Not being a politician, I am still wondering what and who I'll be looking for as winnable candidate in the 13th GE on May 5. What I'm sure about is that I want a leader and not an actor. Especially one who does nothing more than what the Director of a show wants and says nothing more than what is in the script. He has nothing of his own to give to the public but a good performance to make the overall show a success. A good actor takes direction even from the Director's pet, to bark or meow as the script requires.
the anxious electorate
Yes, an effective government takes orders from the top, but with a conscience. Should there be any weakness in the script, things that might go against the interest of the country and the people, the leaders below the overall Chief should be brave enough to advise him. If they are afraid of doing so, afraid of being marked as a recalcitrant or a non-player, then they have lost their effectiveness from the word "go". The whole play will become a one-man show. Not necessary with a disastrous result though if the Chief is himself an exceptional and farsighted leader. Even then, there are things that might escape his attention and cause irreversible damage to the nation. No man (or woman) is perfect anyway.possible reaction to list of candidates
We certainly don't want leaders who are of the yes-sir and bottom-fanning type. No, we don't want hard-headed, obstinate and self-opinionated leaders either. While an effective government needs a team of well coordinated leadership at all levels of government, there should be room for serious exchange of views incorporating public opinions in all discussion on policy matters. If a leader has to tell the Chief that people in his or her constituency do not support a certain move, he or she has to tell the Chief so in no uncertain terms.If he or she is unable to do this for fear of loosing how job, then he or she is not a leader but just an actor.
High-level civil servants are the other team players that need to sync their action with the political leaders but need not 'sink' in the 'yes-sir' syndrome. They have to provide actual feed-back to the government on the progress of programs just implemented and not give a report to please the boss. I should think that a report containing unexpected reaction from the public due to misunderstanding or poor implementation, would be more useful for further action than one that simply praises the program. To praise is easy. To give an honest, well documented criticism for ameliorative action is much more difficult. It can hurt the officer making the report and a good leader should see to it that this doesn't happen if a report is to be useful as a feedback mechanism at all.
Well, who do I want as a leader in the government again after the 13th GE? What constitutes 'winnability'? I would go for a self-righteous candidate, free from any accusation of corruption as shown by a reasonable style of life and not of the luxuriously haughty type, friendly and accessible, and more often seen as an ordinary man/woman walking the street and attending religious function at the mosques or other places of worship rather than always in coat and tie (or an expensive dress) with officious-ness writ large all over him or her. To be avoided is one who always speaks from a prepared speech in an oratory manner, and never capable of or willing to just talk freely from his or her heart with obvious honesty.
What about the political party he or she represents? As I said, I am not a politician. All I care for is an honest man or woman in Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly representing the ordinary people and not just the elites in society.