We are facing a global existential crisis from the implications and ramifications of global warming, and among the democratic nation states there seems to be a dearth of political leadership.
To make the statement is to beg the question: What are the qualities of leadership?
As in many matters political, we might take a systems approach. That is by considering the political system in terms of inputs, processes and feedback loops and so forth, the outputs are predictable. One of those outputs are those selected for the leadership positions in government.
In its editorial The Sydney Morning Herald takes apart the performance of Prime Minister Rudd:
IS KEVIN RUDD capable of governing Australia in a timely and effective manner?
For some time questions about the Prime Minister’s leadership qualities have been growing. At best, he is seen as a politician constantly seeking political cover for his decisions: national ideas summits, consultative forums, a tax review that excludes politically unpalatable options, and this week a vision of what Labor might do about our inefficient and at times dangerous health system. Less charitable observers discern timidity and prevarication. It is as if Rudd never quite believed the decisive mandate for change that voters handed him in November 2007.
True, the Coalition’s negative and unconstructive approach – together with the incessant opportunism of the minor parties in the Senate – have frustrated significant aspects of the Government’s agenda, most notably on climate change and the tax on alcopops. But there is no excuse for time-wasting. If Rudd had spent as much time turning promises into results as he has clocking up overseas air miles, he would have more to show for almost two years in office.
His failure to make change happen has disappointed those who celebrated his ascent to power. It is not that the opinion polls have turned against him (there has been only a minor erosion of his approval ratings) but that his rudderless style induces a paralysis of hope, a loss of faith in our ability as a nation to resolve complex problems.
Any analysis of the political system is outside the purview of the SMH because it might raise broader questions. And we cannot have that, can we? However, as the editorial goes on to note, the deficiencies observed are not reflected in the opinion polls, which provide the daily test of political providence. They suggest the record of history should be considered. Bush the Younger notoriously argued in the demise of his presidency that history would be his valedictory, or at least would validate his record. It will not, rather it will probably condemn his record with the advantage of hindsight.
Strong leaders can lead in the wrong direction with strong commitments to flawed visions. Leaders need the intelligence to see what is necessary, the courage to follow the course, and the skill to engage the imagination of the people at large. John Curtain among Australian Prime Ministers is probably the outstanding leader of the nation in wartime.
The problem is not to be divisive in the process. Wartime leaders have the advantage of a national emergency. Similarly, Obama is facing many of the same problems and criticisms as Rudd. For example, David Michael Green argued, among others, some less charitable, that Obama had not set the political agenda even allowing for the multiple problems he faced on assuming the presidency.
Yet we might equally ask what price courage and rectitude if it results in political failure? The illustrative case might be taken as the experience of Jimmy Carter and the Middle East process. Robert Parry at Common Dreams outlines the events where the Likud PM of Israel effectively worked to have the US President defeated. As a client state, whose aggression is bankrolled by the US, Israel exerts an extraordinary influence on the American political process. As a matter of even-handedness it should be observed that the US also bankrolls the Egyptian dictatorship, and effective government by the terms of the ruling elite but not the people.
Do we crash the Earth’s climate because of the dysfunctional political economy, or do we as human beings have the wit to survive, and as the ancient philosophers suggested use reason not just to live well, but to live better? What system of political decision making and action would make that outcome a possibility? Can our pilots only see the shadows on the cave wall?