For most
political parties a leadership contest represents opportunity and renewal. It is a time not just to listen to voters but
to re-connect with them in a way that helps to refurbish frayed nerves and
replenish lost hope.
For some,
such competitions are only about policy; a candidate must be perceived an agent
of change. Sometimes, it will suffice that the message is believable; the
candidate is straightforward and his intentions are simple and clear.
For others, leadership
contests are about giving men and women, who have already completed modest
missions, a larger stage and to see which of them will shine.
Because each
of us has different expectations and recognizes different qualities in the same
person, such democratic competition assumes a respectful, even hopeful, multi-dimensional
character.
At the end
of it all, each of us want to see contenders who have invested everything in
their personal pursuit of high public office; to exhibit the wear and tear of a
warrior, the exhaustion of one who has laid bare not just their body but also
their intellect and their very soul.
Even if they
are not loved, the hope is they have, at least, engendered respect; a
foundation of goodwill on which to build.
When such
contests are characterized with such vigor and intelligence, we have reason to
believe our democracy is mature, resilient, and progressive even if we chose to
vote for the other Party.
Then, there
is the reality.
