The idea that Julia Gillard might step down at some stage if her popularity and that of the government does not rise has been raised in the media amid renewed speculation about leadership. Some are predicting that she will be replaced as early as next month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Stepping down would be an alternative to hanging on grimly until what looks like inevitable election defeat. It is also an alternative to losing office in another leadership battle.
Being tossed out is one thing. There is a thin line, however, between being eased out and stepping down.
We see that regularly as CEOs and professional sporting coaches depart early. Many are tapped on the shoulder by the board and told their time is up. Some are given the privilege of announcing their own decision in their own time. Sometimes this is just cosmetic but on other occasions there is some free agency involved in the timing.
Political leadership changes are messier because there is no such thing as a responsible board. There is the party organisation which can play a role as it did for the Liberals when John Howard replaced Alexander Downer in 1995.
There are parliamentary party elders who can ask a leader to step down as Labor's John Button did successfully in the case of convincing Bill Hayden to stand aside for Bob Hawke in 1983.
But when a group of Labor party leaders, led by Kim Beazley, asked Hawke to step down in 1991 he refused. Paul Keating had to blast him out.
Stepping down from political leadership does not have much of a pedigree in Australian politics. Even long-term leaders find it very difficult to take that step even though it is easier for them to maintain their dignity compared to a relatively short term leader like Gillard.
The general argument for stepping down is based on honorable self-sacrifice. Sometimes the grounds are that the team is bigger than the individual. Election defeat for political leaders is not just an individual, personal thing like losing your own seat. When a prime minister leads their party to election defeat many fellow MPs lose their jobs. Long-term supporters have their hearts broken. When an Opposition leader fails to win a ''winnable'' election the disappointment can be almost as great.
The argument against a leader stepping down is a two-fold one, most recently articulated by Howard in 2007. It is instructive to read the chapter on ''The Leadership'' in his autobiography. The first part is personal: leaders worth their salt don't run away from a fight. Instead they grit their teeth and stick at it. At times Howard equated standing down with his government withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. His logic was that once having made a commitment you finish the job even if victory is unlikely.
The second element is collective and depends upon the availability of someone who can do the job better than the incumbent. In the case of political leaders the talent pool realistically is restricted to existing MPs in the short term.
This latter element is always subjective. No one really knows with any certainty. Opinions still differ, for instance, on whether the Liberals would have done better under Peter Costello rather than Howard in 2007. Howard says we will never know. Likewise opinions continue to differ on whether Labor did the right thing in replacing Kevin Rudd with Gillard in June 2010.
Not only do opinions differ about these two leadership changes among MPs responsible for making the change, but they also differ among independent observers. There is no reliable measure. We'll never know in the case of Howard-Costello because it didn't happen. Even though Rudd-Gillard did happen and Labor scraped back into office in August 2010 it is still possible to argue about whether Labor would have done better or worse if Rudd had stayed on as PM.
Gillard may or may not step down though it would be an honorable decision if she did. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's public position is that she will persevere. If she did step down some would praise her for her selflessness while others would condemn her as a quitter running away from defeat. Final judgment would only come later at the time of the next federal election when the consequences were clearer.
Rather than being replaced, if that is the option, there would be advantages for Labor, her successor and for her many ministerial supporters if she was to take the stepping down option. One would be that she may be able to bring on side her allies inside the Parliament and in the trade union movement. This includes the Independent MPs, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, on whose votes the government depends. They have jumped to Gillard's defence by saying that a change of prime minister would void their signed agreement and put their support for the Labor government at risk.
It also includes trade union supporters such as Tony Sheldon, national head of the Transport Workers Union, who has pledged to withdraw his union's financial support if Labor changes leader.
The second advantage is that, like Hayden in 1983, Gillard would be able to argue for and with her ministerial supporters and perhaps avoid mass resignations and/or sackings in the event of a nasty leadership contest with Rudd.
Even in her parlous situation Gillard's actions over the next 12 months remain crucial. She may eventually be rudely pushed aside by her own party when the time comes just like Rudd was; but she still retains some ability to shape events. History will judge her on how she handles her situation.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au
