A failure of political leadership
As the federal election result hangs in the balance there is one thing that could be argued, there has been a failure of political leadership within the major parties.
Kouzes and Posner (1995, 2003) have outlined five leadership practices:
- modelling the way
- inspiring a shared vision
- challenging the process
- enabling others to act
- encouraging the heart.
Many of these practices appear abandoned or unfilled in a world where politics seems to have come to be driven by focus groups and opinion polls—highlighted perhaps by similar policies on asylum seekers and a lack of real attention to climate change. We appear to have witnessed politics in rawest form—a contestation for power and power alone.
As neither major party has expressed a clear vision for Australia’s future, neither major party appears to have inspired a shared vision of that destiny. Thus neither major party has gained sufficient seats in the House of Representatives to form a government in its own right.
By contrast, the Australian Greens have not only attained the balance of power in the Senate but also gained a seat in the House of Representatives. While Bandt has stated that he will support Labor in the current uncertain climate, the achievement possibly makes the Greens more successful as a third paper than the Australian Democrats was. The question here is have the Greens attained this success because of a clearly articulated and shared vision or because of a protest against the apparent abdication of leadership on issues such as climate change, asylum seekers, and the rights of same sex couples? Is this vote a mixture of both these possibilities?
Moving to modelling the way, by concentrating on focus groups and opinions it would appear that the major parties have just reflected back the views of those in these focus groups. While it is essential that parliament is representative of the Australian community, it is also necessary to present a vision for the future and to demonstrate how to get there. Again, one could argue that the Greens have modelled how to act in a world where climate needs to be protected and the rights of all should be upheld.
While the governing party replacing its leader close to an election might challenge the process for some, it would seem that many Australians have rejected this method as an accountability model for Australian democracy. Yet what real challenges to the process of Australian democracy were we presented with that enhanced accountability or increased democratic participation? The political group, GetUp, succeeded in having the Howard Government-era electoral law that closed the electoral rolls on the day that the writ is issued declared unconstitutional. Both major parties demonised asylum seekers and failed to commit to significant action on climate change. The ALP failed to emphasise its success in dealing the Global Financial Crisis and the Coalition failed to obliterate the spectre of WorkChoices from the memory of many Australians. Rather it capitalised on the fear of potential refugees arriving by boat.
Enabling others to act could be viewed in terms of teamwork. This aspect of leadership seems to have been diminished in the shift to a more presidential-style of election campaign. If the special edition of the 7.30 Report last night is any indication, there is a fascination, at least in the media, of the three Independent members of parliament—all ex-National Party members—publically stating that they will work together to ensure stable government. This outcome will of course be a difficult task, as the Senate will be quite different from July next year when the new Greens senators take their place. Obviously, the Independent members of parliament see teamwork as an important element of leadership.
Finally, with the respect to encouraging the heart, in their book, What is this thing called leadership?, Cranston and Ehrich (2007) present a series of interviews with Australian leaders from across fields such as arts, politics, medicine, the environment, the not-for-profit sector, public administration and business. These leaders articulate many of these qualities of leadership. For instance, former Brisbane Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley, sees leadership as being about the three ‘Cs’— ‘a sense of conviction … a commitment, that is really hard work … [and] compassion … you’ve got to have a sense of understanding and empathy for those who don’t necessarily share your conviction or your commitment at the moment’ (Cranston & Ehrich, 2007, p. 62). It remains to be seen how empathetic politicians are towards those in their respective parties who have questioned and those in the community who disagree with the policies on offer.
Ultimately, the outcome of a hung parliament or a minority government would seem to represent the failure of political leadership from the major parties. While this diminution of political leadership might in part be a consequence a world in which news updates are provided on the hour, every hour, our political leaders need to present us with a clear vision for the future, inspire us to desire that outcome and enable us to work together to achieve that future by acting in an ethical and accountable manner.
References
Cranston, N. & Ehrich, L. (2007). What is this thing called leadership? Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. & Kimber, M. (2006). ‘Ethical Dilemmas: The ‘Bread And Butter Of Educational Leaders Lives’, Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 2, 106-21.
Kimber, M. (2009). Leadership in practice: enlightening stories, Primary & Middle Years Educator, May.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2003). The leadership challenge workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
