No Experience Needed

ZOLTON FERENCY, the perennial candidate for higher office in Michigan, surprised his liberal friends in 1980 when he reacted joyously to the rise of Ronald Reagan. He allayed the fears of his colleagues by reaffirming his distaste for right-wing policies, but Ferency explained that someone with his own poor political track record got great encouragement from a 68-year-old two-time loser who could come back and win all the marbles.

Like any president should, Reagan serves for many as a role model. Whether his story is the stuff that rekindles the flame within elder and has-been statesmen is at this point unclear. But he certainly has provided inspiration for another political sector. Reagan before running for president, was governor of California. And before running for governor, he was, well, nothing. Nothing, at least that involved government. The record he built as executive of the Golden State and the surprising success he has had in getting his policies implemented as chief executive of the nation have been for many sufficient proof that experience in government means little for governing.

Our President is really only the latest in a long series of "outsider" aspirants for executive positions: Wendell Wilkie and Dwight D. Eisenhower both sought the top job with no civilian government experience on their resumes. George Romney (R-Mich.). Milton Schapp (D-Pa.), John Y. Brown (D-Ky.). Lester Maddox (D-Ga.). and most prominently Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY.) all led their states without having led a previous major political office.

John R. Lakian now wants to join their ranks. Just two months ago, his claim to fame was simply being president of Fort Hill Company, a Westwood investment firm. Today, he is the leading candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Massachusetts. Never involved in "public service" he has, in his quest so far, embarrassed men whose years in the business should have afforded them a much greater advantage.

Lakian has a real shot at getting the party's nomination and consequently a chance at the governorship. But that should not surprise too many. Despite his previous absence from the political stage, he has two of the state's leading Republican strategists mapping out his path to the corner office of the statehuse. He also fits the New Politician's mold quite well. He is perceived as attractive and eloquent. He has the smile, the hand-pumping style, the "Hi, nice to meet you" greeting He's ethnic (Armenian) and a Vietnam vet.

LIKE EVERY GOOD POLITICIAN, he is trying to convert what may be his weakest point into a strength. Common sense tells most people that experience in a field is essential for success. In what we like to think of as a meritocratic society, people "work their way to the top" of their field. Not always so in politics. Distrust of career politicians is always latent, especially now: Lakian is playing on it for all he can. "I'm going on 40. [former Governor and current Democratic gubernatorial candidate] Michael Dukakis has been running for office since I was 19," he mentions frequently. He also takes great glee in reminding listeners that it has been well over two decades since Gov. Edward J. King, who is running for re-election, has earned a buck in the "private sector."

Lakian argues that life-time politicians ossify; they become too wrapped up in the preservation of the system, requiring a "flushing out" in the process. He favors limiting legislative tenure to 10 years for example. The logical extension of the philosophy that government officials make bad governors is that non-government officials make good governors. In this election year, in which he is the only non-career government official, that is the thrust of Lakian's campaign.

The candidate carefully avoids a trap many businessmen fall into when seeking a transfer into government because he asserts that the state must be charted on a business course. "Government is run for people not profits," he declares, making the rather uncontroversial assertion that a good governor needs "compassion with competence." But he sharply challenges the widespread assessment of the definitions. The compassion, he rightly points out, is innate. An understanding, a feel for human needs is not necessarily correlated with years in office. More importantly, he argues, neither is competence.

One story Lakian likes to tell is of recent committee hearings investigating the Department of Mental Health. "How many employees do you have?" one legislator asked the department's spokesman. "I don't know," came the response. "Well can you find out?" "It will take a while, we do it by hand." "Can you imagine," Lakian asks. "Wang computers working like that?" Two-thirds of a governor's job, this candidate says, involves efficiently managing these bureaus.

YEARS AS A LEGISLATOR, years as a bureaucrat "have nothing to do with executive ability." Lakian explains, adding that "a good university president has more qualifications than a state representative." The predominant skill necessary for a governor is the ability to manage and operate the state, to plan it as one would a company. That is the tool that requires experience and development. In effect, government is just one of many fields to which the professional "executive" can apply his expertise.

For support, Lakian cites Ronald Reagan. Without endorsing any specific policies. Lakian notes that Reagan ran a state efficiently without any of the government background everyone said was so necessary. But to contradict Lakian's argument, one could begin with the same example. There is now almost completely bipartisan sentiment that Reagan's policies and his politics are flawed. While 67 percent of a governor's time may be allocated to management--duties he could realistically transfer to an experienced executive aide--the other third is the most significant. The imagination required to coordinate a general policy and vision, the necessary timing and skills to secure legislation are in many ways unique to government and can only be developed there. Perhaps worse than entering such a job without the skills is to insist that they are not needed.