Political leadership is a demanding occupation and the occupants of leadership positions are marked down severely when they are in office. No more than at the present when lack of trust and respect is endemic. It may be that we only appreciate fully what we have had when the political leaders we especially choose to revere are passing away.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
First there was Bob Hawke three months ago, in the final week of the federal election campaign, and now Tim Fischer. One a great Labor prime minister; the other a great Nationals' deputy prime minister. The exceptional reverence with which they have been remembered in death reflects not just their own personal capacities and contributions but also the community's jaundiced view of the current state of political leadership.
The problems of the latter help to exaggerate the qualities of the former. That can be unhealthy, and we should be careful to try to keep the two in balance. Perhaps the gap between the past and the present is not as great as we like to think.
I was fortunate enough to meet Fischer on several occasions in very different settings; in rural Australia, in Australian capital cities and even in Rome when he was Australian ambassador to the Holy See. On each occasion he displayed the personal qualities for which he has rightly been recognised once again over the past week: gregariousness, kindliness, compassion and humility. Looking back during the past week to the Rome meeting in 2009, the leader of our Catholic social services delegation, Frank Quinlan, remembered that Fischer had travelled across Rome by public transport to regale us with stories of politics, railways and international diplomacy. He was, as always, "generous, funny, honorable, humble". We received his full attention.
My first meeting with him was in Corowa in 2001 at the people's constitutional change conference to revive the movement towards an Australian republic after the 1999 referendum defeat. Earlier that year Fischer, having stepped down as deputy prime minister, had revealed he was a republican, a welcome surprise for our movement, and thrown himself into advocating his fresh green and gold approach, which involved amending S.128 so that a multiple choice question could be put to a referendum. His suggested multiple choice would give three options, selection of the president by the prime minister, by a direct popular vote, or a middle course by an expanded electoral college, including elected mayors, state parliaments and the federal parliament.
Fischer's approach typically tried to break down roadblocks through listening and compromise. At the time he described it as "the politics of positive change, of positivity over the politics of negativity". That's an approach that has appeal today when negativity dominates.
In Corowa his energy was infectious as he threw himself into convincing republican leaders who had been in the reform game much longer than him about his new approach. They forgave him for not having the courage of his convictions two years before when he led the pro-monarchist Nationals and quietly stood by as his prime minister John Howard urged a "No" vote.
He had bowed to enormous pressure from the conservative Nationals' organisation and rural membership, pressure which may have contributed to his decision to stand down from the leadership and parliament not long afterwards. Whatever the reasons the disparity between 1999 and 2001 showed his humanity and reminds us of the conflict between party loyalty and personal beliefs which dogs all political leaders.
When appreciating the great leadership characteristics of Hawke and Fischer they must be put in context. There is always a danger of looking back to a Golden Age. Let's strive for better balance.
Fischer was not regarded as an especially partisan political leader. That was one trait that meant his name was treated seriously on both sides of politics when raised as a potential governor-general. He would have made a good one, if he felt able as a republican to accept nomination.
Sometimes he stood with his rural constituents, but at other times he was willing to stand against them. He campaigned hard alongside Howard against Native Title following the Mabo and Wik decisions, but also gave Howard crucial moral and political support in their courageous stand on gun control after the Port Arthur massacre.
Inevitably many people have made invidious comparisons between Fischer and Hawke and modern political leaders. Bill Shorten hoped Hawke's death would remind Australians when they voted of the best that a Labor government could offer, but instead it may have caused some of them to think of Shorten's limitations by comparison.
Now Michael McCormack, the current Deputy Prime Minister, and his predecessor Barnaby Joyce are suffering by comparison with Fischer. They seem to lack many of his best qualities.
When appreciating the great leadership characteristics of Hawke and Fischer they must be put in context. There is always a danger of looking back to a Golden Age. Let's strive for better balance. Elder statesmen often flourish and seem to get better with age. They are now out of the political fray and not subject so much to politically inspired criticisms especially if they stay out of political controversies.
Fischer did that. He had many other enthusiasms, including campaigning for recognition for General Sir John Monash, serving Australia overseas in many ways just as he had served in Vietnam, revealing his own autism characteristics and those of his son, his love of trains and supporting the inland rail project.
There must be a way of appreciating outstanding past political leadership traits while not being unrealistic about the current occupants of high office. Present leaders should ponder on what is most appealing about someone like Fischer. It is never too late to learn.
- John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of Political Science at the Australian National University. He was the national chair of the Australian Republican Movement, 2002-05.
