Now that Labour's Leadership process has run its interminable course, we can and must look at what we can learn from it, if only to make next time more sensible. There are many qualities and characteristics of leadership which have been the subject of a thousand books but a democratic political party demands something different. It requires someone to lead not just the organisation but the electorate, whilst allowing constant critique from the latter. S/he must be chosen from a group of egotists, with little in the way of a job description, training or career development.
How can the electorate choose from candidates not shortlisted by any criteria other than their own ambition and the hope of popularity among their colleagues? Leadership in business, military or family is hard enough to define but in politics it is doubly so. A candidate who can command the parliamentary party may put off the electorate; or vice versa. A leader in ideas may lack media charisma. A decisive character may fail to listen or delegate. Whence come skills in selecting a team, in motivating it, in making decisions others would duck, even in dealing with PMQs?
It seems that popular support may even derive not from the qualities or skills of the individual though but from their mere difference. In recent months, leaders and parties have been swept to the fore simply because of who they were not. UKIP claimed to be anti-everything. The SNP was not a Westminster party. Jeremy Corbyn was not an Establishment type. So far from a leader being a prime exemplar of their tribe, perhaps we need the ability to look beyond the obvious and towards game-changers. How do we do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment