A great memory and the common sense approach towards using such a memory is probably one of the most significant traits of leaders but more so, a political leader. While it is true that planning is one of the attributes of a great leader coupled with such other necessary leadership skills, these must be ‘pivotal’ to the governance structure of an excellent political system. Merely having a good memory is not a core leadership competence but it is necessary. Remember Winston Churchill? It is said that he had a photographic memory so much so that he was known to spend more than thirty hours memorizing speeches and practicing them to perfection. He used these common sense approaches to his credit.
Many so-called modern leaders of today try their best to cultivate the habit of reading newspaper articles and books at a pace that appears to be astronomical. Sometimes one wonders whether their capacity to read matches their capacity to retain information and apply them accurately. But that is debatable and beyond the scope of this short narrative. The point is that political leadership of the 21st Century rests on several pillars and to have a great memory is one of them.
Within recent times, we have witnessed several political leaders dabbling in long speeches on their local campaign trails. But it is the substantive political matters that touch and concern the development of the citizenry that is probably most important. As political leaders strategise one would wish to think that their memories should not frustrate the process of delivery of limited resources to the disadvantaged citizenry nor should it be used to hold grudges and to create ‘cast iron ideas’ about victimization of political opponents or their family members. The question is asked repeatedly and that is, to what effect would political leaders use memory of bad done to them in the past, so as to throw in the political wheel in the spanner. Why hurt some family members of constituents that may have remembered who ‘run their mouths’ on you during the run up to the elections? Can development of a people within a small island developing state benefit from political leaders who resort to such memories and become revengeful? Can political leaders rise above this?
On the other hand, as a youth I recalled occasions when a famous political leader of this country would regale his entourage with speeches he would have given in the House of Parliament at different periods of our nation’s history. The point is, memory used in a common sense approach is always good.
Like many nationals of this country living here and or abroad (in the diaspora), we are given choices and what comes out of the mouths of political leaders has a ‘telling effect.’ Speaking to and with two political leaders of different political parties, one got the sense that they are of two different eras. Let’s follow the differences noted between Leader X and Leader Y:-
Leader X had been with his party for about 39 years prior and was very clear about his vision. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t always allow for input from others and sometimes came across as very autocratic.
Leader Y solicited input and or shared his thoughts with his management team. He was very hands off in how the ideas were executed as he allowed for individual input. To some it appeared that Leader Y didn’t really care or understood his position as leader of his party and whether or not those ideas came to fruition.
When one looks at both leaders it was clear that they were very charismatic. Both were able to communicate well to their followers/patrons. Indeed, they were both well experienced political leaders. Some methods worked for them obviously but both have had flaws. No one is without flaws as these are attributed to human weaknesses. To err is human.
But, over the years, when the question came up as to which leader constituents would choose if given the option, Leader X stood out for them. They remembered continually arguing with Leader X in many instances, but he seemed inflexible and held to his own position. However, there was one thing that Leader X did that made a difference for his constituents. He always knew their names, the places where they were born, who were their relatives and the towns or villages from whence they came. Leader X knew what projects and initiatives that they were working on, and Leader X surprised a lot of people when he told them exactly what was going on even in their own families and whether they were missing in action. I recalled one time when a particular member sustained a broken leg and Leader X seemed to know exactly how many weeks ago that the person had been involved in the contributory incident.
Leader X was noted as having the ability to remember questions that were asked of him months earlier at a school or from a parent at particular events. Leader X remembered birthdays and anniversaries. What Leader X remembered appeared seemingly personal or meaningless information but he asked questions that showed he was concerned about people and this was the thing that stands out.
Leader Y on the other hand did none of what Leader X was capable of doing and therefore never really gained a connection with his constituents. When it came down to it, ‘no one really went to bat’ for Leader Y simply because they didn’t really feel like he would go to ‘bat for them’. Although Leader Y communicated as much as he could, it was felt by many that he never connected.
The idea about having a great memory is to use it in a persuasive manner. It was Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense” that characterized just how effective persuasion was to colonists as he sought their input into fighting for American independence. Can our leaders become effective in the art of persuasion? In “Five Stars: The Communication Secret to get from good to great”, Carmine Gallo, said that “Common Sense got its stirring rhythm from common techniques used by great persuaders.”
Here are some aspects of Gallo’s thoughts either paraphrased or quoted:
- Antithesis: “This is where society in every state is a blessing but the government, even at its best state, is a necessary evil.”
- Anaphora “(repetition of the same word or words in successive sentences or within clauses”, So one can hear things repeated like: Show me your voting finger …. Show me… put up your voting finger …
- Alliteration: “(repeating similar letter sounds in two or more words in a group” – Use of the word argument then use of the word arms …
- Parallelism: “(several parts of sentences are expressed in a similar way to show the ideas are equally important, adding balance and rhythm to a speech )” – simple facts, plain arguments and common sense.”
What is the point of all of this narrative? This is the thing about Leader X who uses the above and more to his maximum advantage within the context of having a great memory of all things he knows people hold dear. Things like their names, their birthdays, anniversaries, awards, and graduations create unforgettable experiences. Leader X has been around the block many times and understands that when these little things are recognized or mentioned by him, it makes a tremendous difference. Having a great memory is a common sense approach to winning an election. Once people feel that you as a political leader are interested in who they are and how you make them feel, you “see them”, then, they are generally willing to overlook or simply deal with some of the flaws that you – Leader X – brings to the table.
Many of us are reading up on political leadership and continue to dig deep in several manuals. Leader X has had several years head start. But, based on Gallo’s thoughts, if Leader Y simply remembers people’s names and the things that are extremely important to them, Leader Y can cause the greatest upset in the political pendulum. Mind you, having a great memory and using this as a common sense approach towards changing mindset and hoping to win an election is not all that there is to this equation. Inevitably, “those pesky RESULTS” that constituents seem to look out for are also key. However, a political leader with a memory as an elephant and who knows just how to use it effectively will definitely have an easier time gaining tremendous influence. There is hope yet for Leader Y who just might be able to gain a “political mulligan.”
