Book review of Follow the leader: Democracy and the rise of the strongman, Quarterly Essay 71 by Laura Tingle, published 2018 by Black Inc.
This work can be summarised by the following observation: a good PM (at least in Australia) is one who listens, not necessarily the one who is authoritarian, and the Australian Government should be judged as a whole — it’s not a popularity contest between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. Keep reading for my full analysis…
This book, or rather, extended essay, is about the nature of modern Australian leadership, especially around the time of Malcolm Turnbull’s second deposition as Prime Minister and the election shortly thereafter. As I see it, it focuses on a number of key issues:
- What is leadership? How can we define it, and thereby analyse what makes a good leader?
- How is leadership practised in the modern global political environment?
- How can lessons learned from good leaders be applied in the Australian context?
The first is, personally, the most interesting for me, though not extensively discussed. By using the framework of Heifetz, an author on leadership, Tingle characterises leadership as consensus-building, as distinct from power and authority. Authentic political leadership can “give us a clear path through a difficult issue and bring parties together to a compromise and a consensus”, characterised by “collective responsibility”. Merkel and Macron are cited as examples of such leadership, contrasted with the likes of Trump, and to a lesser extent, other strongmen such as Putin and Xi.
A recurring theme in this essay is that Australia is facing an acute lack of such leadership, which is coupled with unrealistic expectations by the Australian public of what our political leaders can achieve. This dual disconnect, Tingle argues, is a reason why our political debate is so fractious. Julia Gillard, genuinely compromised in minority Government, yet was not rewarded for it. Tony Abbott, with his three-word slogans, demonstrated none of the qualities of good leadership, and was overthrown by Turnbull. Yet Turnbull did not fare much better. He “was attacked when he did not propose concessions, and then savagely attacked [by News Corp papers] when he did”. Turnbull could not build consensus, and thereby could not be a successful leader, because his credentials were weakened by a disconnect between the perception of what he could achieve, and the realities of a conflicted Coalition party room. This weakened his position even further — becoming a wicked cycle.
Tingle concludes with offering glimpses of a potential solution — at the core, a restoration of trust in national institutions, a renewed need for pragmatism and compromise, culminating in “rebuilding the national debate”. The actions and reactions of our national leaders during the coronavirus pandemic can, therefore, give us renewed optimism. Our trust in experts such as the Chief Medical Officer, and different parties such as unions and business groups coming together to negotiate the economic response to the pandemic, are positive signs. We hope that on the other side of this crisis, this renewed, productive, national discourse and bipartisanship at all levels of Government can continue.
This essay is not a light read; indeed, Tingle says “it has been the most difficult of my three Quarterly Essays to write”. To engage with the arguments presented requires both a thorough knowledge of recent Australian political events, as well as a curious and inquisitive mind. Tingle occasionally strays into related topics such as policymaking, foreign policy, US-China relations and the nature of media in Australia. While these all relate to leadership, and the context and implications thereof, while adding colour and a change in pace, they detracted from the central thesis of the essay. In addition, there is a singular focus on Trump and Western democracy, to the detriment of other systems of government. A clearer structure and thesis would have made for a stronger argument.
Overall, Tingle’s incomparable political knowledge makes this Quarterly Essay a must-read. It is a challenging but rewarding piece of discourse. I give this a 3.5/5.
