Who leads what?

This is not so much whether the riots and their aftermath have been the biggest test the Prime Minister has faced since coming to office, which seems to be the view of most commentators, but rather what kind of leadership is required to deal with such events. This has achieved greater prominence following the decision by the police’s leadership to question the impact and role of politicians. This intervention has, if anything, muddied the waters by confusing the types of leadership which necessarily have to come into play. For the police, their role primarily is to provide operational leadership i.e. to be seen to be in charge of the strategic overview and detail down to very local levels of the response on the ground to threats to security, life and property. This is not the job of politicians, they would not have the skills to do it and the public would not expect it of them. So what is the role of politicians in such situations, assuming it is not an ‘irrelevance’? People expect politicians to show leadership and this is a core reason why they are voted into office. But it is a particular type of leadership. It is not one necessarily founded on the mastery of detail and facts and figures but rather on being able to articulate a persuasive vision and direction which will strike a resonance with sufficient numbers of people (see our publication The Challenges of being a Minister). And once in office, it means, crucially, being able to respond to and take account effectively of the public mood when crises, often unexpected, happen, as they always will (see our publication Taking the Helm). This does not mean slavishly following public opinion but, more importantly, responding to it in a way which demonstrates a grip on events and having a strategy for dealing with them which goes beyond securing favourable headlines in the next day’s media. Too often the quest for instant popularity has generated sound bites and making policy on the hoof which appear both less attractive and feasible when the dust has settled. It also makes political leaders prey, not without reason, to accusations of opportunism from their opponents. Governments are also expected to lead events, not follow them. This is perhaps the most difficult lesson from recent events, happening as they did when most people were away and in a month when nothing much is expected to happen. Everyone deserves a holiday but people choose to go into politics and to accept the baggage and responsibilities that go with that; and the public is pretty unforgiving. It thus required an enormous effort from the Prime Minister to turn perceptions around from the government being perceived as playing catch up to being seen as being in charge. The fact that Harold Macmillan’s response to a journalist about what was most likely to blow governments off course – ‘events, dear boy, events’ – is so often quoted does not make it any less apposite decades after he said it. It is also a reflection of how politicians of all parties continue to grapple with the conundrum of having to manage the appalling demands which immediate crises can impose with the need to maintain a longer term breadth and vision which will move the country on in ways which are perceived with hindsight to be reasonable and fair. That is how, ultimately, they will be judged and whilst, as events unfold with alarming speed, the opportunities to step back and take stock will be few, lurking in the backs of the minds of political leaders and those who advise them should be the thought, before the next policy initiative is announced, does this demonstrate real rather than perceived leadership securing long term benefit rather than short term gain?