This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on October 16, 2017 - October 22, 2017

Decisions. We struggle with them every day. What to have for breakfast, where to work, who to marry and, yes, which political party to choose in the next general election. Options infer decisions. While the first three questions are personal everyday issues, the fourth has a farther-reaching consequence and should be treated with a lot of thought.

As things stand, I am tired of reading the same old political grist in the media. Tired of the dirt-slinging, the accusations and counter accusations and the same old promises (and the same old lies?). Aren’t you? Call it GE14 fatigue, if you will.

Our country is going to the polls soon and our political parties are positioning themselves to gain as much support from voters as they can. We have been treated to a ringside seat as the camps in the newly evolved two-party system deck it out.

For me, one point sticks out — it’s been negative news all along. Name-calling, mud-slinging — you name it, we have seen it all. Both sides are trying to outdo each other, burying the other with filth and mistrust. Shame on them!

I personally believe it is time for these politicians to put on another cap and think about delivering a message of hope to the rest of us. Or perhaps go back to basics.

You see, our Malaysian democratic system in its basic form allows us to elect each Member of Parliament on merit, and then allow them to choose, from among themselves, a leader to head the motley crew — a prime minister, primus inter pares.

Just imagine. No warring parties, no opposition — just one united team of elected officials doing their best to govern the country. How cool is that?

On hindsight, we should not have followed the Westminster model of government, but we did. And along the way, this simple rule evolved into the present two-party system, to ensure checks and balances.

This form of governance naturally allowed political rancour and distrust to fester, and it strengthened a sense of entitlement in the incumbent party and a penchant for holding on to power. That, for the nation is not good.

Be that as it may, any party given the trust to govern Malaysia must adhere to the truism that, first and foremost, its leaders have the nation’s and the people’s interests at heart, and while they battle the challenges of short-term economic and social realities, they must also be looking at the long term. After all, Malaysians are meant to lead and thrive, not just survive.

That begs a question: How will our political leaders prepare us to do that — to thrive in the “long term”? How do they decide in an environment fraught with uncertainties? And how are we to choose leaders with global ambitions of greatness if very few of them are around?

We tend to think that decisions are very much about “what”. But evidence from business literature seems to suggest that some of the greatest decisions made were not “what” decisions but “who”. They were people decisions.

Decisions are always about the future and your place in the future when the future is uncertain. So, what is the key thing we can do to prepare for that uncertainty? You choose the right people to be with you and to continue what you have started.

Business leaders almost always have to decide in realms of uncertainty. Frequent changes in policies, deregulation, competition, technological advances — they all throw curveballs that these leaders have to bat. Sometimes, they win, and sometimes, they lose. But I believe leaders who end up setting things in place that produce extraordinary results over time were chosen because they were really comfortable saying “I don’t know” until they knew. In other words, these leaders were picked because they spoke the truth, which is to say, “I don’t yet know, but I know we have to get it right.”

To illustrate, consider the American airline industry, and think of all the events and factors outside managerial control that have hit it since 1972 — fuel shocks, interest rate spikes, deregulation, price wars and the aftermath of 9/11. And yet, the best-performing company of all listed American companies in terms of return on investment for the 30-year period from 1972 was an airline!

According to Money magazine’s retrospective look in 2002, Southwest Airlines Co beat Intel Corp, Wal-Mart Stores, GE — all great Fortune 500 companies — because of a management team that refused to be cowed by externalities!

Now, what would have happened had the management said, “Hey, we can’t do anything great because of our environment”? You could say, “Yes, the airline industry is terrible. Everyone in it is statistically destined to lose money.” But at Southwest, the leaders said, “We are responsible for our own outcomes.” And they showed the world then what they could do!

To emulate Southwest’s long-term success, our political leaders must first grapple with this question: Who do we want in positions of influence when the future comes to visit? I mean, do we know what they really stand for? Can they do what needs to get done?

No rocket science-thinking here, folks, just clarifying what needs to be clarified to the voting public: “This is our rank of leaders, and this is what they stand for. And this is what they will do.” No obfuscation, no nonsensical political sound bites rehashed from time immemorial. Show us that your team has the ability to walk the talk and to make those difficult decisions that will propel Malaysia to greatness.

If you look at some of the great decisions in business history, you will note that the decision-makers had the discipline to manage for a quarter century, and not to duly worry about quarterly performances. An ability to see beyond the present, if you will.

Among the pantheon of great leaders of the 20th century that have moulded our present business landscape, take a look at Andy Grove when he decided to abandon memory chips at Intel. Who was Andy to think he could make computer chips a household name? But his decision gave us “Intel Inside”.

Let us review GE CEO Reg Jones’ unpopular choice of Jack Welch as his successor. Welch’s decision to set up Crotonville — a first-class leadership training centre that set the tone for thousands of businesses to create corporate universities — was epic, to say the least . That decision also helped develop a generation of leaders at GE who have gone on to run countless other major US companies successfully.

Take a gander at the Apple board’s decision to rehire Steve Jobs a decade after abruptly firing him. Name another global corporation where the CEO departed for a decade and returns to bring the organisation back to glory. He also made Apple the world’s most valuable company before he died.

Or study my favourite — Henry Ford’s decision to double the wages of his workers. In one genius stroke, it signalled to the industrial world that workers were no longer to be viewed as drones that are to be paid as cheaply as possible, but instead, as valuable assets who in turn could afford the very products they were producing. This triggered a consumer revolution that eventually helped create the wealthiest nation on earth. Now, that was a tectonic shift in thinking equal to 10 on the Richter scale!

These chosen leaders were brave and decisive. They were very clear that their ambition was for the long-term greatness of the company they represented.

Could our present crop of leaders, notably the politicians, do that for Malaysia, please?

Zakie Shariff sits on the board of two local universities and has a deep interest in developing strong corporate leaders

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.