Profile of a Leader.

Good old politics always manages to be a reason for incredible discussion. I’d be surprised if it were otherwise. Politics defines everyone’s life, for better or for worse. If politics sucks, everyone suffers; if it does well, everyone benefits. If people weren't talking about it, that would be a rather big problem.

I’ve already written a post about politics, talking about how it is merely a contract between the people and a representative (I’ll leave it for you at the end of the post). Now I’d like to take a small step forward. With elections, we vote for the man or woman who must subsequently appoint the cabinet and govern for five years (provided there are no stabs in the back). The question I ask myself—but that everyone should ask—is: what must a president be like to be a good president? Because not everyone can be a leader of nations.

Everyone tries. Democracy allows every adult to give it a shot. The problem is that the winner is often an idiot, or a total incompetent. At the beginning, this character is idolized by the masses. Then, the moment the people discover the scam, the poor soul ends up before the media firing squad.

The stupid politician comes in various forms: they can be immediately stupid regardless, they can be stupid but an excellent orator, or they can seem competent and speak like someone who knows what they're doing, yet nothing they do makes any logical sense.

Maybe it’s not easy to identify the dumb politician at the start. Then you size them up and ask yourself: "How the hell did we vote for that moron? I just don't get it!" When the enlightenment occurs, the only thing one hopes for is that the moron in power hasn't caused irreparable damage.

To avoid problems from the beginning, what must a good president be like?

Right or Left?

Even before talking about platforms and such, a good politician must have a clear affiliation. It took me a while to realize that this belonging is fundamental. Until a couple of years ago, I thought a president should be beyond this division and think only of the well-being of the people.

Now, I cannot stand politicians who you don't know where to place. Modern politics is full of aspiring statesmen who claim "not to identify with any political side, but only with the values of the people." It’s just a maneuver to gain consensus. When that same person goes into government, the mask comes off and you immediately understand if they are a conservative or a liberal. It is inevitable that one ends up on one side or the other.

I used to think being "fluid" (i.e., passing from liberal to conservative) might be possible. In truth, it isn't. You cannot create a liberal reform for the family, perhaps authorizing adoption for same-sex couples, and then be a conservative with women, cutting off their careers if they get married. Or you cannot publicly state that there are 30,000 genders and then agree with medicine, which maintains that only two exist. It wouldn't be consistent and it would be extremely difficult to understand and follow.

I like to know who I’m dealing with. I like to know if someone is a liberal or a conservative. Because in the end, that's what it’s about. You’re either on the right or you’re on the left. Saying you don't belong to any side is an incredible lie. You simply do it for a single electoral purpose. Being a liberal or a conservative has a fundamental impact on policy. If you don't declare where you stand, those who vote for you might understand nothing about who you are and what you want to do.

The Compromise.

Choosing to belong to one side or the other is only half the battle. Because on both sides, there are moderate factions and extremist factions. Take the Republicans: there are moderate Republicans and there are the fanatics of M.A.G.A. The same thing happens with the Democrats: there are moderate Democrats and liberals from the more extreme fringes. This system exists across the planet, but it manifests differently, perhaps with more parties within the same political wing. France, Italy, and Germany are the most famous examples.

Why am I talking about this? Because politics, especially if you want to become president and represent a political wing, is a very complicated game where you must compromise. It’s no coincidence that in Italy, for example, parties agree before the elections and create coalitions to have a better chance of winning. In Germany, another example, once the elections are over, the party with the most votes holds talks with other parties to see if a government can be formed. Whether it’s before the elections or after winning them, one must always seek an agreement that is advantageous for all parties involved, whether it be with external parties or with the factions within the party. Without fertile ground to build a coalition or collective government collaboration, governing will be a nightmare.

A politician who says "I'm going it alone and I'm not talking to anyone" knows perfectly well they are playing a very dangerous game. They must hope to get 51% of the vote. If they get it, all is well. If it doesn't happen, a mess breaks out in the party because all the souls of that party know that no one would form a coalition with them, because the candidate they chose has burned every bridge.

Or it could be that the candidate for premier, although they decided to go it alone, nonetheless kept the doors open for a future coalition. If they only get 40 percent, they still have to compromise with a minority ally just to have the chance to become prime minister. From that moment on, it will always be the classic game of "crippled reforms," because the minority ally holds the majority party by the balls. The same thing happens if two parties decide to go into the election together as a coalition.

Governing is nothing more than talking to everyone and keeping everyone around the table. Therefore, it will be a continuous game of "I’ll give you something now, but you’ll give me something later."

Is it an exhausting concept? Politics is exhausting because it is a constant compromise. Only a good mediator is capable of managing multiple voices.

The Word.

Convincing the party or political wing that you are the winning horse to bet on is one thing. When you have the same interests, it’s easy to find an agreement. Now it’s a matter of convincing millions of people of the same thing.

At this point, you can stop playing the part of the mediator, but you must be an orator. Speaking inside the party is easy. However much you discuss how and when, you never discuss the "what," because the "what" is a given. When you speak to voters, you only talk about the "what," never the when and how.

This is a great challenge. The real problem is bringing the undecided over to your side.

In elections, every party knows there will be a segment of the electorate faithful to their own idea or to the "enemy" side. They are the ones who always guarantee a certain percentage. Talking to them is unproductive because they don't bring in additional votes: if they are with you, they’ll already vote for you, and if they are against you, they’ll never vote for you. The real battle is won with those who don't know what to vote for. That is the battlefield. The real victory is speaking to all those who don't know what to choose, whether due to indecision or disappointment with the other side—but they don't yet have a good reason to leave that side of the river—or they are disillusioned and tired of politics and have given up on voting.

To speak to these people, you need talent. You have to touch the right chords, use the right words, and always maintain a calm, decisive, patient, and polite attitude. The electorate votes for a politician for different reasons. I’ve seen people vote for the same politician because "he was likable" or "he inspires trust." It’s rare for a politician to be voted for based on their platform. The platform is just a rough outline of what they want to do. It’s enough to say just what the voter wants to hear and you get votes. You don't need a fixed platform. Or rather, you do, but the platform can change due to international events that affect domestic politics. It’s enough just to say you’re offering what the people want. That’s how people have always won.

Doing Well.

This has nothing to do with love for the fatherland or some other noble reason. The reason is much more pragmatic: keeping the job and making a lot of money.

Being the president is a fixed-term job. You are hired for five years with the possibility of renewal for another five.

Doing well means having your ass glued to the seat for the next 15 years. Follow my reasoning. Let’s say we vote for a conservative president. He makes his reforms that facilitate and improve everyone’s life. Five years later, at the elections, that outgoing president will say "I did this and I improved the situation!" In that case, the people must choose between someone who has proven they can do well and someone who knows what they might do. It’s a choice between certainty and uncertainty. How do you think the people will vote? Clearly, the people will vote en masse for certainty. If that certainty makes the State work and makes my life better, I’d be stupid to vote for something else.

The even better thing is that the people will be happy to pay your salary because you did a good job.

There’s another advantage to doing well: if people have full bellies and you raise your own salary, no one will say anything because "he did a lot for us, that raise is deserved!" A happy people is a people that not only votes for you but allows you things that would be morally unacceptable in the event of a crisis. Imagine all the salary increases politicians give themselves, which are now found to be immoral—if, however, the country had a growth rate of 8 percent. Doing well is the only way to have piles of money and power for a lifetime. Making the people happy is just a very pleasant side effect.

Everyone's Friend.

We are seeing it right now with Donald Trump. A politician who doesn't know how to maintain international relations is destined to isolate themselves and be treated as a pariah. However much Trump claims to have brought America to the top of the food chain, in truth, it is just a nation mocked by everyone, which no one gives a damn about anymore. In fact, if you listen to the voices and read the news, Trump is practically loved only by those belonging to the M.A.G.A. group. The Democrats and even part of the moderate Republicans are against Trump.

Having good relations with everyone is necessary. This means knowing the world around us, understanding the dynamics in progress, and helping to defuse conflicts even before they explode. If, for example, we had even just one prime minister in Europe with good relations with Russia and Ukraine, they would have probably calmed the waters even before the war broke out.

A president must be able to be diplomatic. They must talk, engage in dialogue, discuss, but they must NEVER leave the discussion table, even when it is difficult to talk or when the interlocutor is controversial. Because once a bomb is dropped, it is difficult to go back, activating that violent spiral that leads only to death and destruction, but no solution.

As things stand today, no prime minister is a good prime minister. Deciding not to talk with Russia, Iran, or other countries just because they are "difficult" countries or far from one's own idea of civilization is not a justification. There are billions of dollars in investments, citizens' purchasing power, and economic growth at stake—three aspects that must be protected and improved. The only way to do it is to have that ability to dialogue with everyone and find advantageous agreements.

Final Thoughts.

Politics is not a divine mission; it is a trade. And like every trade, it requires aptitudes that not everyone has: diplomacy, a thick skin, and extraordinary communication skills. As long as we vote based on likability or "hearsay," we will continue to be governed by people who improvise on our skin. The good politician is not the one we like; it’s the one we need. And you, when you vote, are you looking for a friend or are you looking for someone who actually knows how to hold the rudder?

M.