Monday, September 29, 2008

Could vs Should

In the current Malaysian political ethos leadership and competitive advantage is being derived not only from pragmatic values such as quality and blind obedience, as UMNO and some BN component parties will have us believe. Rather, the reality is that political parties must also organise themselves around humanistic, social, and environmental values such as integrity, transparency, sustainability, and trust. This may explain why the Pakatan alliance had a message that resonated so well with the Malaysian electorate.

I believe that to really thrive today, political parties need to operate more in the language of "should" and less in the language of "could."

Could
The language of could involves asking questions like, "What can we do?", which encourages decisions and actions that are guided by rules. But there is little in rules that inspire..

Rules are to be complied with, and they tend to breed a culture in which people find ways to live with the rules or to circumvent them. Sound familiar?

In contrast, asking "What should we do?" is entirely different. This question encourages decisions and actions that are consistent with individual and organizational values within the political parties and, to translate these values into government policies.

Should
Should transcends rules and inspires individuals to do more than merely comply. Yet, should appears to be the core inspiration for Pakatan supporters to comply with the rules because doing so is consistent with the humanistic, social, and environmental values mentioned earlier, such as integrity, transparency, sustainability, and trust.

In this way, should achieves a double effect: The mindset inspires them to do than merely follow the rules while preventing them from doing any less than complying with the rules. Why? Because to betray the rules is to betray the core values. This may explain, to some extent, the tightness with which the Pakatan alliance operated in the run-up to March 8 and its immediate aftermath.

A should mindset qualifies as a competitive advantage in the current Malaysian political landscape for two reasons. First, organizations and individuals are judged as much by the process of how they behave as by the result their behaviors deliver. This is the case thanks to hypertransparency: Malaysians can see deeper into the inner workings of political parties. This is something that the Pakatan state governments are finding out. This is something that was drummed home to UMNO and BN in the March 8 general elections.

And, because Malaysians can see deeper, they care about the political personalities and the process through which policies are created - or, at least, the negative effect of such policies. Is it any wonder that there is such immediacy in the general public's response to the flip-flop policies of UMNO and BN within the federal government?

Second, despite the Malaysian conventional wisdom that suggests conservatism, politics craves creativity and innovation, and should thinking frees political leaders and parties from the constraints of rules-based thought by unleashing new pathways of exploration and possibility. This was evident in Barack Obama's Democratic primaries campaign. It was evident in the Pakatan alliance's campaign in the March 8 general elections. This is something UMNO and BN needs to look at.

The way forward
We will see—because we can see and we want to see—which political parties live up to their assertions. Regardless, a few things are becoming clear.

Political parties are, in essence, communities of people. Greater connectedness will drive Malaysian politics to become more humanistic in nature. Should is the language that will enable Malaysian politicians to look through a human lens. This is something Pakatan alliance leaders are aware of. This is something Malaysians want to see in UMNO and BN politicians.

No comments: