Running the political marathon

0

AMONG other things, politics has been called a continuing marathon where all that matters is crossing the finishing line first. And usually for each race, there is a different set of rules.

In a functioning democracy, the race is over many laps – and in full public view. We know who won and lost but not necessarily ‘how’ they won and lost.

This inevitably leads to endless conspiracy theories on the outcomes of the race – fixed results, foul play and lack of transparency are among the most common complaints.

All said and done, as one celebrated columnist notes, winning is what matters “and behind a suave exterior, there’s ruthless pursuit of success.”

Politics is also called the art of the possible, the attainable – the next best. It’s not always the best that scale the heights. The second or the third best “but a darling of luck” often also makes it to the summit.

Politicians come and go. For party leaders, failing to meet expectations and keep promises or whose parties are rejected at the polls, there is only one honorable thing to do — QUIT.

This cardinal principle is reverred in theory but usually paid scant attention in practice.

In view of such inconsistency, there is something to be said for the Westminster system. It espouses the healthy practice that a party leader who loses a general election should take full responsibility and resign voluntarily.

Kevin Rudd stepped down from the Labour Party leadership after losing the Australian federal election last year.

Rudd is not the only the prime minister and party leader to resign after a poor electoral showing. There are others as well and the list is long.

At times, politics can take nasty turns where events – involuntary or orchestrated – can exert tremendous pressure on the incumbent to stand down, if

not directly forcing a sitting president or prime minister out of office.

Richard Nixon, the 37th US president, is best remembered as the only president ever to resign from office.

He stepped down in 1974, mid-way through his second term rather than face impeachment over the Watergate Scandal.

Embattled Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra is also under opposition-fermented pressure to step down.

But she is standing her ground, saying it will be unconstitutional for her leave office because a change of government can only be made through the ballot box, not rowdy street demonstrations.

This is a rebuff to the call by anti-government protests leader Suthep Thaugsuban for the democratically elected Yingluck to resign.

Yingluck, who survived a no confidence vote in parliament, has challenged the opposition to an electoral face-off. So far, the

latter has not picked up the gauntlet.

Scandal-hit Auckland (New Zealand) mayor Len Brown has also been asked to step down following exposé of his two-year extra-marital relationship with a Hong Kong woman, Bevan Chuang, 25 years his junior.

Brown said he will not quit, pointing out that he had been re-elected mayor and that possibly half the people who voted, wanted him to stay on.

Yingluck, Brown and leaders like them stand ready to weather the storm because they know for being democratically elected, there is legitimacy to the mandate for their leaderships.

The only way for them to go or stay is through an election or a conscience vote.

There is, of course, symbolic significance in having a party leader step down. It’s a way of telling voters the party is willing to change in response to public opinion.

It shows the party is sensitive to voters’ needs and not mired in the previous ideology, flatly rejected for something else.

Last week, a leader of a beleaguered local political party said in Kuching he is ready to step down if there is keen successor.

Some would equate the statement to testing the water but like it or not, it also shows the leader is honest and courageous enough to publicly state his position.

For ailing political parties badly in need of rejuvenation to identify with the mellinnials or Y generation voters, there is clearly a need for the old guards to make way for new blood or second echelon leaders to assume future leadership roles and reinvent the party.

Whether the leader of the beleaguered political party and other new faces in the party like him will stick with the party, knowing its fate now hangs in the balance, no one knows except they themselves.

Saving a sinking ship,

especially one with a mutinious crew and the Sword of Damocles hanging over its mast, is a daunting task. And that’s putting it mildly.

Generally, to escape such a tenuous situation, most would jump overboard or hop over to a new ship. The latter is by far the more popular option. It is the raison d’etre for the existence of political froggies in our midst.

As the saying goes, politicians make strange bedfellows – friends today, enemies tomorrow and friends again the day after.

This is no big surprise really – for politics is, quinessentially, an on-going marathon where you run to win whatever the costs.