WHAT MAKES GOOD NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

This week the writer is offshore. Not in a boat, but in a sphere of thought; about leadership. There’s a lot of dysfunctionality round our beautiful world. The way a political leader operates is, or should be, entirely shaped by the political system occupied. But that only really works in a democracy where the leader is formally accountable to both party and nation. For this article, I will focus on one or two democracies of the world, plus a country that claims to be a democracy, though nothing could be further from the truth.

Democracy is government of the people by the people. But it can’t meet everyone’s requirements. Such a government promises to deliver what the elected majority of the adult citizenry of that country wants. It could mean that up to 49 per cent of the population (depending on the electoral system), are unhappy with a new government’s declared programmes. And even within the nerve-centre of a democratically-elected government – usually a cabinet – you have differing views about policies as well as implementation. Just imagine the quality of leadership needed to deal productively and equitably with those, and many more, challenges.

Combination

Great leadership is a combination of many characteristics: Integrity and courage – conspicuous and real; knowledge of how the country has to operate both politically and pragmatically; emotional intelligence – understanding how people tick; strong collaborative skills attempting to bring all players to the highest degree of harmony; and leading, by example, a forward drive to maximise the quality of government service to the nation. Harnessing the skills of those, fully endowed to support and enhance the functions of a good leader, is also a key requirement. And great leadership exudes charisma; inspires confidence.

The list is almost endless. Yet, while democracy is the ideal political system for fairness and accountability, many of its leaders are stumbling badly. So uncoordinated is their management that it gets the public, albeit mentally, listing many who they feel could do the job better. Of course there are, but they chose not to enter the race.  

Formula

Looking briefly at four prominent countries – Russia, United States, France and United Kingdom – the golden formula for great leadership is not truly visible.  In Russia, everyone except Vladimir Putin and his cohorts is terrified of speaking their mind. Look what happened to Alexei Navalny. Very few would privately support the invasion of Ukraine. They had no reason to go down that road. They loved being back again, done with the Cold War 1961-89, and now at one with the West, and immersed in the global world of sport, music, film and culture. The justifying monologues that Putin is churning out make you want to weep. And he’s claiming Russia to be a federal democratic state. Oh, is that the kind spelt:  d-i-c-t-a-t-o-r-s-h-i-p?
With the relatively proud – and rightly so – real democracies, for all their faults you don’t get topped for expressing opposition to the leadership. 

But there are problems. In the United States you have a president in his 80s who needs retirement. But it may well be too late to call on a replacement. All too evident in his public appearances is the diminishing number of neurons in the gentleman’s brain. It happens to everyone as you get older. That’s the USA ‘Olympic Team’; all that the Democrats of the greatest country in the world can muster. And almost certain to win the national election is a man called Donald Trump, who you wouldn’t bet a fiver on his being outside jail in January 2025, and thus able to swear the Oath of Office.

Across the Atlantic, it’s time for the two leaders, Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, and Emmanuel Macron, President of France, to get together and work out a desperate last-minute strategy for themselves. Both leaders have announced a sudden election in an almost futile attempt to salvage their own respective chances. Sunak, we’ve dealt with. He just doesn’t have the political skill to convince the public he can resolve the prevailing challenges of the UK. Macron has had his head in the sand. People just don’t like him any more, and he doesn’t seem to be aware of it.

But there is a common denominator. Not ‘common’ in the normal sense of the word, such as the common man with the common touch. Neither Sunak nor Macron fit that category. Both are intellectual giants. But given their political shortcomings, it is conceivable that actual giants would do a better job. Perhaps it’s simply their respective backgrounds. Both have a pre-politics career of investment management or banking.

Managing

Probably sitting behind a computer all day with the right hand holding the phone (lol). Ideally, for great leadership, you need people who’ve been out there managing people, dealing with competition, operational and manpower crises; as well as experience in industrial relations. Having said that, a successful business career does not automatically qualify you to lead a big nation. Jimmy Carter, now 99-years-old and awake only one day in two – God bless him – was a prosperous peanut farmer and entrepreneur, though probably the least successful USA president of the 20th century. But easily the most successful post-president; a decent guy who just had some very bad luck in his presidency. Whatever your experience, the challenges of political leadership are seriously daunting. There are no auto-solutions.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: