In “Shock Doctrine” Naomi Klein's thesis is that in times of either man-made or natural disasters governments will institute policies that favour capitalists. As the world is now undeniably experiencing a man-made global economic disaster, we might also be experiencing another interesting phenomenon. That is choosing leaders usually left on the sidelines. Barack Obama is one of these leaders. The first leader of African-descent elected in North America or in Europe.
On February 1, Iceland’s coalition government chose Johanna Sigurdardottir as prime minister. She will lead until Icelanders go to the polls on April 25. Ms. Sigurdartottir is the first openly gay prime minister.
In the 1930’s two world leaders also came to prominence from the margins. Franklin D. Roosevelt could be considered from the margins, as he was a liberal politician. Adolph Hitler was at the opposite end of the spectrum. Mahatma Gandhi, though not elected to the highest office in India, was a major political and spiritual leader. Nelson Mandela, considered a terrorist for most of his life, was elected as South Africa’s prime minister in 1994.
For many people just saying any one of these names – Roosevelt, Hitler, Gandhi, Mandela – automatically describes an era or a movement that was world changing. It’s early days for Obama, but even now for many his name is synonymous with hope and change for the better.
The election of a lesbian prime minister in one of the world’s smallest countries may not herald the beginning of a run for the highest office in other lands by gay politicians, but at least the door has been opened. If elected on April 25 she will be the first gay politician elected prime minister.
In tough times it seems as if the electorate is more open to choosing the unconventional candidate. Isn’t this counter intuitive? Why wouldn’t the safer candidate be selected? Is it “that it couldn’t get any worse?” Or is it that shaking things up might yield good results?
I would agree with your "shake things up" theory and that in times of good, people don't want to upset the norm.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't we be "shaking things up in Canada"? I wonder...