John Howard and Kevin Rudd

1 John Howard and Kevin Rudd Introduction For a democracy, the challenges of leadership are many since leaders are subject to a lot of scrutiny (Walter, 2008: 154). This is not a bad thing since it ensures that those who take up the realms of power are continually held accountable for their actions, prior to and after ascending to power. This aspect of contemporary democracies is what sets apart countries that have measures of accountability from those that do not have accountability measures. The difference is not only observed in the style of leadership, but also in the quality of leadership that is present in such countries (Little, 1989: 13). The importance of leadership accountability is that those who put the leader in office have the authority to demand for what is required of the leader. The public along with other representative organs of the public such as the media and political parties, thus, have the right to demand their rights.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

2

Apart from the public, institutions such as parliament and cabinet also have a huge part to play in ensuring that a leader delivers, and his or her excesses are checked. Therefore, it is not surprising that for a leader in a democracy such as Australia to rule effectively, a good rapport with his cabinet, party, parliament, media and the public is necessary. This paper examines the importance of such relationships, and how a leader has to juggle competing interests successfully amidst all these relations (Little, 1989: 18). In this regard, these relations are observed with reference to two former Australian Prime Ministers, John Howard and Kevin Rudd.

Cabinet The cabinet is a group of advisors to the PM who are constitutionally tasked with overseeing government departments (Galligan et al. 1990: 6). Based on this definition, the role of the cabinet is similar to that of the PM, who acts as their leader in driving forward government’s policies and agenda. In Australia, the cabinet is comprised of appointed officials and members of the country’s parliament. For a cabinet to deliver on its pre-election promises, it must always respond in one accord in strong policy issues and act as one via the principle of collective responsibility (Galligan et al. 1990: 9). In order for this to happen, the PM has to ensure that he has persons who are loyal to him and his policies when appointing his cabinet. The reality is that if a parliamentarian who is not loyal to the PM and his cause is chosen to cabinet, differences may hamper working relations. However, as a cautionary insight, loyalty must not be to the level of sycophancy as this can end up hurting the country.

3 Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd entered office after electoral landslide victories. John Howard’s first tenure was marked with the passing of what some labeled as unpopular, yet necessary reforms by his government (Van Onselen & Errington, 2008: 203). Having been a coalition party Premier, there were undeniable ideological differences between the members who constituted his cabinet. The PM’s relationship with his cabinet was such that he was, in most cases, able to marshal the cabinet’s support in passing policies that were not popular with his Labor Party. An example is the passage of new regulations and restrictions regarding Australians gun ownership in 1996. Despite strong opposition from the party faithful who were in favor of gun rights, Howard’s cabinet was able to convince state governments to support the new regulations (Van Onselen & Errington, 2008: 221). Dwindling support from one’s cabinet can have major repercussions. Kevin Rudd learned this when unpopularity stemming from the handling of the 2008 worldwide financial crisis heavily affected him. Rudd is rumored to have adopted snap judgments without enough consultations with his cabinet (Soutphommasane 2009: 92). Therefore, with the continuing unpopularity within his cabinet, his deputy Julia Gillard requested for a leadership poll, which effectively marked the end of Rudd’s tenure as PM (Phillips 2012 para. 4).

Party The relationship between the PM, his cabinet, and the party is highly important in Australian politics. This is because in order for one to be the premier, they first have to get the nod from their political parties (Walter, 2008: 159). The importance of a political party in the Australian political landscape is such that the PM is a pinnacle of the party in government. For this reason, successive Australian governments are normally named

4 after the party from which the PM originates. An example of a recent government is the Labor Party government of Kevin Rudd. The fact that the PM also has to pick his cabinet from parliamentarians from his party means that parties have the power of determining who can, and cannot join cabinet from among its members (Bevir & Rhodes, 2006: 673). In the Australian system, parties are separated based on their ideological differences. This means that the agenda of the government run by the PM is largely driven by the party’s manifesto.

Another important aspect of political parties is that they are responsible for setting up and maintaining coalitions (Bevir & Rhodes, 2006: 681). Coalitions require a lot of work to keep the competing individual interests of parties from disrupting government operations (Wear & Hede, 1995: 473). For instance, John Howard’s Liberal-National coalition had served as an opposition coalition to the Labor government before the 1996 elections. The differences between the Labor Party of the PM and its coalition partner on what they considered as being core and non-core electoral promises cost the coalition in the 1998 polls (Dobell, 2008 para. 9). As such, the importance of parties can be seen in the fact that if competing interests arise and are not sufficiently dealt with, the coalition/party, and by extension the government, loses popularity. The importance of having support of a party is also very important if a PM is to remain in office. For Kevin Rudd, it was the Labor party’s loss in faith in his leadership that prompted the party to allow a leadership poll (Phillips 2012 para. 3). If the party had sufficient faith in his leadership, it would not have allowed his deputy to proceed with the leadership poll.

Media

5 The media is referred to as the fourth estate since it is an important link, in a democracy, between the public and the government (Rau, 2010: 173). The importance stems from the fact that it is the media that forms the basis of public opinion. This role of shaping public opinion is a fundamental one in a democracy because it is the media that generally informs the public of the government’s duties (Rau 2010: 174). For a performing government, the media is viewed as a tool for continued public support as it highlights government’s achievements to the public (Bevir & Rhodes 2006: 685).

However, to a non performing government, the media is a pain due to the constant highlighting of the government’s failures and inadequacies. Some governments have always wanted to limit the influence of the media due to the potential threat that the media poses to their survival. However, curtailing media freedom has always been met with a lot of resistance since it represents an infringement of the basic freedom of speech and information.

For a leader, at times national interests may necessitate him or her not to disclose certain issues to the media for the sake of the country. Such scenarios often make leaders unpopular in the eyes of the media, and by extension the public, but are nonetheless necessary (Rau, 2010: 195). With respect to government operations, a leader or government may have to regulate the pace at which information is released to the media. Prime Minister John Howard and his party learnt this when his party was campaigning for the country’s leadership in the 1993 elections. The coalition had proposed the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST), but poor information of the specifics in their plan was one of the reasons that the coalition was defeated (Dobell 2008 para. 5). However, in the 1998 elections, the government handled information

6 regarding the tax more professionally by breaking down the legislation in such a way that the public was given time to absorb the specifics of the tax through intensive media participation. The legislation was subsequently passed, thanks to political goodwill and the media.

Parliament Parliament is a very important part of a democracy since it acts as the people’s watchdog against government excesses. In addition to this, parliament represents the will of the people. Under the Australian constitution, parliament is mandated to scrutinize and pass the budget, approve the appointment of crucial personnel to government agencies, and challenge the government on policy issues, among other functions. Therefore, in order for a government to run its operations sufficiently, it needs to establish a good working partnership with the legislative wing (Galligan et al. 1990: 18). This is easier said than done, mainly because parliament is a hub infested by a myriad of competitive self interests. The view that is normally taken by parliamentarians is that governance is a zero sum game in which any concessions by one party automatically translate to a win by the other side.

This makes the operations of government within parliament difficult, especially when the ruling party lacks an absolute majority in the house. In order for such a government to operate, it has to engage in a lot of horse trading and political concessions, all in an effort to pass crucial government businesses. The common thing about both John Howard and Kevin Rudd was that during their entry into office, their parties had significant majorities in parliament. This made it easier for them to run the government.

7 Public The role of the public is important in a democracy since it is the candidate with majority of the public’s support that ends up leading the nation (Walter 2008: 155). For popularly elected leaders to carry out their duties effectively, they need the support of the public. At times, it may require the leader to abandon partisan interests in the wake of overwhelming public interests (Soutphommasane, 2009: 36). Both PM John Howard and Kevin Rudd had to take up such positions during their reign. For instance, Rudd took up environmental issues of pollution and climate change for the sake of the public, despite fierce opposition from the industrial sector players who saw his measures as being too rapid and economically costly. The PM was steadfast in committing the country to better environmental responsibility by signing the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 (Soutphommasane, 2009: 58). Another act was to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq after his predecessor had committed the Australians to the war against terror, a widely unpopular move on the part of Howard, especially in the lead to the 2007 polls.

Conclusion For a democratic country such as Australia, leaders are subject to public and constitutional scrutiny. A potential PM has to have good rapport with not only his political party, but also the public and the media. On getting into office, a premier has to be able to select a team that he can work with as his cabinet. The importance of the cabinet is that it functions as the PM’s advisor, and is tasked with helping the PM run the country. Misunderstandings with the cabinet and the party can make a leader lose his prized position, as was the case with PM Kevin Rudd. The relationship with the media is also fundamental since it is the media that highlights the activities of the

8 government to the public. However, for government to sufficiently carry out its duties, it needs to have a good relationship with the legislature.

9 List of References Bevir, M & Rhodes, R 2006, ‘Prime ministers, presidentialism, and Westminster smokescreens’, Political Studies vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 671–690.

Dobell, G 2008, ‘The Downer legacy (part 1): Howard and Downer’, The Interpreter 26 November, viewed Oct. 8, 2012, http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2008/11/The-Downer-legacy-%28part-1%29Howard-and-Downer.aspx.

Galligan, B et al. 1990, The cabinet and budget process, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Canberra, Little, G 1989, ‘Leadership Styles: Fraser and Hawke’, In, Head, B & Patience, A (eds.)

From Fraser to Hawke: Australian public policy in the 1980s, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, Victoria Phillips, L 2012, ‘Rudd vs Gillard as Labor leadership battle explodes’, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 23, 2012, viewed Oct. 8, 2012 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-vs-gillard-as-laborleadership-battle-explodes-20120223-1tovb.html#ixzz28hXE1n9I Rau, C 2010, Dealing with the media: A handbook for students, activists, community groups and anyone who can't afford a spin doctor, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney, NSW Soutphommasane, T 2009, Reclaiming patriotism: Nation-building for Australian progressives, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, Victoria Van Onselen, P & Errington, W 2008, John Winston Howard: The definitive biography, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria

10 Walter, J 2008, ‘Political Leaders and their Publics’, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 153-170.

Wear, R & Hede, A 1995, ‘Transformational versus transactional styles of cabinet leadership in Australian politics’, Australian Journal of Political Science vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 469-484.