"The world is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe." -Ed Krebs, photographer (b. 1951)

"The average (person), who does not know what to do with (her or) his life, wants another one which will last forever." -Anatole France, novelist, essayist, Nobel laureate (1844-1924)
____________________________________________________________________________________

Thursday, January 13, 2011

What does Leadership Mean?

The wounding of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others, and killing six bystanders in Tucson, Arizona, sparked much discussion about gun laws and vitriolic political discourse in this country. Perhaps this horrendous event is also an opportunity to look at what leadership means in a democracy and define our own roles as citizens.

On radio and television, newspapers and blogs, there are politicians, pundits, and others who express views with the intention of influencing opinions. Regardless of whether we agree with their positions, these people play public roles as leaders; they influence not only opinions, but also actions. However, being influential or having a public platform to express views comes with responsibilities.

Being a leader means acting in a manner that’s appropriate to the situation. For instance, sometimes leadership is about sitting back and listening. Sometimes it’s about being a consensus builder. At other times it might mean defending your views passionately. A smart leader is one who can read the situation and act accordingly.

But more importantly, a leader has to do what is in the best interest of all, with the goal of creating a more democratic, inclusive, open, civil, and dignitarian society.

Leaders in political office are elected to make a difference. They have the power to bring about change that they think would benefit their constituencies. They can do so by rationally setting forth their ideas and convincing people by reasoned arguments. This is in contrast to Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, who for political and/or ideological reasons, demonized a group of people – undocumented immigrants – and advocated a law that allowed ‘special’ treatment towards them. She did this by making incendiary remarks, such as claiming, without foundation, that headless bodies had been found in the desert and signed the bill that gave the police wide authority and responsibility to demand proof of citizenship from people suspected of being undocumented immigrants (although portions of this bill are currently being challenged in court). Even if I agreed with the idea that undocumented immigration, a complex issue, can easily be fixed by getting rid of the undocumented immigrants, I would have opposed Brewer because of her dehumanizing of immigrants in ways that I find despicable; creating fear and hatred towards others is not the kind of leadership that we need, just ask anyone who has been through a genocide or has lived as a minority. It creates the kind of atmosphere in Arizona that has caused it to be labeled the “New South”; this is not the kind of leadership that creates a better society.

The event of Tuscon has made leaders from both political parties, including Brewer, and some pundits behave in a much more cordial manner, at least publicly, and at least for now. The big exception has been no other than Sarah Palin. Even Matthew Dowd, a former political advisor to President George W. Bush, was reported as saying that Palin’s message was not appropriate for the moment of national grief and that she had missed an opportunity to be seen as a leader. He was quoted as saying “Sarah Palin seems trapped in a world that is all about confrontation and bravado… When the country seeks comforting and consensus, she offers conflict and confrontation.” It seems that Palin is the kind of leader that is unable to judge the situation and act appropriately.

Perhaps the real lesson learned here is our role in a democracy: to clearly define expectations of our leadership and hold our leaders to it. Leaders have to be able to articulate a vision on complex issues that meet the needs of all in a manner that is not vitriolic, bullying, intimidating, or dehumanizing. Disagreeing passionately is good; disagreeing using threat and intimidation is not. If any public figures cross the line, if they dehumanize a group of people and select them for special treatment, they should be shunned. These are not acts of leadership, but acts of irresponsibility and destructiveness. We deserve better.

Armineh Noravian

No comments:

Post a Comment