The ongoing Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit gives us a chance to observe leaders in various shapes, sizes and temperaments.
Out of the 21 economies of the Asia-Pacific region, two chief executives —those of Russia and Indonesia—were not able to attend this week’s meetings. Seeing President Vladimir Putin and President Joko Widodo, respectively, would have been good, too. They seem like interesting characters on their own. Recall how the latter, President Widodo, decided to halt the execution of a Filipina accused of smuggling drugs.
The rest of the 19 leaders bring with them their own management style, political leanings, personalities, histories, even circumstances that surround their personal lives. Combined with their nations’ resources and infrastructure built by their predecessors, these leaders cause their countries to face the issues and their people to live as they do.
Some of the leaders are good-looking or charismatic; some are strict and reserved; some are knowledgeable and experts in politics; others, merely swept into office by sheer popularity or supervening event.
This brings us to ponder our own leaders, especially in the context of the coming elections in May. What were the considerations that made us put them in office? What attributes or skills do we think are negotiable and non-negotiable for those who ask us to vote for them?
For good or bad, Filipinos are known to vote with their sentiments. We identify with underdogs—widows, orphans, those with a compelling personal story. Some go to the extent of believing that the presidency is a matter of destiny. This is why candidates tend to emphasize aspects of themselves that people can relate to and sympathize with, instead of highlighting how prepared they are for the daunting job ahead.
That, or present themselves as the solution to all present ills—portraying themselves heaven sent, provider of all needs, nemesis of evil.
To correct this skewed process of choosing leaders, some groups have devised methods for a more objective way of assessing the fitness of candidates for the job they aspire for. Different positions have different requirements. The presidency, for instance, is an executive role that would require the implementation of laws and the making of decisions that may at times be unpopular. It also requires representing the country to international events and establishing a reputation in the community of nations.
Given all that, how is our chief executive standing his ground among his counterparts in Asia Pacific? Has he convinced them that the Philippines, based on how we have been able to conduct these high-profile meetings, is a country to take seriously, a force to be reckoned with?
Before the world, a nation’s president is its face and its presence. Let’s remember this when we choose our next one, next year.
