Even those who disagree with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's stance on the Iraq crisis rarely fail to praise his courage. US President George W. Bush never faces hostile crowds in the way that Blair must. When Blair enters parliament for the weekly ritual of prime minister's questions, members of his own Labour Party heckle him and ask hostile questions. Outside parliament, even on television, Blair confronts groups that emphatically demand peace.
Throughout it all, Blair has shown the courage of his convictions. These are, quite simply, that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is an evil ruler who potentially threatens his neighbors and the wider world, and that he has to go. Blair's posture is all the more remarkable at a time when political leaders depend on opinion polls and the views expressed by so-called "focus groups" to tell them what to think. Many politicians try to stay as close to prevailing majority views as possible. They regard this as "democratic" and hope that such fidelity to the popular will guarantee them re-election.
Fortunately, such populism -- for it is just that -- is not ubiquitous. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain is not far behind Blair in showing the courage of his convictions. President Jacques Chirac of France has the support of his people, but he also has his agenda that appears to be concerned as much with French grandeur as with mere popular acclaim.
The most flagrant absence of leadership on display today, in the name of following the apparent majority view of the people, is that of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He not only probably won his last election by openly opposing military action in Iraq, but he continues to behave as if he were heading a peace march rather than a country.
Perhaps Schroeder should spare a thought for his two great predecessors, Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt. When Adenauer took Germany firmly into the Western alliance, he was not only opposed in parliament (by the Social Democrats), but also by a popular majority that thought his policy would make reunification with Soviet-controlled East Germany impossible.
Similarly, when Brandt launched his Ostpolitik two decades later, he was widely accused of selling out to the Communists and jeopardizing West Germany's European and Atlantic destiny, which by this point had become generally accepted.
Both leaders prevailed and in the end won elections. Other leaders have proved the same point. Charles de Gaulle prevailed politically after ending French colonial rule in Algeria. Mikhail Gorbachev did not, but he remains a prophet without honor in Russia for the policies of glasnost and perestroika that led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the rise of democratic Russia.
There is a point in all these cases that cannot be overlooked. Each political leader espoused ideas, policies, or principles that were far ahead of their peoples. They had, as it were, only history on their side.
These leaders seemed to be working against the grain, but the grain itself was about to change direction. Initially heterodox and apparently unacceptable views became the new orthodoxy accepted by most of their citizens. In a sense, this is the definition of true leadership: to take a country and its people to a better future which is not yet clear to most but that has been partly discovered and partly created by those in power who hold an unerring sense of direction.
RSS