At some moment, it seemed very likely that the pension reform would finally be approved, as the idea was gaining support everywhere. But some special interest groups thought they could hash out some last-minute compromises.

One day, I was petitioned to attend, by myself, a closed-door meeting with the top union leaders of the country. After a round of cordial greetings, their spokesman explained that, although they were ideologically opposed to the reform, they knew that it was likely to be passed.
"We have come to suggest to you that our support could be helpful in the future. After all, you are a young man of 30, maybe with a promising political career in front of you. . . . So, we are willing to immediately give you our public support, as long as you are reasonable and modify a single detail in your project: instead of giving workers the right to choose the manager of their individual accounts, it should be the exclusive decision of the directors of the unions to which workers belong."

He continued: "The workers, Mr. Minister, do not know how to make a decision of that nature. If we can come to an agreement about this, we will be very pleased to be of use to you in the future."

I must confess to having been surprised, not only by the brazen nature of the offer, but also by the Olympian contempt they showed for the freedom and dignity of the workers. In formulating a response, I opted for humor. "Unfortunately, I cannot accept the offer that you have come to tender, because I am concerned with saving your souls."

"How is that, by God?" shouted several of them at the same time.

"It's just as you heard it, gentlemen. As we all know, union leadership in our country has always been highly politicized, but it is not corrupt. If the manager selection becomes a union leader decision - as opposed to one made by each worker - you directors would be inundated by so many pressures that it would not be easy to maintain your integrity. The pension managers, who would love to manage the retirement savings of large groups, will find it much cheaper to corrupt union officials than to compete for the accounts in the free market by offering better returns or lower commissions. I will not accept that, because it will lend itself to temptations which none of you would want to face."

Nobody raised his voice after that. The meeting was quietly adjourned, though much less cordially than it had begun.

The next visit was that of the chairmen of the most powerful banks in Chile.
They told me they fully supported the concept of private individual retirement accounts, but that they wanted the system to be managed only by the banks. One of them even made an impassioned argument against allowing "foreign" financial institutions to manage the workers' retirement savings.

As I had the trade union leaders', I pondered their arguments but rejected their position completely. Competition was crucial to providing good service. And it was out of the question for me to restrict workers' choices to grant Chilean financial businessmen a monopoly on managing the system.

I knew I was creating adversaries, but there is nothing more dangerous than diluting the coherence of a reform in order to please those with vested interests. It is not only moral and intellectual dishonesty, but also very bad policy.

Those two meetings reminded me of Thomas Jefferson's words, which had been engraved on my mind and soul since I first read them: "Whenever a man casts a longing eye on public office, a rot begins in his conduct."

The key phrase here is "a longing eye", by which Jefferson distinguished between the necessary role of public men and the illegitimate desire to hold office for reasons of private gain. In fact, a Republic needs patriots willing to sacrifice themselves in public service working hard, honestly and truthfully in the quest for the common good.

But a Republic is corrupted when individuals use a public office to serve their own appetite for power, money or glory, or to favor relatives, friends or political colleagues. America's Founding Father saw the need for real leaders - leaders who are willing in other words to place the common good above everything else - in order for a republic to survive and prosper.
And in this statement, he also illuminated clearly the difference between this type of leadership and the mere quest for power that is the curse of most of today's politics.

This story is contained in the booklet "Empowering Workers: The Radical Reform of Pensions in Chile" - downloadable for free as a PDF file.