 2010 date was meant to be the latest when he would quit.

That pacified the dissidents, including the outspoken Muhyiddin Yassin and the hitherto "Iron Lady" Rafidah Aziz. They were an easily-mollified bunch.

Then following the gathering of his clan, and undoubtedly convinced once again by them, Abdullah backtracked. They prevailed upon him that his leadership was worth more and that he should hold out for a better price. That triggered yet another volley of dissatisfaction.

At a special meeting of the Supreme Council last week, presumably to discuss specifically the leadership transition, Abdullah was given an ultimatum. He must decide by October 9, 2008 on whether to defend his leadership. The alternative presumably would be to quit.

To an average observer with a modicum of commonsense, that was just another nice way for the council to say, in the grand Asian tradition of "saving face," that it no longer had confidence in Abdullah. Abdullah however is thick-skulled and a tad slow on the uptake. Besides, another round of meetings with his clan and they would convince him that indeed was not the intent of the council. "Flip-flop" Abdullah listens to whoever has his ear last.

More to the point, that council's decision was meaningless. If Abdullah were to decide not to defend his position at the now-postponed UMNO convention, the country would still be faced with a leadership crisis and uncertainty for the next six months. Everyone would be consumed with positioning themselves. No effective government work would be done as every UMNO politician would be busy politicking.

On the other hand, if he decided to cling on, it would still create a leadership uncertainty, and there would still be heavy intrigue and campaigning. Nothing would have changed. Our nation's business would still be unattended.

Abdullah has again abused our traditional Malay culture of halus, the subtle way. The gullible Muhyiddin went so far as to describe Abdullah's latest "decision" as "magnanimous!" No word from the "Iron Lady." As I said, they are easily satisfied. I wonder how long before UMNO Supreme Council members realize that they had once again been had by him.

As for Najib, he is burdened with his own considerable baggage. He would like that trinket be handed over to him as if it were his due, and without contest, all in the name of party unity of course. Contest means having to scrutinize his record, which is not pretty. In fact it is sordid.

If only there were some jantans in UMNO Supreme Council, they would have long ago given Abdullah an ultimatum. Resign or we push for a "no confidence" vote! That is the only language Abdullah understands: direct and brutal. There cannot be any subtlety or he will pretend to miss it.

It does not take a jantan to do that, only some responsible adults concerned about the lack of leadership and the country being left adrift. Absent that, rest assured that come October 9, Abdullah will again waffle, and UMNO Supreme Council will have to find yet another face-saving device to spare some modicum of respect to someone who clearly no longer deserves any.

I could not care less about those UMNO Supreme Council members except that they are also the leaders of our country. That is the scary part. If they cannot stand up to a limp Abdullah Badawi, how can we expect them to face up to a President Bush, China's Hu, or even Singapore's Lee. That is what terrifies the heck out of me, as it should all Malaysians.

Meanwhile Malaysians are reduced to watching the bizarre haggling over an increasingly worthless trinket between their two top but desperate leaders. We all should be embarrassed by that, not just Tengku Razaleigh.

source: Malaysia's Leadership A Trinket
Malaysia Today, Malaysia

Recklessness in a dangerous time

In our opinion

09-27-2008

In the wake of the turbulent events of the last few days, a moment of unhappy reflection is necessary.

A large amount of uncertainty gripped the markets, lawmakers and the American people this week. It was and still is an unsettling time.

And during times of national crisis — make no mistake we are in one — Americans look for strong leadership that can compel the public and decision-makers to be reasonable and pragmatic.

Normally, we look to the president, but unfortunately George W. Bush does not have the power or the credibility to lead us through any event, especially a challenge as monumental as this one. So the torch had to pass to members of Congress, to party leaders and to congressional committee chairs.

It is hard to fully celebrate any of them, but Democratic leaders seemed to do what they could, within the constraints they were dealing with. There was, from an early stage, a consensus to pass a bill with a number of key provisions with an emphasis on helping homeowners, strong oversight and limits on executive pay. But there was also, from the beginning, a clear understanding articulated by Democrats that they would not go this alone.

They insisted on cover, if you will, from Republicans. The Democrats were right to say that they were not going to absorb all the blame that was primarily the making of the peddlers of laissez-faire economics within the GOP and the White House.

Give credit to members of the president's staff for working with the Democrats and many Senate Republicans.

The failure and the recklessness, then, came from a specific corner of the other side.

We speak here not just of Sen. John McCain's political maneuver to "suspend" his campaign to return to Washington only to throw a monkey wrench in the cogs of a developing deal, but a widespread revolt in the House among some 100 conservative Republicans against a compromise measure developed by leaders of both parties and members of President Bush's team.

This group of GOP representatives pulled stunt after stunt as the markets continued to gyrate, as the credit markets continued to dry up, as the very fabric of the American economic system — right down to the hometown independent bank — was beginning to look imperiled.

The GOP House leader showed up at one key White House meeting on Thursday with the presidential candidates, only to drop the bombshell that he didn't have the support of the majority of his members. This seemed a surprise to everyone, except John McCain, who decided to keep that bit of information to himself.

Ranking Republicans in the Senate and the House darted in and out of committee meetings announcing they were there as observers, or only there to represent themselves or only as a representative of some faction or another.

It was all fun and games at the circus when the town was on fire. It was unacceptable, ridiculous, embarrassing and dangerous.

But most of all it was political.

At the end of the week, it be-came clear that the princes of free-market economics represented by this group of House members were intending to use this national emergency as an opportunity to define their faction of the party.

This, they were shouting as the sirens were screaming, is what the GOP will stand for in the future: no government intervention in the economy and no regulation. We are the party of Reagan, they bellowed.

Nevermind that they are the party that has long advocated the disastrous policies that led to this in the first place.

Here, then, is the slogan of these House members and their new enabler, John McCain: Party First.

source: Recklessness in a dangerous time
Anniston Star

A Question of Leadership

Andrew Romano

What if John McCain's "amazing gambit"--suspending his campaign, calling off Friday's debate and inviting Barack Obama to return to Washington with him to work on the economic crisis--ends not with a bang but a whimper?

That's the way it's looking right now. When McCain delivered his surprise announcement here in New York yesterday afternoon, both he and the Democratic Party were quick to say that the Treasury's $700 billion bailout bill was in grave danger of collapsing. For McCain, "it ha[d] become clear that no consensus ha[d] developed to support the Administration's proposal" and that the nation was "running out of time." For the Dems, McCain's return to Washington "risk[ed] injecting presidential politics into this process" and delaying the legislation. Of course, this was pure political posturing. McCain wanted to appear as if he were rescuing America from a dire situation. The Democrats wanted it to appear as if he were creating one.

But the truth is, the legislation itself was approaching the finish line by the time McCain dropped his bombshell. "By 2:00 p.m. yesterday," writes the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, "the House and Senate Democrats had settled their most important differences, the White House had caved on CEO pays, and the two sides were coming close to dealing with the bailout's oversight mechanism, its posture toward homeowners, and whether taxpayers would get ownership stakes in taken-over companies." Given that, it's somewhat ludicrous for McCain to claim--as he did again this morning in speech at the Clinton Global Initiative--that "no consensus has developed" and that "the plan on the table will [not] pass." That's simply not true. In fact, many of McCain's "five fundamental improvements"--oversight, CEO pay--have already been adopted. According to reports from the Hill, the most likely sequence of events for today is that Republican and Democratic congressional leaders--who are convening this morning (without McCain) to hammer the details--will present a consensus framework to be ratified at the unprecedented White House meeting between President Bush, Obama, McCain and top negotiators scheduled for 4:00 p.m.

At this point, McCain would have two choices: either sign off on the framework or, citing pet provisions left on the cutting room floor, announce that he will oppose the bill until it meets his exact specifications. The latter scenario is possible. The Senate Democratic leadership reportedly fears that McCain will vote "no"--defying Bush and "standing with" the American people, who remain skeptical of the bailout--in an attempt to burnish his "maverick" brand. But that maneuver carries such significant risks--not the least of which is being seen as deliberately destroying (for his own political posturing) a fragile bipartisan compromise that's crucial to the nation's economic security--that I suspect McCain take the safer route: acquiesce at the White House, vote "yes" on the legislation and fly to Oxford, Miss. in time for Friday night's debate.

Hence the whimper. Of course, McCain will try to argue that a) he helped seal the deal and b) improved the flawed Bush legislation to guard taxpayers. But the chronology--which shows that Congress and the White House were already nearing an agreement when McCain parachuted in--will contradict him. As House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said yesterday, "now that we’re on the verge of making a deal, John McCain drops himself in to make a deal." The only accurate argument available to McCain will be that the potentially polarizing effects of his presence "lit a fire under the behinds of Democratic negotiators," pushing them to meet today's 4:00 p.m. deadline--which, incidentally, was set by Bush. In other words, McCain's actual involvement will be entirely symbolic--a gesture rather than an accomplishment.

In all likelihood, the bill will pass. The candidates will debate. And business as usual will resume. Does this mean that voters should simply forget McCain's startling maneuver? Hardly. It may not result in any real consequences--positive or negative--but the Arizona senator's decision (and Obama's reaction) has provided us with the clearest window to date on their contrasting styles of leadership. Neither candidate did, said or proposed anything that actually helped solve the problem at hand. But their individual instincts were on display. Half-submerged in a political quagmire of economic uncertainty and dismal polling, McCain discarded the rules of the road and made a dramatic, unorthodox move that sent a unmistakable message but showed little concern for logistics on the ground. Meanwhile, Obama remained dispassionate, sticking to his talking points--here are my improvements; the debate must go on--and staying in Florida until summoned to Washington by the president.

Views on the candidates in crisis will differ. It's like a Rorschach Test of presidential leadership. Some will see McCain's response as bold, assertive, unconventional and impassioned. Indeed, the former fighter pilot's "need for speed" may be one reason he's leading among Independents--who are angrier than ever at Washington and may appreciate McCain's "mad as hell" attitude--by an astonishing 14 points (up from six earlier this month) in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Others will see McCain's response as gimmicky, reckless, impulsive and opportunistic. "An affront to American voters," carped the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson. "McCain's ploy was transparent." Likewise, Obama's reaction will strike some voters as steady, strong, rational and pragmatic. The aforementioned NBC/WSJ survey, for instance, shows that a majority of voters now agree that the Illinois senator could handle a military crisis well as president--a possible product of his confidence and certainty in the face of the Wall Street meltdown. Others, however, will see him as passive, detached, conventional and cautious.

Predictably, many of these disagreements will break along party lines. C'est la vie politique. The question going forward is what portion of the tiny segment of the populace still unsure which candidate they'll support on Nov. 4 will prefer McCain's style of leadership--as currently on display, and as reinforced over the next 40 days--to Obama's. More than anything else, the answer will determine our next president.

source: A Question of Leadership
Newsweek

Financial Crisis Offers a Study in Leadership Styles

By Dan Balz
What kind of leadership do Americans want in their president?

Do they prefer the MBA-style of President Bush, who delegated management of the economic crisis to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson until he could not avoid a prime-time address to the nation, and then warned of dire consequences if the government does not act?

Do they prefer the brashness of John McCain, who on Tuesday talked as if he were prepared to scuttle a deal on a rescue package and then on Wednesday abruptly suspended his campaign and elbowed his way into the middle of things in an effort to galvanize negotiators to reach a solution?

Do they prefer the cool and reserved style of Barack Obama, who has monitored the crisis without interrupting his campaign, offered guidelines for what would be an acceptable deal, but who has seemed willing to let the process in Washington play out without direct intervention on his part?

What was clear from the start of the general election was the wide philosophical gulf between Obama and McCain. On virtually every issue, from Iraq to taxes to health care to energy, the differences in their views were stark. Voters could see that the outcome of the election would have a profound impact on the direction the next president would try to take the country.

But over the course of the past week, it's become equally clear that there is a significant difference between McCain and Obama in their leadership styles. Those differences have been on display over the past few days, especially during the chaotic and unexpected developments on Wednesday that produced Thursday's White House meeting, with McCain and Obama in attendance.

McCain, speaking Thursday morning at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York before returning to Washington, called for Democrats and Republicans to set aside politics and solve the crisis now. But both campaigns understand the very obvious political implications of the drama unfolding around the negotiating tables in the capital and along the campaign trail.

Voters are gaining new insights into how these two nominees might act if they were actually in the White House. The presidential debates are intended to provided side-by-side comparisons of the two candidates and presumably they will go forward, if not exactly on schedule. But the financial crisis provides a real-time laboratory for understanding the approaches of the two nominees.

Obama has been more measured and less passionate. McCain, since declaring the fundamentals of the economy strong in his first utterance, has been increasingly outspoken.

Obama has blamed the policies and philosophy of the Republicans for allowing the innate greed of Wall Street to run amok. McCain has blamed greed and corruption itself. McCain has seen the crisis in terms of good and evil -- well, mostly evil. Obama has looked at systemic causes. McCain asked for heads to roll. Obama argued that a change in administrations is the real solution.

Neither can be seen as an obstacle to a solution, but has either truly contributed to a one? Obama advisers argue that their candidate worked cooperatively with Paulson as the administration was preparing its rescue plan and with congressional Democrats in formulating objections to what the initial package included. That, they say, has helped push both sides closer to resolution.

McCain's actions have certainly appeared more impetuous. Was it necessary to declare his campaign in suspension and recommend a postponement of Friday's debate to get the attention of the president and the negotiators? With congressional Republicans moving to oppose the package, his advisers would argue that only a forceful intervention could produce a package acceptable enough to pass.

Obama's moves have drawn less direct criticism, though McCain and the Republicans have argued that he has been unwilling to commit himself at key points over the past 10 days -- a charge Obama's advisers reject.

Ironically, Obama and McCain are now very close together on the terms of a deal. In this case, policy differences appear minimal. Both want independent oversight of how the Treasury secretary would buy up and then resell devalued securities. Both want the taxpayers to share in any profits. Both want Wall Street executives not to profit excessively. Both say the rescue package should be a first step toward revamping the regulation of the financial industry.

But the two are now playing brinksmanship over the crisis, with McCain calling for a delay in Friday's presidential debate until there is agreement on a package and Obama arguing there is no need to stop all campaign activity. Speaking by satellite to the Clinton global forum after McCain, Obama said he would go to Washington Thursday to meet with McCain and others at the White House, but vowed to be in Oxford, Miss., on Friday night for the debate.

McCain has certainly taken the bigger risk, but Obama's course is not risk-free. These events are yet to play out, but the public will have plenty to judge these two nominees on by the time the weekend is over. These are not two politicians who would operate out of the Oval Office in similar ways. Philosophically, stylistically and temperamentally, Americans have a real choice in November.

source: Financial Crisis Offers a Study in Leadership Styles
Washington Post, United States

Stephen Harper: the tactics, the leadership

Where is the elevated style?

LAWRENCE MARTIN

When we think of great leaders, certain characteristics come to mind. We think of a capacity to inspire, to define and chart the direction of the country. We think of political figures with personal magnetism and oratorical skills. We think of civility and honouring democratic principles - of someone who stands above the fray.

On Stephen Harper's list of strengths none of the above are particularly apparent. He's more sullen than charismatic, he's a wooden speaker, he doesn't take to talk of visions or great national endeavours and no one would call his command style of governance refreshingly democratic. He's more interested in maiming political opponents than pursuing high ideals.

Nor has this Prime Minister been able, as great leaders are, to post an achievement of high significance. He's had some modest successes. Nothing outstanding.

But while batting low in so many of the criteria, the Conservative leader has somehow developed the aura of being an impressive leader. It's an interesting interpretation.

Mr. Harper's attributes are as a great tactician, a high-quality manager. Add his imposing intelligence, the absolute clarity of mind. Keeping score, you might say he ranks high on two great-leadership components, low on the other four. He's also decisive, but decisiveness is no barometer of great leadership. What counts is the quality of the decisions. George W. Bush has been decisive. Our longest-serving PM, Mackenzie King, was remarkably indecisive. A procrastinator.

Much of the Harper leadership reputation results from his having no strong opponent and from opinion polls on leadership that, the pollsters concede, are biased toward any incumbent PM.

Entering the campaign, Mr. Harper wanted to build on his leadership advantage by showing a new side. With a quick overhaul, he would knock over one of his negatives, the image of him as a sinister, overly partisan operator. Ads showed a soft, caring family man - which, in fact, he is - and a benign and understanding human being. On top of this, came a new openness and chumminess with the media. Having run a closed shop, he was now sitting down at breakfast with reporters for roundtable chats.

But just as he was putting up the new image, he was undercut by a series of missteps, small things that in campaigns become big things. The tasteless puffin-bird advertisement spoke to the lack of class his attack dog office has often shown. His having to reverse himself on the Green Party debate decision spoke to his closed governing style. The over-hyped bit about an aide's e-mail on the motivations of the father of a fallen soldier spoke to his government's penchant for reducing everything to naked political self-interest.

All this was hardly in keeping with the impressive leader image. The old maxim about reaping what you sow was taking its toll. It wasn't supposed to be the Harper campaign tripping over itself in Week 1. That was the advance Liberal script.

On top of the little incidents, other troubling aspects of the Harper leadership style were on display. Following his statement that he would not be attacking opponents, he engaged in wild fear-mongering, saying the Opposition Leader's Green Shift would plunge the country into recession and even endanger national unity. Trying to attract votes in Quebec, Mr. Harper played politics with the re-announcement of the Afghan withdrawal deadline. He said categorically that the Liberal Leader would raise the GST - a completely false assertion. His office attacked Stéphane Dion's use of a carbon-spewing airplane, forgetting to mention that the Dion office was purchasing carbon offsets to more than compensate - meaning the Harper campaign, which wasn't doing this, was the pollution culprit.

Some of the Prime Minister's work was no doubt tactically shrewd - that leadership quality he possesses in abundance - and may well pay off. But anyone hoping to see a new elevated style of leadership from the soft-blue sweater guy was not getting it. His office is still under the political direction of the dirt-throwing Doug Finley. A specialist in low-road politics, he has played on the PM's instincts for the same.

Great leaders uplift the spirit of the country. Great tacticians are capable of the same. Mr. Harper has an impressive, big mind. If he doesn't win a majority it will be because too often it operates - as is evidenced so far in this campaign - in small ways.

source: Stephen Harper: the tactics, the leadership
Globe and Mail, Canada

related stories:

1. The Harper leadership cult Macleans.ca, Canada
   
2. Harper escapes, then sets, his trap Hamilton Spectator, Canada