Mon, Mar 17, 2003 page9

• Having the courage of his convictions

  Tony Blair is putting his previously impregnable position as British prime minister on the line over the conflict with Iraq in a gamble that should be rewarded

  • By Ralf Dahrendorf
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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.

  

  ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA

  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.

  There are those who think that this is precisely what might happen to Blair over Iraq. They foresee a short war, the rapid collapse of the Baathist regime, and a new beginning for Iraq's people. Blair will then have triumphed in almost the classical sense of that word. Along with Bush, he would be acclaimed as a great leader, while voices of dissent and opposition would be silenced. His re-election would hardly be an issue; on the contrary, those who opposed him will be in trouble.

  However, other scenarios loom, not so much of defeat as of confusion and the impossibility of creating sustainable peace. But what is at stake in the Iraq debate is not so much a vision of the future as a moral principle. It really is a matter of conviction. Blair, at least, is pursuing his Iraq policy because he is deeply convinced that he is right. He will still retain that conviction even if he fails, although the price he will pay is certain to be high. Unlike Adenauer, Brandt and de Gaulle, Blair may really be going against the grain of his people rather than anticipating a changing general view.

  Blair knows all this, which is why he has hinted more than once that he has put his political career and his position as prime minister on the line. He is a true conviction politician, inspired less by a sense of the future as by a sense of morality. Such leaders risk a great deal -- and not just for themselves. Perhaps they risk more than can be justified. In today's crisis, anyone who believes in Western values must hope that such politicians emerge victorious.

  Ralf Dahrendorf, the author of numerous acclaimed books, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics and a former warden of St. Anthony's College, Oxford.

  Copyright: Project Syndicate and Institute for Human Sciences
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Typhoon could trigger sea warning, hit central Taiwan

  • 2

    Cancelations announced as sea warning issued for Typhoon Fung-wong

  • 3

    Exports soar 49.7% to all-time high

  • 4

    Fung-wong approaches Taiwan, batters Philippines

  • 5

    Tropical storm expected to strengthen into typhoon later today