It’s an odd life for American heads of state. After learning and practicing the lessons of leadership at the highest level and serving their country for, at most, eight years, they are termed out and must retire to fundraising, public speaking, and unofficial political influence. Is leadership really in such great supply that there are no official duties for the likes of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush?
No man is an island
Take a look at Haiti, a nation whose corrupt, unstable institutions have hampered its development as much as frequent natural disasters and the desperate poverty of its citizens. Haiti is the recipient of American foreign aid, diplomatic missions, and numerous visits by well-meaning politicians -- everyone from Clinton to Jimmy Carter. Yet poverty, unemployment, corruption, and lack of infrastructure remain facts of daily life for huge segments of the Haitian populace. What Haiti really needs is good leadership in the form of a Clinton. Not Hillary; the other one.
Bill Clinton, stopping by Port-au-Prince on a recent charitable visit, noted that his 1994 restoration of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the twice-deposed former president of Haiti, was the beginning of something good. Why not follow through and give the Greater Antilles nation the leadership it so sorely needs? If Bill Clinton became the chief executive of Haiti, his analytical mind and sure statesman's hand could set the country on a path to recovery that René Préval, the divisive current president, may not be able to realize. Simply by virtue of who he is, Clinton enjoys a higher level of worldwide political capital than Préval, and would probably be able to command the attention of other world leaders in a way that Préval can't.
What at first seems impossible should not. Haiti is not a rival; its goals are not likely to conflict with American policy. But just to be sure, Clinton should not have responsibility for foreign policy among his duties -- hence the "chief executive" title. His service to Haiti, far from somehow compromising his loyalty to the United States, would benefit both nations, as a troubled state would gain a measure of stability and prosperity, and the world's political goodwill would be reflected back upon Clinton and the U.S.
South of the border
Mexico, meanwhile, is currently struggling with its drug wars. The violent turf battles have been especially difficult to stop in part because of bribery and corruption within the legal institutions, from the police up to the courts. Whatever else may be said about the presidency of George W. Bush, he was single-minded in his efforts to battle what he perceived as a destructive force. Bush may have played fast and loose with Constitutional rules and the public trust, but he did so in order to concentrate power in the executive branch that could be used to defeat foreign enemies. While this tendency nearly caused a Constitutional crisis in the United States, it may be what Mexico needs in order to successfully fight its internal drug war. Bush could be the Mexican drug czar and help that government regain its focus in the fight against bloodshed and drug trafficking.
Bush oversaw the buildup of the largest intelligence and security network in history. While his programs were highly controversial in the United States for the way they prioritized intelligence and security issues over civil liberties, Mexico's drug and violence problems will probably require more government intervention, not less: more organization, more control, and more authority for law enforcement. This is an area in which the former president has more than suitable experience. Plus, according to most sources, Bush has an adequate command of Spanish.
It's true that the Bush administration often played power politics, bestowing its share of favors on Halliburton and various defense contractors who benefited from the constant state of war, and rewrote government policies to serve political purposes. That, however, will be for the Mexicans to evaluate. Bush would not be given the presidency; Felipe Calderòn would retain that title. Instead, Bush could use what he's learned from his time in the White House to run the drug enforcement program at Calderòn's discretion. It has not been easy to find politicians to oversee the enforecement of drug laws who are not themselves tainted by connections with the cartels.
Would developing nations ever want a former American head of state to take command? Not likely, given the current global climate of suspicion and uncertainty. It's true that in a certain light, the idea bears a resemblance to the colonial practices of an earlier era. But that's the wrong way to think about it. What is being proposed here is more about leadership. A politician's strengths need not pass into obsolescence after a certain number of years, not if international political leadership became a professionalized industry. The demand for experienced leaders is already there; what's needed now is the supply. The route is uncertain and new rules will surely have to be devised, but this is still an experiment worth making.
