|
Grandstanding
on the Job
By Michael Alan Hamlin
September 10, 2001
What kind of shape would your business be in if you
spent all your time grandstanding instead of actually working? Not
that grandstanding is all bad. I'd be the last person to suggest
that publicity isn't important. Corporate - and personal - brands
are an important component of competitiveness, customer loyalty,
and prestige. So grandstanding has its place.
But somewhere there has to be some substance or the
brand is not going to endure. When that happens, the brand becomes
a curse instead of a competitive advantage. That's because the corporation
- or the individual - ultimately fails to live up to its brand image,
and customers take their revenge by shifting preferences in the
direction of rivals. Media, meanwhile, mirthfully reports on the
proud corporation's demise.
The same principle applies to politicians and government
institutions too. Politicians need to grandstand (or be victimized
as we'll see shortly) to get elected - at least those who aren't
movie or television personalities or sports figures do - and institutions
need publicity associated with their accomplishments in order to
build an image of credibility and responsibility. But ultimately
there has to be something meaningful to grandstand about.
Now, consider the Senate's record since the 12th Congress
opened July 23. In that time it has conducted two high-profile series
of hearings (neither concluded), one looking into alleged criminal
activities of Sen. Panfilo "Ping" Lacson and the other
military collusion with the Abu Sayyaf. While the hearings, conducted
"in aid of legislation," may be important in some way,
so is the principal job of the Senate, which is actually passing
legislation. Unfortunately, none of that has happened.
What makes this particularly unhealthy in the image
sense is that little is likely to come of the Senate's hearings.
While some senators apparently view themselves as judges and the
Senate a jail, in fact the Senate can do nothing about its findings
but pass a law. In fact, since they are investigating Mr. Lacson's
money laundering activities, which aren't illegal in the Philippines
(although the manner in which he is said to have obtained the funds
obviously is), they could pass an anti-money laundering law, such
as the bill already before it.
But have the investigations enhanced the reputation
of the Senate and the senators? Anecdotal evidence suggests not.
When asked for his reaction one associate recently told me the politicians,
"have not exhibited anything remotely deviant from what the
rest of the world already knows: that they're a bunch of rotten,
scheming, scums ready to sell their mothers to the devil. I think
everything including the kitchen sink (and the kitchen itself) has
been thrown into this drama involving Lacson and his underworld
buddies. Yet, he appears unscathed and, in fact, has fortified his
position with the rest of them who suddenly are ready to defend
him after they learned about his net worth!!!"
That's pretty strong stuff for such an "august"
institution, especially when it comes from a conservative professional.
And it suggests the senators are doing a huge disservice to themselves
and the Senate. But the fact that politicians routinely act in their
own disinterest (at least in terms of the respect with which they
are held) is nothing new. Nor is the Philippine Senate alone in
its bizarre behavior. Legislators regularly receive low marks just
about everywhere.
A good example is the Republican members of the U.S.
House of Representatives who impeached former president Bill Clinton,
a scalawag in his own right. Despite the embarrassment that Mr.
Clinton brought on himself and his country by conducting and then
lying about a sexual liaison consummated in his White House office,
popular approval of the Republicans plummeted as a result of the
move to impeach one of the most liked presidents - despite his shortcomings
- in American history (Point of reference: I frequently noted during
the impeachment that Mr. Clinton was a national embarrassment second
only to the Republicans. Incidentally, in the two elections I voted
in before coming to Asia, I voted Republican.).
In fact, it's not hard to argue that the onslaught
of the politically vile vindictiveness thrown at Mr. Clinton actually
contributed to, rather than detracted from, his popularity. And
that's probably what's happening with Mr. Lacson, too. Sure, Mr.
Lacson's alleged crimes are truly of the darkest kind, hardly comparable
to Mr. Clinton's dalliance. But according to the political laws
of cause and effect, the degree of the crime doesn't matter when
the accuser himself is (or themselves are) suspect.
Naturally, most middle- and upper class folks would
like to see Mr. Lacson burn. Few would argue that point. But by
instigating a lynching in the Senate bereft so far of a shred of
real evidence his tormentors are strengthening his political standing.
If an election were held today, Mr. Lacson would actually move up
in the polls, rather than out of the Senate.
This battle belongs to the Department of Justice and
the Sandiganbayan. But it seems that faith in those institutions
is so low that the government feels it has no alternative but to
shred Mr. Lacson in the Senate. But that's not happening. The people
who have always disliked Mr. Lacson dislike him more. But the people
who like him like him more, and their ranks are growing.
Perhaps Mr. Lacson should consider paying his persecutors
an image-consulting fee?
(Mr. Hamlin is managing director of the consultancy
TeamAsia and the author of three books on Asian economies and managing
in Asia. His latest book is Marketing Places Asia, which
is coauthored. His e-mail address is mahamlin@teamasia.com.ph.
If you use a Smart/Talk N Text GSM user, you can text a message
to Mr. Hamlin's mailbox by typing the keyword mikehamlin and sending
it to 200.)
|
