Is political leadership a lost art?

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.