Lateralist Musings - Politics and Leadership

It seems that very few people have offered anything other than unreserved praise for Anna Bligh's management of the Queensland flood crises. For what it's worth, I agree with the general consensus; she's seemed calm, measured, compassionate and utterly in command of the situation. That some commentators have suggested that her handling of the situation thus far might yet reverse the flagging fortunes of her Government and win it another term is neither here nor there, really; in that I very much doubt that such concerns have been in her mind. Indeed, when your husband has to evacuate your mother, and you spend the better part of a week sleeping in your office, you've probably got more pressing concerns on your mind.

But whilst the praise for Bligh has been virtually unanimous, the same cannot be said for Julia Gillard. Whilst it's certainly true that Gillard has seemed less assured and less in command than Bligh, I'm not sure she's deserved the criticism that she's received. After all, she is not in charge of managing the crisis; Bligh is. She (Gillard) was always going to appear somewhat superfluous to requirements. And yet, if she'd stayed away, she'd have been pilloried with in an inch of her political career. I can't help but feel sorry for someone who can't seem to win either way, and yet who has done nothing wrong.

Gillard's role and Prime Minister in what is effectively - in spite of its geographical size - a localised crisis is to ensure that the appropriate Federal resources are mobilised. This she has done. Beyond that, she really needs to simply appear like she cares, and then not get in the way. This too she has done. She also needs to ensure that the country does not devolve to being a single-issue concern, and again, I think this has occurred.

So what's to be concluded? There are two things, I think. Firstly, I think the reason that Bligh's performance has been so widely praised is due to the fact that she's been in a position to avoid politics entirely, and simply focus on leadership. It's a sad reality, but it seems that the two concepts are virtually mutually exclusive. But whereas Bligh was in a position to do this, I don't think the same can be said for Gillard. Her position as a national figure doesn't really afford her the luxury of setting aside national concerns, even for a local issue as profoundly affecting and tragic as the Queensland floods.

That said, I think Gillard is certainly yet to find her feet when it comes to engaging with the media as Prime Minister. As Deputy, she was comparatively assured. But as Prime Minister, especially one who leads a minority Government, her role is starkly different, and under constant (and considerable) scrutiny. I'm not surprised that there are many who think she's done a pretty ordinary job so far. But to those holding such views, I would suggest that they reconsider the scope of the political job at hand.

Gillard's primary role is to convince the electorate that her Government can hold. To do this, she has to blunt Abbott's almost ceaseless attacks for as long as she can, in order that his questioning of her Government's stability becomes weaker with every passing week. In another six months, she'll have done this. She'll also have made it to the point where majority control of the Senate passes to the Greens. Whilst will hardly give her boundless control (given the make-up of her Government), it'll certainly put her in a strong enough position to actually implement policy than she is in right now.

She's also needed to allow time to pass for the hyperactivity of Rudd's Government to be replaced with a style of leadership which is more moderately paced. Why? Because Rudd's style, in spite of how in initially appeared, was haphazard, unsustainable, and in its haste to act, prone to error. To change this, Gillard needs to be seen to divest power back to Ministers and Departments, rather than blindly hog it in the manner that Rudd was so determined to do. The best Australian governments have functioned this way. Again, I think she's done this.

Is this enough? Of course not. At some point, there needs to be a genuine sense of proactive leadership, even if one's business is politics. But by rights, leadership is as much about responding to the needs of the day as it is about implementing ideologically derived policy. Gillard's measured approach to things gives her as good a chance as any to get this balance right, especially if she's prepared to work with the Cabinet, rather than in spite of it.

But she's still going to need to get better at being herself. As anyone who's been in any kind of leadership position can attest, this is not easy, and should one fail to make a seamless adjustment to the demands of a new position instantly, that this does not mean that the leader in question is not up to the job. I still think Gillard has the ability to do the job, simply because none of the reasons I've heard that suggest otherwise hold sufficient water for me to change (or close) my mind. That day may come, but it certainly hasn't yet.