Recipes on leadership
An old and experienced politician once gave advice to the scion of a political family on how, and with whom, he should govern. But the crucial advice came at the end: “You won’t rule only with those you want to hang out with and eat sushi in the evening.” It sounded a bit shallow then, but over time I realized it is not really.
Every prime minister has to balance on a tightrope. He cannot rule without having people around him who tell him things as they are and who listen to what society really thinks. But, at the same time, he must ignore them when he decides within himself that something must be done, regardless of the political cost. Americans have a perfect expression for those who ensure that a leader has a clear picture of what is going on, the so-called reality checkers. You won’t get far without them.
Former PASOK premier Costas Simitis did not understand the political damage brought by the removal of the religion field from identity cards and it was logical for him not to realize it as everyone around him had the same opinion on the matter. And not only did they have the same opinion, but Simitis considered it a matter of the highest priority and also a self-evident reform. The current prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, may not have understood the cost of his decision to legislate for marriage equality for the same reasons.
And so what does this mean, some will ask, that we must always fear the forces of obscurantism and that nothing should change in this country? It doesn’t quite work out that way. It is a matter of priorities and political dosage. Greece is in immediate need of major reforms that will come at a huge political cost and which will make a difference in the country’s course. If someone had to choose between IDs and reforming social security and had no political capital to spare, social security would be the priority. But it is also a matter of dosage. On the marriage equality law, it wasn’t the bill itself that cost the government as much as its timing and the unimaginably self-destructive way in which some had to rub it in the faces of those who calmly disagreed.
What is the risk? It is to go from one extreme to the other. From hypermodernism to regression. After all, there are two well-known sayings: One is that “a good leader can’t get too far ahead of his followers,” because he risks not being seen by those behind him. The other describes the politician who compromises with the argument, “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” As always, the right recipe lies somewhere in the middle.
