I looked it up. “To preside over means to be in charge of something” – such as an activity or event. Similarly, whoever presides is in “control of” or “responsible for” the activity or event. Sounds a lot like the word “leader” – often defined as the person in “a position of authority and control.”
The question this raises is how much – if any – credit is due French President Emannuel Macron for what by every account were the stunningly successful Paris Olympics? Did he lead the Olympics? Did he just preside over them? Is there in this case a meaningful difference? Does Macron get any laurels for what transpired during the 16 days of “the remarkable Olympics”? Or was he just a bystander, an observer of what happened, not a participant in making it happen?
Here is what we know. There is unanimous agreement that the Paris Olympics ended as they began – “with a raucous spectacle before a joyous crowd.” There is unanimous agreement that the Olympics were “a miracle of detailed planning and execution.” And there is unanimous agreement that on account of the Olympics the French are experiencing “a new self-confidence” and a “core of pride” at their accomplishment. But the achievement was not merely technical. In a country that for years has made headlines because of its fractiousness, the Olympics testified to French inclusiveness.
Macron was not literally the leader of the French Olympics. Literally they were led by a man named Tony Estanguet, president of the Paris Olympics organizing committee. It was he and his team who were responsible for the specifics: for the day-to-day, years-long planning of what turned out a singularly spectacular event. But does this mean that Macron deserves no credit at all for presiding over the event? For leading the country within which the spectacular took place?
I am including in this post links to three of my previous pieces about Macron – the man I consider the exemplar of liberal leadership in the 21st century. The exemplar of how hard it is to lead during a time in which even the best and brightest of liberal leaders are resisted by their reluctant and recalcitrant followers.
Before the Olympics France was stuck in a political quagmire – stuck with a newly elected Parliament so badly divided it was not clear how a governing coalition could be formed. After the Olympics this did not change. The quagmire did not magically disappear, nor did French fraternity magically reappear. But for at least one brief shining moment Paris, “the City of Lights,” shone as brilliantly as ever in its history. How it’s possible to deny the French president considerable credit for the enchantment escapes me.