Did you watch Nemesis? Let me add some perspective

From the few reports and clips I've seen it was the right decision to give Nemesis a miss. Perhaps as someone who worked in Parliament for about a fifth of a century said, "You've heard it all before." Listening to friends talk about it was enlightening. So let me add some perspective.

The program is not about life in Parliament. It doesn't pretend to be. It's about the intrigue amongst those who aspire to leadership. Leadership battles are brutal and ruthless.

Leaders and aspiring leaders are a breed apart. An entirely separate species in many respects. They are hard-wired differently from the rest of us. They have egos that sometimes defy belief and self-perceptions that are frequently nothing like what their colleagues or the public think of them. Yes, about themselves they can be deluded. Before you start to ridicule them for all of that consider that having those egos is a prerequisite for the job.

Everyday either to get the job or whilst you're in it there's a bevy of people who wake up refreshed at the prospect that today they might be able to cause you grief, loss of reputation or your job. They might be colleagues in your own party who never liked you, or wanted your job, or wanted someone else to have it. Then there's the media. We all know they don't wake up deluded that a nice happy profile piece will get great billing or win them a Walkley. And then there's the public. Many of us are regrettably quick to criticise without necessarily having all the facts.

Swimming against that ocean of discontent is only possible with the buoyancy a massive ego provides. We need leaders who do not cave in under pressure, who can face the storm and only those with toughness combined with ego can do that. They need more than that to be successful but they must have those prerequisites to get to the baseline.

MORE VANSTONE:

Leaders have a terrible job. Like their ministers, they face difficult decisions every day. So does a large part of the population in both their working and private life. The difference is everyone else doesn't do it under an enormous public microscope. For leaders, it's as if their every move is put on a smorgasbord at which all and sundry can collectively feed. So yes, it's no big deal to make tough decisions. Moral dilemmas and heart wrenchingly difficult choices fall on many of us. However we have the luxury of not having every move scrutinised, cross checked, misinterpreted and criticised. You'd need a decent ego to survive as a leader for any period of time. In fact just to get there.

The battle for leadership is only the main game in town every few years. Sometimes the reprieve from insanity is longer. So what we see in Nemesis is a focus on these people at their worst. It focusses on that compartment of their lives. What it doesn't seek to show is how leaders and parliamentarians get on with good work when leadership is stable. In fact even when a challenge is brewing people, in varying degrees, get on with their real work.

It is true that even when there is stability leadership issues don't die away completely. Aspirants will inevitably have an eye for opportunity. Rusted on supporters are always there; sleeper agents, looking for the chance to promote their candidate. There are various groupies; hangers on out of genuine affection, admiration or a calculated gamble of who's going to win from a retinue of supporters. They collect intelligence, spread bad news of opponents and generally muddy the waters for other potential leaders. These groupies drive most members crazy with their endless promotion of their "mate".

But they are essential players. Self promotion for leadership aspirants is something of a dilemma. They can't let you as a member of parliament with a vote in any potential leadership ballot think they're weak or unimportant. But coming over as an over-puffed egomaniac doesn't go down well either. How to say 'I'm definitely the best person for the job' without saying 'I'm better than you and all the others' is not as simple as it might seem. That's where mates, rusted on supporters or those wishing to curry favour come in. They do some of the more brazen promotion of your alleged skills to save you having to embarrass yourself. Usually aspirants nonetheless embarrass themselves by cravenly engaging in faux flattery of the person whose vote they are seeking.

But these machinations are a side bar to the real work of Parliament.

Maybe it's fair to say leaders have Jekyll and Hyde type personalities or character traits. When the switch goes to ugly, it is ugly. If there was a program highlighting how hard these people work at the real work of parliament - trying to find the right policy decision, at listening to people in their electorates or at advocating for little known but important causes - not too many would tune in to watch. People love intrigue and plotting, good and evil, heroes and villains. So the media focus on that aspect.

One of the most interesting aspects of leadership challenges is the makeup of the vote for the winner. Few leaders realise, or are prepared to admit, how many votes they got were cast not so much to give them the job but to stop the other contenders getting it. Shock horror. You win a vote because they just can't stand the other contenders. Of course winners often overlook that fact. They shouldn't. If things get tough, these guys were just using you to block another. Don't expect them to go into battle for you. Even your rusted-on groupies will be looking elsewhere if your performance doesn't cut the mustard. You'll get sayonara from them too.

Thank heavens all parliamentarians are not leadership aspirants. Most are just like so many other Australians. They work hard, try to do what they think is best for Australia and never expect to be leader. Importantly, my experience was that the vast majority are not self-absorbed egomaniacs. Despite the easy joke about politicians all lying, that was not my experience with the vast majority of members and senators. It's such an easy claim to make and it's impossible to disprove.