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

Lessons for history from an Australian prime minister

By Peter Bowden - posted Monday, 14 September 2015


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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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?

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

70 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

Peter Bowden is an author, researcher and ethicist. He was formerly Coordinator of the MBA Program at Monash University and Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University. He is currently a member of the Australian Business Ethics Network , working on business, institutional, and personal ethics.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Bowden

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

Photo of Peter Bowden
Article Tools
Comment 70 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy