Is political leadership a lost art?

Winston Churchill once said, "courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities . . . because it is the quality which guarantees all others."Leadership and courage are interdependent. You cannot have one without the other.

Despite some rare exceptions, Australians could be forgiven for holding a cynical and pessimistic view of our political leaders and the distinct lack of courage demonstrated by them in their political decision-making. Politicians are loath to tell voters things they don't want to hear, especially if it requires change or a consideration of the long-term perspective.

This, combined with an avaricious media driven by a 24-hour news cycle and an apparently apathetic, time-poor, politically ignorant, entertainment-addicted electorate, seems to have resulted in us being subjected to a seemingly endless cycle of tit for tat sound bites between warring parties, who insist on reducing complex issues to slogans designed to appeal to a carefully selected voting audience.

This does nothing to promote respect and admiration for the high office of political leadership and does not permit us the luxury of being inspired by robust rhetoric, a solemn soliloquy or an arousing oratory. But has this always been the case?

Surely there was a time when politicians were respected and admired by the voting public for having the courage of their convictions? When their vision was inspirational, their integrity was beyond doubt, and their enunciation of the issues and policies that affected our lives carried the gravitas that we now only see in Hollywood films?

Of course there were. Winston Churchill's rousing speeches and stoic leadership united Britain during its darkest hour and gave hope in the face of defeat. Nelson Mandela's long walk to freedom inspired not just a nation, but also the world. Ben Chifley's 'Light on the Hill' vision helped shape Australia and its values for over half a century.

The characteristics common to each of these leaders highlight the differences between an appointed leader and truly great leadership. Today we are confronted by largely homogenised political parties, which do not seem to hold any particular long-term vision other than re-election. Their respective leaders change according to who is more popular, not according to who might make the better leader.

In his book, 'Sideshow', Lindsay Tanner writes, "the creation of appearances is now far more important for leading politicians than is the generation of outcomes." Inspired leadership requires an investment of time and effort by both the leader and the follower that some argue is impossible to achieve in a world dominated by the white noise and 100-character attention span of the Twitter generation.

Laurie Oakes, in his recent Andrew Olle lecture, claims that the media is not responsible for politicians failing to make decisions and develop policies in the national interest, rather, he says, the problem is "weak politicians." Oakes recalls things weren't all that different 40 years ago when Billy McMahon was campaigning and espousing rhetoric like: "We will honour all the problems we have made."

Hardly the stuff of a great leader but McMahon is not the only leader in history to fail to display a level of gravitas that could change a nation for the better. George W Bush is infamous for his many pearls of wisdom including, "they misunderestimated me," and "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." And he was elected. Twice.

This, perhaps inadvertent acknowledgement by Bush that democracy is hard (or that authoritarianism is easier) demonstrates the challenges of good leadership.

Philosophers have contemplated the elements of good leadership for millennia. Lao Tzu suggested that leadership is about guiding constituents in a humble, caring, compassionate yet straightforward manner and that a good leader leads not by preaching or politicking but by example, by their honourable actions.

Aristotle too suggested that character and virtue are the basis of good leadership and that virtue can be learned through experience. Those virtues include integrity, dignity, humility, intelligence, wisdom, conviction, compassion, gravitas, selflessness, and courage.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) arguably should know and understand the importance of effective leadership better than most. Ithas found components of leadership common to many definitions. These include, to influence; to persuade people to consent to follow voluntarily without coercion; to work collectively; and strive to achieve a common goal within an ethically acceptable framework. Their definition of leadership is 'the art of influencing and directing people to achieve willingly the team or organisational goal."

The common theme is that leadership requires the consent of the willing. This suggests that a leader will be followed willingly if liked. But this is what makes good leadership so difficult.In no conception of leadership is there any necessary linkage with popularity. One might have admired John Howard's leadership but that didn't necessarily mean you liked him. In other words, "leadership is not likership."

Focus groups and opinion polling often drives politics into a populist and petty rabbit hole, which fails to take into account the fact that followers often cannot see the longer-term wisdom or collective benefit of change.

The lack of sensible bipartisan agreement on major reform agendas, including issues such as tax reform, environmental protection, water management, health reform and education policy results in a short-term focus which never looks beyond the next election period and seeks to retain votes at the expense of visionary leadership. The misinformation and over-simplification surrounding the recent carbon tax debate highlights this problem, reducing a brave and much-needed act of international leadership to a game of political football.

The subjects of tax reform and water management provide a useful entrée to acknowledge some recent examples of leadership in the Australian political context.

Former Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry, the son of a forestry worker from northern NSW, demonstrated strong leadership during his distinguished career as an economist and public servant. It was Henry's analysis and personal leadership that convinced the Government to take the necessary steps to avert a financial crisis in Australia in 2007. Henry was also responsible for undertaking a root-and-branch tax review in 2009 that provides a blueprint for future tax reform.

Members of the Australian Public Service (APS) should, by virtue of the construct of the organisation, be apolitical, however this should not preclude senior, experienced and credible public servants from having an opinion on matters that fall within their area of expertise. Ken Henry consistently showed the courage of his convictions as a leader in the APS. He took a strong and economically sound stance on climate change and water management policy, stating his concerns over the costly and hastily-conceived 2007 Murray-Darling Basin plan, despite having his criticisms angrily dismissed by then Minister for Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull.

Another example of inspired leadership from within the ranks of our public service has come from recently retired Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Traditional perceptions of the effectiveness of a military leader have been based on performance in the crucible of conflict, but to measure leadership only in this way is to sell some leaders short. Despite his career spanning from 1970 to 2011, Houston was unknown to the public until he was thrust into the limelight as Acting Chief of the Defence Force in 2001 during the so-called "Children Overboard" affair.

His testimony to a Senate Enquiry into those events contradicted the "official" version stated by Peter Reith and John Howard, sparking public outrage and leading to speculation that Houston's career would be finished as a result. Howard demonstrated his shrewdness by consequently appointing Houston as CDF in 2005, recognising Houston's leadership ability and credibility in such a crucial position. Christopher Hitchens has argued that political, moral and physical courage are not axiomatically linked but Houston defies that charge. Throughout his tenure as CDF, Houston had a well-deserved reputation for integrity, compassion, dignity, courage and leadership by example.

Looking to Houston and Henry as exemplars we can identify some common traits of inspired leadership. These common character traits include a demonstrated courage of their convictions that was unwavering even when challenged. Both were willing to pay a high personal and professional cost rather than compromise their position. Arguably Kevin Rudd would have benefited from this same characteristic when charged with developing policy to address the "the greatest moral challenge of our time" only to shelve it when it polled poorly with the voters.

Gandhi stated that "a 'no' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble." Unfortunately for Rudd, his failure to act on his convictions not only didn't allow him to avoid trouble; it landed him in it.

But when there is no war to be won, nation to free, or moral challenge to address, how should one measure the success of a leader?

Professor Keith Grint argues that to ignore the 95 per cent of times when there is no battle, where there is in fact some form of stability, is to perhaps misidentify the more successful leader - the one who succeeded in avoiding the crisis in the first place.

The Gillard government is currently negotiating yet another trade agreement with the US – the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. It appears at first glance to be a seemingly relatively benign exercise, but it has the power to drastically change domestic healthcare policy. If Gillard fails to demonstrate some courageous political leadership during these negotiations, healthcare values established and embedded by Ben Chifley, namely the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) and its insurance of access to affordable medicines for all Australians, will be but one area that is emasculated by the deal.

This is Gillard's time. She should utilise the Occupy Wall St momentum and define this moment by resisting the US push for an unfair trade deal. This would prevent a healthcare crisis from developing. Gillard will then leave a small but significant legacy - as the courageous leader who did not bow down to corporate US interests and sell out the PBS on her watch.

Perhaps the problem with leadership is not so much a dearth of courage in our political leaders but rather complacency within the electorate that fails to demand it from them.

John F Kennedy said that, "a nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life, is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today." An electorate that has become self interested and narrow in vision deserves no better from its leadership.

We must pull the I-pods from our ears, the flat screen from our eyes and hear and see the world around us as it really is. If then we decide that what we need is a renewed community enthusiasm for bold and imaginative political leadership that looks beyond populism and party politics, then we must genuinely and actively engage with the political process.

The only thing we can control with any level of certainty are our own choices. In order to be led by leaders with virtue we must each play our part, whether as public servants or as voters, in making such a choice. Only then will we be rewarded with the kind of leadership that can bring that future about.