Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

Howard Epstein – IT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR POLITICAL LEADERS TO BE EFFECTIVE THAN POPULAR

Introduction

When one considers political leaders, both of our time and through the ages, one is driven to a consideration of two predominant issues: their popularity and their effectiveness. Of course, the former is less important in a dictatorship than in a democracy, but even dictators know that they need to make gestures in the direction of the bulk of the people, and that they cannot maintain power by force alone. Unless you can carry the populace with you, you will have to spend more and more time on controlling them and their violent urges, with everything from food-tasters to gulags.

You might well argue that the two fundamental considerations are inextricably bound up with one another: that a leader who is ineffective will soon lose his personal appeal; but charm or braggadocio will often carry a leader further than his effectiveness – or lack of it – might justify. In any event, those around the leader might represent constituencies of voters whose interests or satisfaction levels would need to be cared for – or it may be that those close to the leader could become disenchanted for their own reasons, disconnected with their electorates. Much of this can be seen in the case of Julius Caesar.

Julius Caesar

Caesar presents a better starting point than the Greeks not least because there are thinner historical mists and a more accessible history to mine in the one hundred years before the common era than up to seven hundred years earlier. What we can say about the Greeks is that “demos” is their term and democracy is their legacy. Around the fifth century BCE, a system of direct democracy was introduced, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, ie, not a child, an alien, a slave or a woman, and these represented “probably no more than 30 percent of the total adult population”, but it was a start. Direct democracy might seem to impose less of a requirement for popularity than today’s systems but as we shall see in the case of the Brexit referendum, personalities are not unimportant even on single issue ballots.

It is interesting to consider the period immediately before Caesar’s emergence as the Roman Emperor.

Twenty years before Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BCE, he, Crassus and Pompey formed a political alliance that dominated Roman politics for several years. They set about amassing power as the Populares. meaning “favouring the people”, that is to say the cause of the plebeians or commoners. Is this, we might ask ourselves, the birth of modern politics and even of populist politics? In any event, the Populares’ concerns were for the urban poor. They promoted the provision of a grain dole for the poor by the state at a subsidized price and other reforms which helped the poor, particularly redistributing land for the poor to farm and debt relief.

The Roman plebs appreciated that Caesar genuinely understood and cared about them and about Rome. Indeed, the reverence that his legions in Gaul had for him, and their willingness to follow him into rebellion against the Roman Senate – and the crossing of the Rubicon – amid the considerable risk to themselves should he fail, speaks volumes about how ordinary people were prepared to follow him.

Caesar understood that the unchecked ambition and rivalry of his fellow Patricians was a mortal threat to Rome and he had the integrity and courage to oppose and stand against his class if necessary to preserve, Rome. Unfortunately, by the time he had become dictator in perpetuity and was about to be anointed king, he was suffering from the hubris that we see in so many despots, and he failed to appreciate that he had fatally offended those closest to him – apart from Mark Anthony who might have saved him. Caesar was stabbed to death by those closest to him but there were over 40 collaborators who saw the dangers that this populist and highly effective politician presented to their power bases.

There is no shortage of candidates for our consideration from the beginning of the Common Era down to the present, but we have time to consider only two.

King John

In 1215, on Runnymede Green, King John, universally regarded as a disastrous monarch, and certainly one who could not measure up to his mythically successful brother, Richard the Lionheart, conceded absolute monarchical power to a council of twenty-five barons who would in future monitor and ensure John’s adherence to the charter, Magna Carta. John was more interested in a dissolute life than popularity amongst the people and it cost the British crown dear.

The Sun King

Fast forward to France in the seventeenth century and regard the seventy-two year rule of the Sun King, Louis XIVth. Whether his sobriquet was self-ascribed or bestowed on him by his people is unclear but there can be no doubt that under his rule France became the predominant power of the western world. Further, it was he who ensured that culture and the arts became embedded in French society, something that had wide-ranging appeal. In the meantime, warfare defined the foreign policy of Louis XIV, and his personality shaped his approach. Driven “by a mix of commerce, revenge and pique”, Louis sensed that warfare was the ideal way to enhance his glory. In peacetime he concentrated on preparing for the next war. He taught his diplomats that their job was to create tactical and strategic advantages for the French military.

He had no difficulty in raising armies for five wars. You do not achieve that through unpopularity. Nor is that how you survive on the throne for over 70 years. In the Sun King we see effectiveness as a leader generating popularity.

The Romanovs, who ruled Russia, the only power on the continent of Europe comparable to France, given its population and land mass, never sought popularity and we know how badly things ended for them. The same may be said of Louis XIVth successors with the guillotine despatching Louis XVIth and the whole aristocratic class, as a direct result of their unpopularity.

Britain

Meanwhile, in Britain, we see the foundation of the colonies and the expansion of the British Empire which provided both opportunities to an emerging middle class – then a uniquely British phenomenon – and the harsh deportation of troublesome indigent children, littering the streets of the major cities, and of convicts and other desirables, to the Thirteen Colonies in North America. After American independence, the deportations continued to South Africa and Australasia. One way to keep your popularity high is to cause to disappear those who are most likely to cause you difficulties. Indeed, that of itself would curry favour with the growing middle class. None of this is to say that there were not unpopular monarchs after, say, Elizabeth I, or that there were not busts as well as booms, but once constitutional monarchy was well-embedded in the system, it was the third estate – not the crown nor the aristocracy but the commoners – in the House of Commons, that needed to look to their ability to be either effective or popular or both. After all, there would be a general election every few years – admittedly only amongst land-owners until the 20^th century, but they would vote according to their interests, which included stability and therefore the general level of satisfaction amongst ordinary people.

Disraeli and Gladstone

So now we come to consider the popularity of modern politicians and there could be no starker example than the rivalry between Disraeli and Gladstone, arising from their mutual loathing, as each was determined to outdo the other over a period of some thirty years of the Victorian era. Their backgrounds could not have been more different: whilst Gladstone was a Whig, Disraeli was a conservative – and identified as a Jew.

The rivalry between Disraeli and Gladstone was settled in the former’s favour in the eyes of Queen Victoria. She had taken an immediate liking to Disraeli when he first became Prime Minister, as he had the gift of being able to listen to and empathise with people at all levels. The Queen had needed a friend to replace Prince Albert, her much-loved husband, who had died in 1861 and caused her to withdraw entirely from public life. Disraeli’s arrival as Prime Minister in 1868 started the process of her “restoration.”

It cannot be disputed that, of the two men, Disraeli was the more personable. They may have been the bitterest of rivals, yet Gladstone and Disraeli were certainly two of the greatest politicians that Great Britain has ever had. But it was Disraeli who provided the Conservative Party with its policies of popular democracy and imperialism.

Lloyd-George

This review of two thousand years of history has to be selective and subjectively so. Accordingly, we are now forced into the 20th century and its first defining event: the First World War. Of all the giants amongst the politicians of that time was the diminutive David Lloyd-George. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lloyd George’s 1909 budget has been called the ‘people’s budget’ since it provided for social insurance that was to be partly financed by land and income taxes. The budget was rejected by the House of Lords. This, in turn, led directly to the Parliament Act of 1911 by which the Lords lost their power of veto. Small wonder that he was a popular leader.

Winston Churchill

For a very short time in 1938, Neville Chamberlain was popular with the British people after he promised them “peace in our time” but he had been duped by Hitler and was replaced by Churchill, who was regarded as cavalier and unreliable. Nevertheless, Churchill was effective in resisting great pressure to deal with Hitler at the time of Dunkirk, thus saving the western world from domination by a thousand year Third Reich. Churchill’s popularity was hard-earned – through his effectiveness as Britain’s stalwart war leader. Nevertheless, his effectiveness and popularity was insufficient to defeat the Labour Party in the 1945 election, something that baffles many to this day.

Reagan, Carter, Nixon and Clinton

Often it is not popularity that wins elections so much as its absence that loses them. Would Reagan have beaten Jimmy Carter had Carter secured the release of the Iranian Embassy hostages? Unknowable but unlikely. Carter created a stir sufficient for him to defeat Gerald Ford, but his failure to be effective as against the Iranians did for him.

When it seemed that Nixon was withdrawing the United States from Vietnam in 1972, he won re-election by a landslide – the greatest ever in the USA. His resignation to avoid impeachment in 1974 was unimaginable at that time.

The catalogue of corruption of Clinton and his wife is long and uncomfortable, and extended beyond claiming back the deposits on empty drinks bottle, or being difficult to work with; but as long as the economy was doing well, the public forgave him. Bill Clinton won widespread popularity because almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration (an average of 250,000 new jobs every month), in 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years, he cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers and he signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.

Yet it was as a result of his being a semi-detached president that 9/11 occurred. The public would have been better off had he been less popular and more effective.

David Cameron

Now let us consider the case of David Cameron. Here you have a most untypical UK political leader: no allegations about corrupt practices, charming and popular enough to win the 2015 election handsomely. Nothing about him to dislike – until the fault in his stars revealed itself. Cameron, to avoid losing several parliamentary seats to Nigel Farage’s UKIP party, promised the British people that they would have the opportunity to participate in a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the European Union. So confident was he that he knew the mood of the country, he gave little thought to the outcome and kept to his promise in the simplest way.

Now, whilst most golf clubs would not change the position of the bar without a vote on a two thirds majority, Cameron allowed the referendum to proceed on the basis that the question whether to leave or stay could be decided by a simple majority. And so it was: by 51.9% of the vote. Cameron immediately resigned confirming his failure. So Cameron: likeable (and popular a short time before) but ineffective.

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela too, was hugely popular, both outside and within South Africa. Undoubtedly, he avoided a bloodbath but what he achieved otherwise for black South Africans was pitifully meagre. Still today 90-95% of the wealth of the country is held by 10% of the population – and most of them are white. For the blacks, he achieved far less than he should have done in terms of recognising the scourge of AIDS or ensuring that his succession would be in safe – ie in non-corrupt – hands. There can be little doubt that Mandela’s popularity served as insufficient compensation for his failings. Put another way: better he should have been less of a gentleman and rolled out an effective HIV prevention program. That would have accorded him a legacy of effectiveness.

Barak Obama

Now consider the case of Obama. He was popular before he had achieved anything and remained beloved by many in America. Yet what is his record? He:-

1.       catalysed the Arab Spring;

2.       allowed the Russians to take over Crimea;

3.       left Iraq too soon and let ISIS take over;

4.       failed to recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement;

5.       signed the disastrous nuclear deal with the Mullahs of Iran;

6.       waged war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval;

7.       allowed the building of Chinese bases in the South China Sea and off the coast of Somalia at the entrance to the Gulf of Aden;

8.       paid ransom to Iranian for hostages- and using foreign currency in an unmarked plane;

9.       lied about paying the ransom;

10.   paid tribute to the Japanese at Hiroshima on US Memorial Day;

11.   trashed America 18 times on a tour of Asia;

12.   pushed the U.N. resolution condemning Israel for legally building houses in Jewish neighbourhoods; and

13.   released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority in last few hours of presidency.

14. He allowed a red line in Syria over the use of WMD to be crossed thus allowing Assad to survive and then succeed in the Syrian Civil War.
15. He failed to close Guantanamo Bay.
16. Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former government officials – promise broken.
17. Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants – promise broken
18. Reduce oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030 – not even started
19. Cut the cost of a typical family’s health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year – promise broken.
20. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda – promise broken

Trump and Netanyahu

And so we come to two political leaders facing popularity issues who yet may be the most effective leaders of their times: Trump and Netanyahu.

No need to spend too long discussing Trump’s likeability or otherwise. The man is plainly somewhere on a spectrum from boorish to monstrous. Few of those who elected him, and would do so again, would claim that he is particularly honest or decorous in his behaviour. But they do not care as long as he keeps fulfilling his promises.

Here’s what USA Today said about him:-

By every measure of personal and national prosperity, the nation is better off than it was one year ago. And his record?

• Low unemployment, rising wages
• A booming stock market
• A tax cut that will put more money in middle-class pockets
• At the border, illegal crossings are down as much as 60%, showing that a willingness to enforce the law and end incentives to enter the country illegally will change behaviour.
• And for all the talk of Russian conspiracies, Trump has taken a tough stance with Putin — willing to work with him where it advances US interests but also arming Ukraine in its ongoing fight with Russia.
• In the Middle East, ISIS has gone from a burgeoning caliphate stretching from the Atlantic to the Levant to a failed pseudo-state, while Trump has revitalized our decades old alliance with Saudi Arabia and its new, reformist crown prince.
• Trump’s appointees are quietly cutting regulations pursuant to one of his first executive orders, which instructs them to cut two regulations for every new one they put in place.
• Election Promise: Move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem – kept.
• Election Promise: Raise tariffs on goods imported into the US – kept.
• Election Promise: Suspend immigration from terror-prone places – kept.
• Election Promise: Renegotiate the Iran deal – kept.

So finally we come to the case of Binyamin Netanyahu. Said to be corrupt, the subject of several police investigations. To remind you:-

1. “Case 1000” opened officially in December 2016. This investigations looked into valuable presents and gifts received by Netanyahu, and his family throughout the years from several known wealthy acquaintances of the family.
2. “Case 2000” deals with recorded conversations PM Netanyahu had with the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, one of the largest newspapers in circulation in Israel. During these conversations Netanyahu is believed to have proposed to push legislation harming Yedioth’s major competitor, Israel Hayom, in exchange for more flattering and positive coverage of himself in Yedioth.
3. “Case 3000” does not directly involve Netanyahu, as it involves a list of business men, lawyers, and officials in the security organizations in Israel, and their connection to a deal made between Israel and Germanyin what may be a bribed deal, for the purchase of Three Dolphin-class submarine and four Sa’ar 6-class corvette. Some of these individuals are related to Netanyahu in a professional or family ties. As of February 2018 Netanyahu is not a suspect in “3000”
4. “Case 4000” regards telecommunications company Bezeq’s relationship with its regulator, the communication ministry (Netanyahu being the minister until February 2017), and favourable coverage to Netanyahu in Walla!.
5. Case “1270” is an offshoot of “4000” and involves an alleged appointment bribe offer to an Attorney General of Israelcandidate in exchange for dropping a case against Netanyahu’s wife.

The Israel Police have recommended Netanyahu be charged by the attorney general in “1000” and “2000”. Netanyahu is a suspect in “1270” and “4000”.

Whilst the will he/won’t he speculation continues over whether Bibi will be indicted, it is fairly clear now that he will not resign at the point of an indictment. Possibly he would soldier on until a trial or even a conviction.

Is he popular? The numbers of people who spend their time complaining about Bibi seems to be substantial and growing.

Is he electable? We will find out before long.

Apart from amongst his closest supporters, Bibi is not adding to his likeability factor by being the subject of multiple criminal investigations. Yet there is every chance that before he is indicted he will be returned as PM in a general election. Will that mean he is likeable or effective.

How does Israel look after a decade of Bibi’s leadership?

• 8^th most powerful nation in the world, for the second year running;
• 11^th in the happiness league (Finland is first);
• 143^rd in the world leader in terms of its low suicide rate (Finland is 25^th);
• the tunnels threat seemingly neutralised;
• a golden age for Mossad with four terrorist bombers taken out within the last three months, from Malaysia to Iran;
• cranes operating everywhere you look trying to keep in step with ever-burgeoning population growth;
• Foreign exchange reserves – 23^rd globally – is out of all proportion when put in a per capita context – 8^th globally (and the USA is 22^nd on that basis);
• the tenth largest exporter of military hardware – some say fifth – in the world; and
• half the cyber-technology companies in the world are located in Israel.

There are many other signs of success in our country and society. Whilst the PM has his detractors on the basis of his character, I for one think this a small price to pay for his effective leadership as manifested in the progress being made on so very many fronts. The conditions for national progress cannot be separated from a country’s leadership any more than blame for failure could be dodged by them.

© 2018 Howard Epstein