What do George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Angela Merkel and Helen Clark have in common? They have been having such a difficult time lately that they are widely written off as lame-duck political leaders.
Bush's approval rating is at a record low following his inept handling of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. A spy scandal engulfs his administration; his nominee for the Supreme Court quits; and Republican party candidates were beaten in the two governors' races contested last week. Meanwhile, a war rages that America may or may not be winning.
Blair had already announced he would resign as prime minister during his current term. He may now be considering bringing his retirement plans forward after his humiliating parliamentary defeat last week. His attempt to increase to 90 days the time suspected terrorists could be held without charge was lost when nearly 20 per cent of his own MPs defied him and refused to support it. The rebuff is all the greater given that only six months ago Blair led Labour to an unprecedented third election victory.
In France, Chirac disappeared from public view for a fortnight as riots raged throughout the country. When he emerged he said only his government "will have to draw all the consequences from this crisis". It is debatable whether Chirac, or for that matter anyone else in France, can fathom the causes or the consequences of the violence that resulted in 2000 people being arrested and 5000 cars destroyed.
In Germany over the weekend, Merkel concluded an agreement that will make her chancellor and allow her to form a government of both the conservative and social democrat parties. The document that sets out the terms of this coalition is a mere 130 pages. How long it will last is anyone's guess. Proposed tax increases to fund the budget deficit have been labelled as "poison" by Germany's largest employer group. The prospects of reform to Europe's biggest economy, are, for the moment at least, practically nil.
In New Zealand, September's general election produced a hung parliament and Clark is now governing with the support of the minor parties. Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, a party with seven members out of a parliament of 121, is the country's minister for foreign affairs, although he doesn't actually sit in cabinet.
Meanwhile, in Australia, John Howard's problems are inconsequential. Indeed, far from being a lame duck, the PM is in the process of implementing a reform agenda that will bring about long-ranging structural changes in the way Australia is governed and so guarantee another era of prosperity.
Sure, Barnaby Joyce wants to change a few commas in the 687 pages of the industrial relations package; and Danna Vale has recently called for the trial or release of David Hicks. But neither issue will cause the Prime Minister to lose any sleep.
Although his government is a few points behind the opposition in the polls, an election is still two years away. And if there was as much outrage in the community at the industrial relations legislation as is assumed by the media and the trade unions, the ALP would be much further ahead than it is.
Every politician needs a degree of luck, but it would be hard to say that Howard has been any luckier than Bush, Blair, Chirac, Merkel or Clark. The funny thing about Howard's luck is that as he gets older he gets luckier. But of course it's not his "luck" keeping him in power, it's his experience. It's usually forgotten that he is one of the world's longest-serving democratically elected leaders. What Arnold Palmer said about golf applies to politics -- "The more I practise the luckier I get".
From the way that he's handled issues throughout his term of office it's obvious that Howard has learned some lessons from his 30-plus years in politics.
For one thing, contrary to accepted wisdom, he's allowed backbenchers a greater policy role than probably any other Liberal leader. Howard, remember, saw first-hand the difficulty that Malcolm Fraser had in managing a large party room of ambitious MPs, and he's adopted a strategy the opposite of his predecessor's. Instead of attempting to restrict party dissent, Howard has tolerated it, and sometimes even encouraged it. No fewer than three policy journals are now published by Liberal MPs -- covering everything from vouchers for education to uranium mining. On the new anti-terror laws, Howard has genuinely listened to backbenchers such as Petro Georgiou and Malcolm Turnbull and taken their views into account -- even if he disagrees with them.
Second, Howard has never been short of policies. This is a testament to both the qualities of the man himself, and of the ability of the Right in Australia to constantly reinvent itself and its agenda. After nearly a decade in power, it is almost a compliment for Labor to call Howard a "radical", as it did last week in the wake of the introduction of his industrial relations legislation. Next on Howard's agenda will be the overhaul of the media laws, the implementation of welfare-to-work policies, and the development of a framework for further reform in federal-state relations. And on Wednesday, the Prime Minister leaves for South Korea to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum. Hardly a man who's running out of puff.
Third, and most importantly, Howard has never allowed himself to step too far beyond the bounds of public opinion. This can be both a weakness and a strength, and most of the time it is the latter. Blair and Bush have both lost touch with their electorates; Howard hasn't. His caution on some issues might be frustrating for those of us who believe that a flat rate of income tax should be introduced tomorrow. But Howard knows he always has to deal in the realms of political possibility.
It's long been a favourite claim of the Left that conservatives such as Howard and Robert Menzies have been successful merely because they were lucky. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that in a two-party system for one party to win the other must lose. Howard's victories are as much a product of Labor's failures as of anything else.
The commemoration of the dismissal last week demonstrated all that was wrong with the Labor Party. Given that federally it has been unable to make headway against the Coalition in this century, it is no wonder many in the ALP have decided to maintain their rage over something that happened last century. For some on the Left the annual anniversary of Gough's sacking is all of they have to look forward to. True, Labor values its traditions more than do the conservatives, but it's a problem when a regard for history comes at the price of presenting a picture for the future.
On Friday Kim Beazley summed up the ALP's predicament: the party had to stop "navel-gazing". And until Labor does stop its navel-gazing it appears safe to assume that Howard won't be going the way of so many other current world leaders.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment