We all know that, in a professional army, the best people are chosen to be officers. People who demonstrate officer material eventually are recognised as such, and become officers. They become leaders of men, and their men look to them not only in times of peace but, more importantly, in times of war and emergency. Officers have to lead by example, because if they fail to do so, then the whole army is in trouble, and the people they are bound to defend and the values for which they fight are jeopardised.
And so it is with anything else. A company also has its own officers: the CEO, the managers and the shop floor supervisors. It could be a band club. Leadership is not about just being made a leader, but demonstrating that leadership over and over again.
Leaders also personify the values and principles that they hold dear, until it is very difficult to separate the principle from the person. They do this all the time, and not just when they are on duty. A good leader is only happy when, by leading; he serves his subordinates who have put their trust in him.
And so it is with politics. Our Officer Class are our politicians, and we expect our politicians to be Officer Class. We expect them to behave well, all the time, because we elect them to uphold the principles we hold dear. We expect them to lead us, for we elect them from amongst us. We expect them to be a reflection of our aspirations and hopes, and to be there when we need them. We expect to be able to trust them.
We expect them to be men of integrity, and to walk the line where we can’t toe it. We expect them to be firm but merciful, passionate about values and compassionate, to stand up for us and be the shield that we need, and to fight for us.
We expect them to be what we can only aspire to be. We also expect them to obey the consensus of their group and their leader, their general, whom we also elected.
In short, we expect them to have higher motivations than us.
Does that happen all the time? No, it doesn’t. People sometimes make controversial choices of leadership. It could be for a variety of reasons. Some people are popular only because of media coverage. Others may have the gift of oratory, but nothing else underpinning it.
What we are uncomfortable with are the sudden nonconformists. We fear the rebel who breaks rank because of some slight, or because he has been tried and found wanting. We have idolised our politicians until some of them actually believe in the adulation for its own sake. Popular people believe that they should get short cuts to the top, just because they are popular. But popularity is no guarantee of leadership. When that popularity is not transformed into a top political post, then we sulk and stamp our feet. Being a maverick just for the hell of it is just not on. Oh, the rebel may be popular for a while, but in the end, he is just a rebel. Officers don’t do that – not without just cause, anyway.
When the rebel has a just cause, when the rebel demonstrates a history of principle, when the rebel and his cause cannot be easily separated, then he earns respect.
In the army, as in politics for that matter, there is a hierarchy of merit. There are generals, colonels, majors, captains and lieutenants, in that order. It is a useful analogy. Certainly, there can only be one general. Generals listen but, at the end of the day, it’s their call and they are the ultimate decision makers. They rely on a cadre of colonels to inform, advise and help them lead. But not everyone gets to be a colonel.
Some are destined to remain lieutenants forever, because that’s where they fit best. That’s their calling. We have had any number of backbenchers who have remained so, because they found it to be their mission and have discovered ways of working with their betters in Government. There is nothing wrong in that, for these are also men of integrity. They know that they are not capable of leading from the front, but they are excellent support for their leader. They aspire to nothing more than that. They are object lessons in humility and team play, and they are the solid backbone of the team.
They may never be suited for the management role of a minister today, but they are team players. It is the foolish minister who does not willingly and knowingly set time aside to talk to the backbencher, to engage him in discussion and act on his suggestions. The minister who does that will go far, and will demonstrate that he is a cut above the rest and a leader of men.
At the end of the day, for some reason most people seem to take basic political competence for granted. That is not based in fact. Few people are born politicians. A good politician is one who has trained well and has learned from brash mistakes. His background may be varied, but his values are mostly sound.
Good politicians seek to work well with the people with whom they form a team. They search for the common ground among diverse views, negotiate with those who agree and disagree with them, and make adjustments to their proposals without betraying their core beliefs or threatening what they seek to accomplish. Demanding all or nothing may sound good in the media, but it’s guaranteed to get you pushed to the sidelines when it counts.
Above all, a good politician, be he backbencher or frontbencher, never forgets one simple fact: it is the people he serves – not himself, or his ego, or anything else. If he or she cannot walk that lofty line, then parliament is not the place for them.
That is what distinguishes the men from the boys. That is what makes them Officer Class. We should demand it, above all, from our politicians.
That’s where our vote counts.