Lessons for history from an Australian prime minister

This is a speculative essay. It asks why, in a modern democracy, Australia should elect a Prime Minister who is widely and internationally criticised as overly militaristic and not that caring of the welfare of its people. The response is that he is the type of leader that the human race has sought since time immemorial. A further speculation is that if the world is to reduce the suffering from war that we see so distressingly around us, it needs to think through the types of leaders that it elects, and the ways in which they interact with each other.

Australians learned recently that senior government sources told Fairfax Media that the driving force for the formal request received from the United States for the RAAF to join the air campaign in Syria came more from Canberra – and in particular the Prime Minister's office – than from Washington.

This should come as no surprise to them. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, has taken an aggressive international stance since his earliest days in office. Some would say that he has spent much of his Prime Ministership pushing the country to a war. He has been described by one of Australia's leading columnists, Michelle Grattan, as " pugilist Abbott"

For ordinary people, this aggressiveness raises the question of why? And can we learn lessons from him on why the world has been near constantly at war since its earliest days? Is there a type of leader that is inclined towards military aggression? Was he (for they are, with a few exceptions, almost always a "he"), and all other aggressive leaders, born that way? Is it because they have conservative or right wing leanings? If we choose such leaders, then why? Australia knows Tony Abbott reasonably well; can his actions give us insights into the many aggressive leaders over history?

First task is to recap Abbott's aggressive positions from his earliest days as Prime Minister. It started with Indonesia. The refusal to apologise for the bugging of the phones of the Indonesian President S .B. Yudhoyono and his family put Australia offside with the leader of another country.SBY in a twitter post, suggested "Australia's strategic relationship with his country is at risk". Also the early days of stopping the boats, Abbott went very close to a military confrontation with Indonesia. Joko Widodo's blunt warning to Prime Minister Tony Abbott is evidence. Widodo raised concerns about Australia's unilateral and confrontational asylum seeker policies and specifically warned against the possibility of Australian naval vessels venturing into Indonesian waters without permission (as they had done on five previous occasions). "We give a warning that this is not acceptable," said Joko, in an exclusive Fairfax Media interview.

Abbott's unfortunate essay into shirtfront diplomacy was instinctive. He could barely wait to accuse Vladimir Putin of being responsible for downing MH17. A Sydney Morning Herald leader, comparing Abbott with Obama, tells us that Obama'sinstinct is caution. But that Abbott is "always spoiling for a fight".During his student days, he arranged a pro John Kerr rally and later a pro-Thatcher demonstration at Oxford over the Falklands War.For non-Australians, John Kerr was the Governor General who dismissed a left wing government on budget issues, for which he was constantly reviled by members of the left. According to historian Phillip Knightley, "The remaining years of Sir John Kerr's life were miserable ones. He was "subject to relentless harassment whenever he appeared in public."

Tony Abbott was brought up to be combative. His biographer MichaelDuffy notes his 'combativeness', his 'punchiness' his 'natural aggressiveness'. Abbott's father told Tony he was superior to most of those around him. He was treated differently to his three sisters; one later recalled that ''Tony was the star''.

Men of Tony Abbott's nature have started wars since time immemorial. But what is the common element? If there is one (?). George W Bush, a conservative, started the Iraq war. Is it because he was a conservative? One of the "most hawkish" figures in Australia's expert community is Jim Molan, a retired major general and the former commander of the Coalition operation in Iraq in 2004. Molan, now seeking Liberal (right wing) endorsement for the Senate, supports the expansion of Australia's air war into Syria "not to increase the effectiveness of the air campaign but to solidify resolve." A statement, signed by high-profile journalists Tariq Ali, Laurie Penny, Naomi Klein, Jon Ronson and Johann Hari, presenters in The Festival of Dangerous Ideas took aim at the festival's co-curator, and of the Ethics Centre, for the involvement of one of its board members, Major General Andrew James Molan, in the "unjust treatment of asylum seekers in Australian-controlled detention centres".

Even the Obama administration believes that the US military votes right wing. Certainly conservatives in the US support Abbott's position.

Conservatives are combative. Sarah Palin recently backed Donald Trump on his hard line on immigration issues, particularly his assertion that immigrants must speak English. "I think I'd rather have a president who is tough and puts America first than can win a game of Trivial Pursuit," she said. Both are right wing conservative.

World War II was started by Adolf Hitler, but was Hitler a conservative? He had conservative elements – the hankering to restore Germany's original power and prestige may be considered a conservative bent – but the name of his party was the National Socialist Workers Party or Nazi Party, and it grew out of a pro-worker background. Historians and biographers note some difficulty in identifying Adolf Hitler's political views. This writer views him as predominantly conservative, due primarily to his aggressive militaristic stance.

The unprovoked ,and unnecessary, invasion of neutral Belgium, devised by the Prussian military, and supported by Kaiser Wilhelm II, was a major cause behind WWI The Kaiser was an" overtly militaristic man". And also perhaps not all that bright . His long-serving chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, is described as "arch-conservative".That war, with the loss of sixteen million lives, and the sowing of seeds for a second World War, was a major disaster for the human race. Was the conservatism of the Prussian Military, and the Kaiser, the cause?

Is it that, from time to time, nations throw up leaders, or inherit them, who are aggressive, and that we support them? Historians tell us that the outbreak of World War I saw massive demonstrations of national support on both sides of the war. There also is no doubt that a spike in Mr Abbott's support has been due to his forceful role in international affairs.

Is it also a fact that the leaders we support are somewhat ruthless? Most leaders over history were less than warm hearted.The military aggressors of history - Alexander, Constantine, Richard the Lion Heart, inherited their titles. Alexander the Great, attacking Thebes, offered a full pardon for all those that would take it. The Thebans gave him an insulting reply, so Alexander killed six thousand of them, demolished their city, and sold all of the surviving inhabitants as slaves.

Many Roman emperors were placed there by their legions. Constantine, titled The Great, was one. He won out in a series of civil wars against Maxentius and Licinius. Constantine, a saint in the Orthodox Church, is regarded by secular historians as have incompletely accepted Christianity on account of his notorious cruelty: he executed his own wife and eldest son in 326. He also had Licinius, the East Roman emperor, strangled after his defeat, something he had publicly promised not to do. Richard the Lion Heart, a hero of our childhood, was in fact quite cruel. He revolted against his father, Henry II. In 1189 Richard attempted to take the throne of England for himself by joining Philip of France's expedition against his father. He also only fought for just over a year in the Holy Land, compared to 25 years of ceaseless warmongering in Europe. During his crusading year, in 1191, after the capture of Acre, he had 3,000 Muslim prisoners beheaded and disembowelled (including large numbers of women and children). Bashar al Assad, whose last name is lion in Arabic, is another leader who has inflicted great cruelty on his people.

Even Napoleon brought about the deaths of thousands. But Tony Abbott is not in this league. He has promoted himself, but in essence he has been elected, and must comply with the values of his electors. But he is not soft–hearted. Australians will remember the Nope, Nope , Nope against the Rohingya people. Or Australia's contribution to the refugee crisis when compared even to a debt –ridden Greece?

He has recently been castigated by the New York Times over Australia's 'stop the boats' policy. In fact, with the huge wave of anguish that swept the world over photos of a small Syrian boy drowned on a beach in Turkey, members of his own party have urged himto take a more humane stance.

Craig Laundy, a member of Abbotts's parliamentary party has put forward the emphatic view that the Australian response should extend above and beyond the existing refugee intake. It is shared by many others in Abbott's party, including New South Wales Premier Mike Baird. Some observers had advocated a Syrian refugee intake of up to 50,000.

Abbott initially stated that the Syrian intake would be increased but not the overall refugee intake, but on 9 September, he announced an increase of the Syrian intake to 12,000. Although it paled in comparison to the German decision, it was a major step forward for Australia.

The Vice Chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, said his country could cope with "at least 500,000 asylum seekers a year for several years". Germany, which has waived EU rules to welcome thousands of Syrian migrants, expects more than 800,000 asylum seekers in 2015 alone - four times the 2014 figure.

Why did Abbott yield from his earlier stance? The answer is clear. Multiple pro-refugee rallies around the country and close to a dominant opinion in his own party that Australia should do more. And there is another lesson. That in a democratic society, leaders are forced to listen.

The concept that we support leaders who are aggressive finds some evidence in the most unlikely of places - Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man. He argued that our evolutionary history will have built into us a series of ethical values in that we are social animals, developing feelings of sympathy, obedience to a leader, faithfulness to the group, as well as defending and aiding other members. All of which he argues would support the group in its competition for food and even survival. That competition for survival built into us aggressive tendencies – for it was us, the human race, that won out over other competing races. And for our leaders, wouldn't we choose those who were more aggressive in competing for those resources, and also in defending us against those who wanted to take from us what we had already acquired?

Darwin's thoughts on the role of a leader are amazingly prescient. Research since, in the 1960s by Stanley Milgram and the Stanford prison experiments in the 1970s, have shown us that the human race will condone wrongdoing, even commit it, if commanded to do so by those in authority.

The conclusion, therefore, must be drawn that, in future, we should choose our leaders, not on their apparent leadership abilities, but on other qualities. What should be those other qualities? Intelligence? Personal qualities? Ability to meld all sides of political differences? To manage a sincere and consultative open democracy? It is an area ripe for research and further debate, but at least the lessons appear to lead us toward one conclusion - that an open democracy is one guarantee against conflict. Despite near continuous constant war in Western Europe since the days of the Roman Empire, in the 70 years since the end of World War II there has been no war. The reasons has been overriding democracy in those countries . This conclusion also draws lessons for Syria. The objective of the West has been regime change, designed to oust Bashar al Assad. The United Nations has rejected elections in Syria. But with massive international supervision and support elections would seem possible .Is it not worthy of an attempt?