Politicians and the Public – Leading By Example

Demonstrating leadership can be a difficult thing, as all too often leaders become passengers as events unfold on the world stage and on the public’s televisions, but should we be expecting more from them in the modern age?

Gone are the days of Kings leading troops into battle, however, at a time when politicians are being forced to make unpopular decisions, both in terms of budgeting and reform, demonstrating this level of moral authority is not only desirable, but vital.

There are certainly many examples of the public calling for this over the last decade and in particular since the introduction of online petitions.

More specifically, two examples stand out over the course of this government.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, in defence of his welfare payment cuts, claimed he could, if needed, live on £53 a week leading to an online petition asking him to prove it.

Secondly, following his attempted reforms of the school system, Education Secretary Michael Gove was challenged to work in a state secondary school.

Both of these, at least on one level, have some legitimacy.

Should not Mr Duncan-Smith learn how hard it is for the other half to make ends meet?

How can Mr Gove legislate on schools when the last time he was in a classroom was at Oxford University before starting his career in journalism?

However, the fact is the petitioners on both these issues never expected IDS to start making fortnightly trips to the Job Centre, or Mr Gove to start marking homework during committee hearings.

What was wanted in both these situations was the issue itself and petitions were used as a tool to draw 

attention to the policies.

However, in the last few days another similar, although arguably more divisive, issue has arisen where true leadership would be welcome.

On Monday Prime Minister David Cameron offered local authorities a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby the council agree to allow fracking in their ward in exchange for keeping 100 percent of the business rates.

Although this style of arrangement is not unheard of (Alaskan residents, for example, get a dividend from oil companies who drill in the US state), it has proved controversial as it comes at a time when the same local authorities are being forced to find massive savings, calling into question the motivation of any council who agrees.

Mr Cameron is a vocal supporter of fracking and, if his arguments are to be believed, this fuel source could cut energy bills, provide jobs and boost the economy.

So if he truly believes this then why would he not sign the planning orders allowing fracking firms to build a plant in his Witney constituency in Oxfordshire?

Similarly, Chancellor George Osborne is a fan of this new power source and yet his Tatton constituency, right in the heart of a shale gas goldmine in Cheshire, remains unfracked.

There are obviously reasons for this.

Tatton council, for example, is openly opposed to any fracking in the constituency, while in other areas the public (otherwise known as the voters) are yet to be convinced about the benefits.

But in itself this causes a problem.

Winston Churchill said “The nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are keeping their ears to the ground”, in other words leaders by their nature must lead by example, not a Ledru-Rollinesque French revolutionary.

Mediocre politicians, including the current crop of party leaders, let their policies be dictated by what they believe the public wants or what opinion polls told them.

However, compare this approach to Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, two politicians who were regularly criticised for going it alone without looking for a consensus.

Regardless of your opinions of Mr Blair or Mrs Thatcher, both were true political lions, leaders in the modern age when too many politicians seem happier to follow, although it is worth noting both had substantial parliamentary majorities during their respective tenures at Number 10.

This is not to say politicians should not listen to the voters, but the fact is public opinion is not always right, often contradictory and regularly unrealistic.

An all too often used political analogy is campaign in poetry, govern in prose, meaning getting elected is about setting out your vision, being in power is about getting the job done.

President Kennedy is credited with creating the mass media politician, where candidates must speak eloquently and look good while doing it, but the reason he is still revered was his ability to unite the country behind his [poetical] vision.

We are arguably living during what could be seen as a significant epoch in human history, a time when the role of capitalism and government are being questioned, but unfortunately we are also living during a time when many countries worldwide also lack a political leader with the skills and conviction to carry through their beliefs.

What make this especially frustrating is this is a time when there is a clear opportunity to significantly alter the way things are done.

So with this idea in mind let us look back at the examples stated earlier.

Would Mr Duncan-Smith not have an easier time selling welfare cuts if he was to prove living on £53 a week was possible rather than just making claims in front of a television camera?

Would Mr Gove not be better placed to reform the education system if he spent significant amounts of time in schools and with teachers and saw what pressures they were under?

Would Mr Cameron not be seen as a stronger leader if he took an unpopular position and allowed fracking in Whitney?

Maybe all of the current occupants in the House of Commons should take note of what a man who unwittingly had history trust upon him said, President Harry Truman.

“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”