Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Political leadership – when there are no winners

By Gary Neat - posted Friday, 28 October 2011


We're a cynical lot! Ever since Federation we've lampooned our political masters, but even our iconic PM's could never have imagined the maelstrom that is the 24-hour news phenomenon.

Combine this national cynicism with a population which is increasingly time poor and message saturated and you have an alarming disconnect between the electorate and its leaders.

Into this communication black hole have stepped Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott – two tough, highly intelligent people but both seemingly devoid of that most requisite of new communication-age leadership attributes – language-impact skills.

Advertisement

Political leadership is not meant to be easy. But, it's also not meant to be impossible. Political leadership, indeed leadership of any kind, starts with resilience. Without resilience you'll eventually fail – both because of your own insecurities and because others will quickly assess your vulnerability.

Effective political leaders also need a 'narrative' by which they can position not only themselves but their political movement. What distinctive value do they bring to the political debate? What's their point of positive differentiation? And, of course this is all pointless unless you can enunciate your platform with clarity.

Some leaders fail because they long to be liked, when what most voters actually want is a leader they can respect. There is a difference.

Political leadership in Australia also seems increasingly thwarted by minders who, brain-dead for imaginative photo opportunities, insist on the daily diet of shopping centre walks or factory visits – always wearing a hardhat. Each event is then capped off by the obligatory interview-grab with fawning local members/candidates nodding furiously in agreement in the background. So, overwhelmed by the repetitive boredom of this daily diet of democracy, is it any wonder that Australians are turning off political leadership in alarming numbers?

The measure of a political day's success should not be how many spots you garner on the TV and radio bulletins, or the column inches in the papers. Rather, it should be the audience's responsiveness to whatever is your message.

If great leaders tend to be those who seize opportunities, then a "walk-thru" in a mall is hardly an act of statesmanship. Neither is wearing a factory hardhat, riding a bike or that riskiest of shallow photo-ops – trying to engage crèche children in casual conversation (with a dozen cameras and microphones hovering).

Advertisement

The perceived loss of political leadership can be partly attributed to the current players, but overall it's a worldwide trend. Turnover of democratically elected leaders, and more recently even dictators, is gathering momentum. Saturation media coverage and the instant headlines of the blogosphere together with social and economic upheaval are placing a premium on effective political leadership. With no circuit breaker in sight it can only get worse.

What then is the alternative? Australia, where healthy cynicism was once a strength has much to lose. Without some truly dramatic intervention, Australia's faith in political leadership will continue to plummet. Have we become so apathetic, so self-absorbed and blinded by our economic boom that we can't envisage the harm to Australian society by our leadership woes? Despite our economic wellbeing we're increasingly despondent and despairing of political leadership in general.

Perhaps because leaders generate less authority in today's message jungle, we ourselves are more unforgiving and less inspired by a political system seemingly obsessed by party political sniping and personalities than real substance and meaningful social change.

Witness the collapse of the core supporter base of the major parties. It was once their bedrock – unshifting, immoveable – and taken for granted. But, voter volatility is now rampant and woe-behold any government faced with a by-election in such times.

Still, in the age of the 24 hour news cycle and the social media phenomenon are we expecting too much of our leaders? If it was as simple as delivering a strong economy, peace and low unemployment then few of our leaders in the past 20-years would have ever lost office.

Regrettably, the political leadership game in 2011 is essentially about making yourself a small target whilst at the same time creating a positive aura. Yes, a bit like trying to read in the dark without a light!

If business leaders imagine they've got it tough, try existing in the daily heat of politics. Resilience is essential for any good leader, but in politics you need it armour-plated. Then there's the remuneration, which despite the almost life and death decision-making, is poor by corporate standards. Family life is fractured. A truism is that everyone wants something from you. It's draining and unforgiving.

A political leader in 2011 has multiple audiences including rabid party apparatchiks, so-called allies who covet your job, an increasingly dysfunctional and headline-obsessed media, shock jocks paid more than you yet who must be pandered to, the blogosphere and of course an ever fickle public.

Trust is rarely extended or received in politics. Leadership, always a lonely sport, is exemplified in politics by its sheer loneliness. Why bother you ask? Well, that's a question you'll never get a straight answer to in politics. Suffice to say that depending on the individual it's a mix of hubris, vaulting ambition, idealism and a personal agenda you'll probably never uncover.

My local member, a seemingly idealistic first termer, letterboxed me this month with his 4-page electorate newsletter. Not much content really unless you count his eye-popping 17 personal photographs. No lack of hubris there! You can't buy credibility, but you can throw it away.

From experience, most politicians secretly carry a fantasy field Marshall's baton in their backpack. The aphrodisiac of ministerial limousine leather is intoxicating for many and can inspire the same obsequious behaviour found in many a corporate office. One state backbencher I once knew would mow his leader's lawns to ingratiate himself. Sadly, it worked!

As we spiral downwards in political credibility, perhaps we need to collectively examine where we're heading with our democratic fundamentals and our communication industry.

For Example:

· How do we create an enhanced political environment to facilitate not only better leaders, but also a system that nurtures young politicians away from the grasping and degenerative hold of the party machines? Is Westminster still the most appropriate forum in the 21st century for Australia? Has the compulsory voting system outlived its original purpose? Do we really need Upper Houses in our state parliaments? Should the Governor General or another body have greater sway and retribution over parliamentary behaviour and performance?

· The-24 hour news cycle and the social media revolution have changed forever how we acquire information. Good communication can enhance relationships, good government and society in general. But, manipulative communication can trivialise issues and undermine the very fabric of that same society. The more persuasive – and that should but doesn't currently include our political leaders – can use media either to improve society or to ridicule. How do we limit the 'cowboys' and their penchant towards instant headlines without verification?

Unlike Australia, very few countries have embraced a compulsory voting system instead preferring an optional system. For most of my voting life I've been a defender of the Australian system where every man and woman over 18 is required to vote or be fined. To me it was the ultimate form of democracy - everyone's opinion, no matter your social, economic or racial background is valued and counted. But, times change and more lately I've embraced optional voting as an answer to some of our political weaknesses.

In recent years I've watched a dumbing-down of political messages in order to placate an already apathetic electorate. If an issue or idea requires more than a 10-second news-bite or a blogosphere headline, then it's jettisoned. Multi-layered issues like climate change or the NBN become lost in phoney sound-bite warfare. No one wins and certainly not this country.

Unlike compulsory voting, an optional system might not require our political leaders to adopt the lowest common denominator every time they explain an issue. If you wanted to vote, you could. If you didn't – and this is pure democracy - then you wouldn't have to. Imagine how we might raise the bar on political debate if our political leaders didn't have to factor in the lazy and the disinterested when outlining an issue? Would it be elitist or simply a pragmatic approach to improving the standard of debate and hence government in this country?

Sadly, in my professional life I've found that the two professions least interested in examining their own navels are – yes, you guessed it – politicians and the media.

In an era when politics is trying to find a voice which the public will listen to and the old media is struggling for relevance, reform of both arenas from within is lamentably unlikely.

Indeed, my wager would be on New Media finding workable solutions long before political leadership can extract itself from the mire. And, that's not good news at all for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Gary Neat is a former National President of the Australian Institute of Management, a Behavioural Strategist and Company Chairman, a former Political and Foreign Correspondent and the Campaign Director of 20+ election campaigns. He also has a Masters Degree in International Management.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gary Neat

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy