I spent a very interesting morning on Friday at a Victoria University organised discussion around the future of New Zealand. It was all Chatham House rules so there is not much I can say, but one issue I came away from mulling in my head is the role and importance of leadership in a democracy like ours. I am sure that it will in fact be one of the defining issues of this election, and many to come.
We know what the world thinks of Helen Clark as a leader. She is respected for her intelligence, her grasp of world events, her independent and principled stances and her straight forwardness. I am sure that is what the Australian diplomat was trying to say in the now infamous briefing note!
Buried in the NZ Herald yesterday, was an article commenting on the role that Helen had played in leading the Pacific Forum to a common position on what to do about Fiji. Actually it might come as some surprise to the said Australian official and indeed some New Zealand media that other Pacific leaders are praising the PMs ability to work a compromise. In particular as Samoan PM Tuilaepa says
the critical role she has played in the forum has been as an agent of compromise between what developed countries might demand and the Pacific way
This is indeed a rare skill, especially when combined with the ability to still make your case. Tuilaepa again
She takes a strong stand on issues that are raised at our meetings. But in an organisation of 16 member countries, you cannot expect unanimity of views on many issues. But whenver there is a divergence, she plays the right role of coming with the right word to reflect the areas where compromise can be reached.
Of course the ability to do this has been evident in holding together three quite different MMP coalitions within New Zealand. Helen’s earlier parliamentary life was full of lessons for what happens when leadership becomes divorced from the communities it is trying to lead, and in our democracy there can be brutal payback for so doing. Good leadership must respect the public and the choices they make, while continuing to take the lead to ensure our development and progress as a nation.
Helen has built her leadership on being clear and decisive, knowing it is better to under promise and over deliver, but all the same giving the electorate the confidence that if a commitment is made it will be met. Of course not everything works out exactly as planned, but it is the kind of strong, effcetive leadership that is vital to our future.
I have written before on my views on John Key’s leadership. The recent TVNZ poll showing the public lack of trust in National is a challenge to that leadership. As the electorate begins to focus on the election ahead the question of who’s leadership you can trust will be a very important one indeed.
Grant you say the reason we can’t trust John Key in your earlier post is becasue he has made contradicting statements.
If this constitutes leadership you can’t trust, then surely, if you’re consistent with your logic then we can’t trust Helen Clark becasue:
-Helen Clark promised tax cuts at the 2005 election and then broke that promise by not delivering them.
-Helen Clark said in 1999 she would move NZ into the top half of the OECD. NZ has now gone down the OECD under Labour. This doesn’t sound like under promising and over delivering to me.
-She said in 1999 she would get rid of ‘sleeze’ in the public service. We have seen case after case of Helen Clark’s ministers bullying officials who disagree with Labour.
-Promised to include the eight hundred thousand dollars spent on the pledge card in 2005 as an election expense and then didn’t. Once this was deemed to be illegally spent Helen Clark changed the law to make it legal.
What sought of democratic leader doesn’t respect neutral authorities and believes they are above the law?