At a time when the upcoming election is starting to look like a referendum on the government's handling of the coronavirus crisis and politicians in Israel are having a hard time deciding whether the pandemic is an electoral asset or a millstone around their necks, the number of dead now exceeds 5,000.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The public is tired, engulfed by depression. Many people are at the end of their rope. By the end of March, Israel's COVID death toll is projected to reach 6,000, about the same number the Jewish Yishuv lost in the 1948 War of Independence. Of course, there are major differences between the two situations, but there is also at least one common denominator.
Then, like now, the public is looking toward the leadership, expecting it to conduct itself in a way that overcomes personal interests and immediate political calculations. The demand that politics and the pandemic be kept as separate as possible might sound naïve, not to mention detached from the cynical political reality. But when an election coincides with a situation of crisis and chaos (both of public health and economics) the like of which we haven't seen since the state was founded, the leadership needs to communicate with the citizens in a way that is totally different from what is taking place today.
The public longs for leadership that will give it strength and hope, and most of all, give meaning to the price they paid and the sacrifices they have been asked to make for nearly a year. It longs for a leadership that will talk to them and tell them the truth, even when the truth is hard to hear. It is asking for leadership that will share its difficulties and deliberations, demonstrate strength and faith, and be honest enough to point out vulnerabilities and weaknesses. The public wants success, but expects its leaders to be honest enough to admit to failures. These are the ABCs of rebuilding trust between society and the government – any government that is elected – when it comes to COVID.
Serving the nation
Only a few months ago, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem published a study that is relevant to the kind of rectification that is so needed now. Roy Katz and Professor Tsfira Grebelsky-Lichtman found that countries with female leaders stood out for handling COVID well. It turns out that female leaders connected to the public gently rather than aggressively, in a sharing, accepting way and not through threats and warnings and scare tactics. More distant history shows us that male leaders can do the same thing. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a figure that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admires greatly, took the same approach at one of the darkest times in human history.
Psychologist Nachi Alon once analyzed how Churchill's speeches managed to "create hope at a time of collective depression." It was a different era, of course, but also similar to what the Israeli public and many others in the world are experiencing because of COVID. In a long article that should be required reading for modern leaders, Alon describes how Churchill inspired and comforted his people, how he "gave them a sense of meaning and power, inspired them to enlist and take action." He did so, Alon says, "without playing down the dangers and awoke noble feelings of solidarity without sparking hatred. He appealed to every person without appealing to the most base common denominator, encouraged without flattery, and inspired pride without condescension. He was able to express the suffering of millions of people without glorifying it, and managed to show the good in humanity without denying the evil."
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
Alon writes that Churchill spoke little about himself, and when he did, he described himself as the spokesman of the nation and its servant. Rather than speaking in the first person, he used the uniting language of "we." In contrast to the screamed addresses of Britain's enemies, Churchill spoke quietly, in measured tones, as if he were talking with friends. He did not hide past failures but did not dwell on them, either.
Going against the DNA of politics
With all the differences, this is the approach we need today. World War II and Churchill are history, but the war on COVID is still going strong. It's different. This isn't a war between countries, but a war of all countries. And here in Israel, the discourse doesn't unite or bring us closer or embrace us, it is a multi-party battle of hatred and divisiveness and isolationism, as well as slander and accusations. "I," not "we," stand in the center.
The enormity of the crisis demands a different kind of dialogue. At a time like this, the leadership must first of all lift the public's spirits and not exploit its weakness in order to build on it politically. A responsible leadership would first tell itself and then the public that there is meaning to the difficulty and suffering they are experiencing; that these difficulties are part of the sacrifices we make because of our commitment to one another; that they are part of the war to keep people alive; that we're all in it together, especially for the sake of the weaker and more vulnerable.
The Israeli political leadership can't do that without a personal example. It's not just a matter of politicians forgoing their salaries (which came far too late), or making sure that social distancing rules are enforced equally, but also a matter of going out among the people. Just like it sounds. Outside. Face to face, looking people in the eye – at outbreak hotspots, in retirement homes, in hospitals, at soup kitchens, at closed-down shopping centers and malls. At the unemployment offices and job centers, with teachers and students and social workers, passengers on buses and trains, in Bnei Brak and in Mitzpe Ramon, in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv and Kiryat Shmona and Eilat.
Talk to the public, but mostly – listen. Go out to salve their wounded, not to score political points. Talk about what the various sectors have in common, not what differentiates them. Talk about the here and now, but also about the future. Lead the public, don't let them lead you, even if politically and in the short term it benefits you less to do so.
This kind of behavior might go against politicians' DNA in an election, but this is first and foremost a pandemic, with everything that entails. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who suggested that the public not ask what the country can do for them, but what they can do for their country, it would be appropriate if our own politicians were to stop asking themselves what they should do to get elected and start asking themselves what they should be doing.
