Word and silence

In a bitter exchange between a Soviet police commissar and an intellectual described by Elie Wiesel in his play The Madness of God, the commissioner demands his listener to speak up and take a public stance to criticize his brethren on the grounds that “the word was given to man to use it and express himself.” The intellectual took less than a second to respond and said “and he also gave us silence comrade, also silence.” The same holds true in politics.
Few politicians can be associated with silence. Rhetoric, demagoguery and verbiage are much more common among them. Politics is a function and profession devoted to convincing and negotiating and the spoken word is its prime tool. As in everything else, balance is what matters: there are moments when a great speech is what is required, but in others, it is silence that becomes more valuable. Those who talk too much or those who remain silent when they need to take a stand end up becoming irrelevant.
There are politicians who are excessively fond of speaking (and quoting themselves) and believe that this is the way to maximize their impact. Others are more frugal and careful. Some have opinions about a few issues, others have opinions on everything. Some need the podium and the microphone more than they need oxygen and food. In public life, timing, circumstance and nature of the audience, all together, set the framework within which politicians operate. A speech in the Zocalo is not the same thing as a wake, and an intervention at a hearing of the congress is not the same as a state of the union address. Each circumstance requires its own form and content. But in each one can appreciate the difference in style and personality: those who speak profusely, those who remain silent and those who utter just the right words. As politics is full of narcissists, they all think they are unbeatable. But the relevant question here is which are more effective, which achieve a greater impact: which are worthy of respect.
Many believe that words are carried by the wind and therefore have no great value. But in politics words are sublime because they entail trust and bridge-building or distrust and animosity. A timely word can brighten a life and transform a nation while a misguided word expressed at the wrong time can destroy years of effort. Words imply commitment and involve responsibility. Those who abuse words loose all credibility. The success of politicians that history holds dear lies precisely in the value of the words that they uttered. Cicero, Churchill and Roosevelt are three examples of statesmen who turned words into leadership and, to a large extent, the reason for their success. Some of our recent presidents are remembered less for their discourse than for the abuse of it.
The case of former presidents can shed some light. Felipe Gonzalez, a Spanish president endowed with exceptional rhetorical skills and who had the ability to lead a successful political transition, tells that the day he ended his mandate, he decided to make a vow of silence to leave his successor unburdened, free to succeed but and also the freedom to fail. He illustrated his choice with an anecdote: a large Chinese vase placed in a museum can be an extraordinary piece to watch and appreciate, but the same vase placed in the living room of a house is nothing but an obstacle. A former president who talks too much is like a large Chinese vase in the middle of the living room.
Word and silence, the traits and tools of politics, are what make the great heroes of public life. When Don Miguel Mancera, the then director of the central bank in Mexico gave a speech, everyone awaited anxiously because he did not give too many and when he did, he was clear and blunt. Everyone listened. Every word counted, each sentence had a meaning and everything constituted a message that nobody in the financial world could afford to ignore.
Conversely, some of our legislators, governors, mayors and presidents assume that nobody is aware of the number of promises, observations, and accusations, all vain, that they put forth. The abuse of words among some of them is boundless. Unsubstantiated in real life, their statements -and excesses- all end in the gallows of credibility. The impunity they enjoy when they abuse with their rhetoric and speech (when not outright lies) largely explains the very low esteem people have for them. It is perhaps not a coincidence that many of the politicians who take the podium day after day are the same ones who remain silent when they should be speaking. Silences are as unforgivable as incontinence in the praise: both suggest masked complicity.
Although polls put all politicians together and show an almost generalized contempt for them, there are still many cases of exceptional dignity that show well earned respect. Don Luis H. Alvarez has made silence and prudence virtues that far outweigh the speeches of belligerent presidents. Cuauhtémoc Cardenas is meager in his words and generous in his silences. His transit through Mexican politics since he chose to break with the PRI has been incomparably richer and more powerful than that of his verbose peers. Francisco Labastida could have led a large encampment in the Zocalo and Reforma but opted to remain silent and be responsible, and today has become one of the nation’s most respected politicians. When he speaks, the rest listen. Not many senators can say the same thing.
Of course there are many more politicians more committed to demagoguery than to doing their jobs, but those who stand out and those who have reason to feel satisfied are those that make use of words and silence because they understand them as a commitment and as a means to accomplish something relevant, not as an end in itself. When describing Chou Enlai, Kissinger wrote that he exemplified the essential character of a statesman. The use of the word is undoubtedly one of its core components.
In their interchanges with the media, cheap politicians “leak” secrets, gossip and lies to discredit their enemies. Statesmen inform, explain and try to convince. Perhaps one of the reasons why we lack world-class investigative journalism across the spectrum is precisely because we have many more demagogues than likely statesmen. 
Words and silence are worthy when they are treasured and when this happens they acquire a higher value, a moral strength that transforms societies and changes the world. Hopefully, one day we will have one or two of those.