Political Leadership in Times of Crisis

By Georgia Niutta

What satisfies good leadership in politics is a heavily contested topic – particularly in Australia. Over the years Australian politics in particular has been marred with political spills, intra and inter party badgering and political self- interest dominating public interest. As a result, public sentiment and trust towards our system of democratic political system has continued to decrease. 

Something that I have been grappling with in 2020 is the concept of leadership in crisis; and more specifically what I believe good crisis leadership, communication and management to look like. Through the worldwide devastation of COVID- 19 and the different responses to the pandemic; the murder of George Floyd the continuing mass inequality, inequity and injustice experienced by BIPOC in society and the ‘round the clock’ lens on the upcoming United States presidential election puts a spotlight on what leaders do or more importantly- do not do in a crisis. 

Adversity is a normal part of life, and politics is no different. Leaders are faced with hard decisions that impact citizens, and in Australia these decisions are made on both a state and federal level. These decisions all have risks and costs, and have a varying degree of impact on people. 

The concept of crisis leadership is a fragmented discipline however an article written in 2014 by Chris Ansell, Arjen Boin and Paul ‘t Hart in the Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership explores how the high threat, urgency and deep uncertain conditions of a crisis means that citizens look to leaders for safety and security. They identify three core roles of a political leadership in crisis; sovereign, facilitator and symbol. If a leader is able to be a strong, reliable and trustworthy symbol for the people; one who makes clear and concise policy decisions and encourages and promotes order and safety then a leader can be seen as broadly ‘successful’. But leadership and what one believes to be successful leadership is also incredibly subjective to the individual and their environment. 

The crisis leadership showcased by Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews during the COVID- 19 pandemic offers a case study and perhaps even a cautionary tale of just how intricate and challenging the task of crisis management within politics is. Early in the crisis, Premier Andrews was argued to fully embody the above definition of a ‘successful’ crisis leader through his immediate, explicit and unwavering policy decisions in regards to the first lockdown. He was commended for his action and was seen as a key influential figure in the National Cabinet. 

However, after the troubles of hotel quarantine, the second outbreak of the virus and a second lockdown in July with more stringent restrictions support for Premier Andrew’s leadership was wavering. He was argued to be responsible for this second wave, and whilst evidence highlights that this second lockdown and stage four restrictions has been successful – this does nothing to dispute the arguments out there that blame lands on Premier Andrew’s shoulders for this. 

However, this is where political leadership in crises gets complicated. Whether or not a political leader is successful in times of crisis can be entirely subjective and dependent on the individual and how the decisions of leader/s impacts their social, economic and environmental livelihood.

Moreover, whether or not a political leader takes accountability for their policy decisions and communicates the justifications for their actions clearly influences how we as citizens feel about said leader. 

So, where does this leave us?

As a white, cis, woman who has been able to retain her casual job and continue to study online, the impact of political leadership decisions made by Premier Andrew’s have been completely disparate to that of say a single mother who has been made redundant from her part- time job and is worrying about how to make sure their children have food on the table. It is normal to view things based on your own position and perspective; but it is imperative that I and others check our privilege and view crisis leadership from the perspective of those who do not have this privilege to protect them.  

It is hard to make sense of a crisis, and that is why we as citizens look to their political leaders for guidance and support. We want swift and clear answers; but often in crises this is not possible. 

We need to start looking at crisis leadership as more than just policy decisions made by politicians that are good or bad in our own personal view; as we can see- it’s a lot more complicated than that.