Watching political events unfold both locally and on the international stage this last couple of weeks, has been fascinating. I’ve been struck by the loneliness, the isolation, the success, failings and humility of those seeking to position themselves as political leaders or floundering in the midst of it. We had the ‘Ambush of Aras’ on RTE as a huge audience tuned in for the final Presidential debate, unmissable and total car crash TV.  Of course we have seen the impact of TV debates many times before and as far back as 1960 when a clean shaven Kennedy tipped the scales in his favour, eventually ousting Nixon in one of the closest elections in US history. 

In some ways the viewing of the last of the Irish Presidential debates was cruel but as always with politics it was the survival of the fittest, or perhaps more appropriately the untarnished.   In a few short seconds the episode of the envelope crushed leadership credentials and Ireland there and then decided on a safe pair of hands, the tried, tested and trusted.  However, if the climax of Irish Presidential campaign resembled pistols at dawn or in this case dusk, in comparison, the SDLP Leadership finale as intriguing as it was, was more like handbags round the campfire.   Much to the relief of the party faithful, I’ve no doubt.  Both results were similar however, experience and proven political prowess prevailing in Alasdair McDonnell and Michael D Higgins. 

In contrast to these personal successes, there was the disconsolate George Papandreou, the Greek Prime Minister.  In recent times, I cannot recall a more isolated political figure.  The country in ruins, opponents baying for his blood, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and the other G20 leaders breathing down his political throat, talk about being between a rock and a hard place.  What followed stunned and baffled global leaders, with the Greek leader riddled with indecisiveness.   Originally agreeing the Euro bail out deal, and more pertinently for the Greek public the imposition of further crippling cuts, he then stated a referendum would be required, creating temporary global market meltdown before reversing the decision to go to the people.  All this within a 72 hour period which totally overshadowed the Cannes G20 Summit. No wonder people say a week’s a long time in politics. 

Papandreou’s decision making wasn’t exactly a shining example of how to deal with a political crisis but at least there was still a shred of leadership demonstrated by putting the Country before his own political well being. In winning a vote of confidence, he agreed to step aside in a move that would be necessary to help hammer out a coalition with the Conservative opposition party.These recent events have got me thinking about what characteristics can help to forge a successful political leadership and whether or not some of our great leaders of the past have been fortunate with their timing. With the financial crisis onslaught since 2007, it could be argued that political leaders in those countries that have suffered the most, could never possibly have come out with enhanced reputations, even if they had have done everything right, George Papandreou being just one of many.    

There have been many papers, debates commentaries on whether leaders are born with the necessary qualities that make them succeed or like many other similar characteristics, they are developed through life, moulded and shaped by their circumstances.  But surely timing is key – men or women of their time, with a cause, a vision and above all courage are in my view, those that are most likely to succeed.I’ve looked at definitions, views and perceptions of political leadership and so many words crop up - assertiveness, communication, openness, charisma, creativity, fairness, magnanimity, accountability, the list goes on but without a cause, vision and courage at the right time can any political leader really expect to be achieve greatness? Think of some of the World’s greatest leaders of the modern era and many of you may disagree with these but for me Ghandi, Mandela and Churchill (during war time) stand out.  It’s no consequence that all were of a time when their Country faced unprecedented political crisis.

In Derry in the late 1960’s the young civil rights campaigner John Hume, was a man of his time with a cause, courage and a clear vision on building peace in Ireland.  Hume was a reluctant leader in many respects and one who some believe was ultimately politically flawed in the price his party paid for peace.  Yet, the Irish public overwhelmingly voted him  ‘Ireland’s Greatest’ in an RTE poll.  Perhaps this is the price that has to be paid for being remembered as a good or great political leader, not to play to your electorate, to do the right thing, what is right for a nation, a country or at a local level doing what is right for the whole of the community.The Austrian writer, Peter Drucker, said ‘Management is doing things; leadership is doing the right things’.

Doing the right thing is refusing to play to or feed the whims of the electorate when it is blatantly not right to do so.  That is why we elect our public representatives. They must listen to our views but they must also make the tough decisions on our behalf, even if we don’t agree with them. It is then up to them, to convince us what they are doing or the policy they are adopting is right and this is where the likes of Regan and Kennedy excelled, they were great at communicating the difficult decisions they had to make. The ability to make these decisions and effectively communicate them can make a real difference between good and, at best, indifferent political leadership.  The knee jerk reactions to the GB riots from key players in the Cabinet including the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister is for me not good leadership, it’s passing the buck and looking for instant retribution to appease a rightly appalled public.Justice yes, absolutely yes, but do we really want a society to be evicting the mothers of rioters from their council homes or have an ancillary justice system where, in line with the seriousness of a crime, the cohabitants of the accused are also punished?  What message does this send out, will it reduce crime, is it conducive and inclusive for Cameron’s vision of a ‘Big Society’ and does it represent progressive leadership?  It’s no on all counts for meFor me, Cameron (and to a lesser extent Theresa May) missed the opportunity to really deliver on his vision of the ‘Big Society’.  He had the timing, he had the cause, in his view he had the vision but he ultimately didn’t have the courage, instead giving the electorate what they wanted to hear at that time, support for inappropriate justice. What does all this say about political leadership?  For me it says that true great political leaders won’t always win elections or make their party stronger or tell the public what they want to hear but for their courage and vision they will be remembered by future generations.

Claire Aiken is Managing Director of Public Relations and Public Affairs company Aiken PR