Political leadership: What’s that?

The title gives rise to some questions that need answers. For example, what is leadership? What is good leadership? Are our political leaders really worse than any we've had before? And are we better served in any other area? Not being a political expert my answers might please some and displease others.

Let me introduce you to the subject via Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, as Portia speaks to Shylock in Act IV, Scene I, saying:"The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heavenupon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

One hopes that leaders in Australian politics have been thus blessed. Unfortunately, my observations suggests they aren't.

So what is leadership? Leadership comes in many guises - Authoritative; Democratic; Laissez faire; Narcissistic. Perhaps the most common of these is narcissistic because of the still lingering effect of words once used to encourage junior army officers, non-coms and even privates to believe that all had a field marshal's baton in their kit bags.

Effectively the unintended consequence of this phrase is that it encouraged narcissists to think they have been blessed with leadership capacity. As a result, Australia's Federal, State and Territory Parliaments have become stages where political narcissists strut.

That apart, will the different types of leadership be effective in all situations or only in particular situations. Will authoritative leaders be effective in organisations where the basic structure is essentially democratic? I think not.

To quote another old phrase - "You need horses for courses." But regardless of finding "horses for courses," the best leadership is provided by men and women who, although their sympathies seem more aligned to one category, manage to combine elements of them all.

And can leadership be likened to greatness? I think so. And nor am I in doubt that some people are born leaders, some acquire leadership and as with greatness, some have leadership thrust upon them. Unfortunately, and apart from narcissists, I think Australia has too many people who think of themselves leaders but whose performance suggests they are without that basic sense of direction essential to all leaders, that they cover up courtesy of an outsized ego and an ocean of vanity.

But defining leadership is almost impossible as is evidenced by the tomes of Plato and Plutarch and since them by the thousands of academics, philosophers and psychologists who fill kilometre after kilometre of bookshelves with books on leadership. While some may be read, most are really intellectual exercises because leadership is something most will never practice outside the sphere of their particular discipline.

However Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, is one of many men who has displayed natural leadership as he made it one of the world's leading business organisations. Of leadership Welch says: "Good leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision and relentlessly drive it to completion." And whilst I agree with Welch, I'd like to add two other important qualities: Leaders should have a social conscience and be inspirational.

Not that all theoretical approaches to leadership are bad. Genentech scientistAndrew Keith, has described leadership as the "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task."

The reality is that while Keith's thinks of leadership as a process, Welch thinks leadership is an instinct. The difference between them? Keith's process tries to avoid mistakes being made (it rarely happens), while Welch's is to do and find out.

Keith's is only one of the definitions based on the theoretical approch. Psychologist Dr Ken Ogbonnia who is also the CEO of Texas Enegy says: "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen." Or "effective leadership is the ability to successfully integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and external environment for the attainment of organizational or societal goals."

Generally speaking, most people in Australia associate the word 'leader' with politicians, although people prominent in the Arts, business and sport occasionally are called leaders. I also hear local business people being called leaders, although often the appellation is dubious. But local communities too have leaders who, sadly often go unrecognised. These leaders are often teachers. Many surveys highlight that when children have been asked who most affected their lives for the better, teachers often topped the list.

I return to politics, suggesting that political leadership has declined rapidly and the quality of Australian Federal, State and Territory parliaments has declined as if in sympathy. Politicians of substance have become noticeable by their absence.

I also believe that this has ramifications outside Australia. With communication technology shrinking the world, it is no longer a good enough excuse for Australia to say we are falling behind the rest of the world because of distance. That we fall behind is because the narcissists in our Federal Government seem more interested in promoting themselves than Australia.

Indeed family members interested in politics who live in the US, UK, NZ and Japan have said to me that some of our current politicians remind them of those gauche Australians who in years gone by, contributed to creating a bad impression of Australia. They may well be overstating things, but looking at the performance overseas of some Australians on TV makes one pause to think.

True boasting about one's country comes with the job of a politician, but the attitude of some Australian politicians leaves much to be desired. Clever some may be, but sometimes they seem too clever by half. Many also seem to have forgotten they are not performing to a captive Australian audience and speaking personally, recent performances of the Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister plus the Foreign Minister left me unimpressed.

I was unimpressed also with the acrimonious debates between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on a wide range of subjects such as global warming, carbon tax, NBN and many other issues of importance plus the appalling mishandling of the asylum seeker issue. Who do voters blame most? No doubt the next federal election will make this clear.

At the same time the Liberal and Labor parties seem to be fighting each other for the titles of incompetent and untrustworthy. They have resorted also to behaviour, albeit not physical, that in less democratic countries, often decide the person of Prime Minister and government. Speaking metaphorically, just as it happens in those less democratic countries, Australians have witnessed the assassination of a Prime Minister and a no less lethal determination of the Opposition leader's fate. This is known as democracy in action.

However with the words of Jack Welch in mind, let me ask voters what they look for in political leaders? Dotheylook for decision makers with Integrity and vision, who have identified the issues that voters think will be as important in the future as they are today? Or, do they look for politicians who are better at following orders than in thinking about and speaking out about what needs to be done?

Sadly, as most have found out, because speaking out carries political costs, something that few are prepared to do, politicians and wannabe politicians of that ilk are hard to find.

But of one thing I am sure. Voters do not want a continuation of the current government structure in which an Oligarchy, comprising a handful of Green and a few allegedly Independents, is helping a minority Labor Government stay in power.

In a sense, the oligarchs have become arbiters of government policy although the policies seem to be policies that most voters don't want. And, however sanguine Labor and the Oligarchs feel now, if government doesn't change for the better and if voters' current disenchantment with the government continues until the next election, Labor and its Oligarch friends might have good reason to feel less sanguine.

Voter disenchantment is now so high that some people within the Labor and Liberal Parties are openly discussing the possibility that in their present form, there is no room for them in a changing world. Young people in general, not just university students, are casting aside the old attitudes and looking to create new parties.

This is not a new idea. In 1991, I founded a political party in Canberra to contest the 1992 Territory election in the hope of encouraging young Canberrans to start looking at the future. Thus was born the Canberra Unity Party which fielded five candidates: A lady who has since become one of Australia's leading advocates for refugees; a former Labor Member of the Assembly prior to self government (sadly now dead); a young small business man; the young wife of a small builder; and myself – a retired and disabled pensioner and the oldest party member who could barely walk. In fact, I announced the formation of the party while in hospital following a major operation.

Unsurprisingly, it was difficult to get people to look towards the future because many of them did not want self-government and so were inclined to look at the Unity Party, which did, as upstarts. Suffice to say the party was unsuccessful.

But now, young people in particular, are demanding their policy ideas be listened to. And they also want policies that will help the wider community, not just policies to suit particular interests. What they do not want are policies that have been devised simply as tools with which to poke political opponents in the eye.