IN politics, leadership matters. Unfortunately, here in Guyana, we have not been blessed with the most persistent enlightened political leadership. While we would not readily admit it, our admiration for our respective leaders is grounded more in ethnic insecurities than in measurable leadership attributes.

Yes, one cannot separate assessment of leadership qualities from our ethnic reality, but it should not be the only criterion by which those qualities are assessed. Many of us wonder in frustration why the younger generation is not as enamoured of our political titans of old. Does that tell us more about the quality of leadership than of the quality of younger people?

This is not to say that we have not had potentially good leaders who, from time to time, have stirred the imagination of our nation, or parts of it. We have had the Burnhams, the Jagans and the Rodneys who, in their separate ways, have left their marks on our segmented consciousness. Burnham and Jagan led the children out of bondage, and in the process carved out their own niches; and Rodney inspired hope for an alternative niche. But, for some reason, none of them have lived on politically in any big and profound way in the collective consciousness of the nation. Good leadership, like good music, must cut across the generational divide.

The truth is that they may have been victims of the decline of the charismatic Caribbean leader, whose god-like relationship with the masses ensured an almost uncritical hero-worship. Today, that regard exists mostly in the nostalgia of the older generations, or in the party faithful. That charisma, while serving the function of good-feeling, was in the final analysis not transformative. The intent may have been noble, but the legacy is far from noble. At some point, that reality would have to soak in.

This brings us to the present reality. David Granger is a new type of leader. He is not of the charismatic tradition, nor is he cut from the new technocratic cloth that seems to dominate Caribbean leadership these days. Although a military man by training, his politics do not flow from that authoritarian mindset. If ever there was a pragmatic Guyanese leader, that person would have to be David Granger. At least, he comes closest to it.

In policy terms, he is not deeply ideological. Despite attempts at being the party boss, he is not a party man by inclination. His initial ambivalence about partnership politics did not stand in the way of his emerging as a champion of this new politics.

To understand the essence of Granger the politician, therefore, one has to grapple with the challenges of contemporary Guyanese and Caribbean politics. Our society begs for order in our persistent chaos. It dreams of a leadership that tries to understand our inherent complexities. In many respects, it constructed the Granger way, perhaps in spite of Granger. One can’t help but admire his optimism and patience, whether it is with his partners in the Coalition or with the rampant Bharrat Jagdeo. But this was complemented with a sure-footed poise as he confronted the Maduro challenge.

Are we in the embryonic stage of a new model of leadership as we approach 50 years of independence? Time will tell, hopefully sooner rather than later.