The moral maze of leadership
What is a moral leader? Does such a thing exist? A BBC Radio 4 programme aptly named ‘Moral Maze’ recently asked how should we judge a leader, by their virtue or by their effectiveness?
It has been quite a time in the UK for judging our leaders’ ‘moral characters’.
In the UK, a contender for the leadership of the Conservative party, and therefore the next PM, Boris Johnson, has been in the media for all the ‘wrong’ reasons. He was overheard having an argument with his partner at home that was recorded by the neighbours and then shared in the media. What then ensued was a public dissection of Mr Johnson’s moral character.
Another contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party UK was Michael Gove. He announced that he had taken cocaine twenty years ago before he entered politics. Many talked about his lack of morality and importantly that his apology felt halfhearted. He said he had no idea back then that he would be in politics. This to some felt as if he was excusing his behaviour back then only because he was now in politics.
How ‘good’ does a leader need to be? Is it realistic to think that they can be saintly and above the inherently flawed human being? How flawed is too flawed and who decides? These important questions were put to the ‘jury’ that was a Radio 4 programme called Moral Maze. The moral decoders were, Giles Fraser, Ella Wheelan, Mona Saddiqui and Tim Stanley and they heard a number of ‘witnesses’ who were asked: is there and should there be a difference between the personal and the private when it comes to moral standards of political leaders?
What is good and how good must you be to bring about good outcomes in society is an important question for the Centre for Public Impact, especially when we think about the legitimacy of government. It is hard to separate the illegitimacy of government from that of its leaders and representatives. Certainly the citizens we have spoken to in asking what legitimacy today means said, among many things, more transparency and authenticity. And when they did so, they didn’t just mean of institutions but of those leading them too.
One ‘witness’ and journalist Andrew Gimson, who has written a biography of Mr Johnson, said that there is still a private and public — the public can decide what to think of what he reveals but that a whole picture of someone just isn’t possible so it is hard to judge someone by one or two ‘not very good’ acts.
We also crave politicians to be exciting too — so are we in fact the hypocrites?
Theresa May was asked by a Sky News presenter what the naughtiest thing was she had done, she said she had run through a wheat field, much to the annoyance of the farmer. This was in fact seen as not very naughty at all — boring even. So perhaps we only want authentic if authentic is also interesting, making us the hard to please.
Another school of thought is that how naughty you can be depends on what, if any, moral issue you are standing on in the first place, commented Gimson. Michael Gove was accused of being a hypocrite because he had an opinion on the UK drugs policy but had not stated his own past acts. Is Boris Johnson standing on the basis of marriage and the morality of relationships? No. So could we let him off? I think so but could I forgive much more? Perhaps a judgement accumulates over time. The programme asked whether lies and private troubles that are denied or dismissed over time leak into leaders’ ability to run a country and start to ‘infect’ the way they make day-to-day decisions and then how society thinks of morality too.
This reminded me of Trump’s disregard for women, in part judged by the way he has spoken privately and behaved in public towards women. We worry that over time society may begin to think, well if it doesn’t matter for him, it shouldn’t matter for me.
The Christian ‘moral commentator’ George Pitcher reminded us the higher you climb in public life, the harder it is to distinguish between a public and private life and there is a ‘moral metric’ by which we can judge how much of the ‘bad’ is going on. There is a ‘moral character’ where ‘political actions’ grow from. Virtues, commented Pitcher, could be seen as the classical virtues of wisdom, or justice and fairness of the type Thomas Aquinas encapsulated. Are these the means by which we should judge the capacity for leadership today? I am certain these are too high a bar.
On the other end of the spectrum, it was also argued by Dr Stephen de Wijze from Manchester University that the requirements of politics call for a set of virtues not found in religion — robustness, ruthlessness and toughness for example. A leader who can deal with a difficult opponent requires them to be ‘resolute and steadfast’ and if they don’t do that then they are heading for catastrophe, one contributor argued. So, perhaps we need to see a ‘rough edge’ in our leaders but nasty politics has in my view and those at CPI we spoke to widened the legitimacy gap.
The Legitimacy Behaviours
Who are we to judge anyway — we are all flawed! As individuals, we make decisions based on where leaders stand on an issue we care about and their ability to fight for them — sometimes we defend them even if our leaders are unlikeable in private — we are not thinking at all about effectiveness or virtue but ourselves. The worry is that there is perhaps no (known) limit to how unlikeable one can be then. One thing all agreed on was the higher you go, the more scrutiny you have to be under, such is the nature of democracy and a free press.
Who wants this job? Not me. I was told at university that unless I was prepared to live like a moral and saintly leader, with no skeletons in the cupboard, I should give up. This scared me off and I am sure many others too. So what is the standard by which we can judge political leaders, if not religious or ideological?
According to one academic, ‘integrity’ matters — having principles, such as honesty and transparency. There is ‘having a good character’ said Dr Rachel Wiseman of Liverpool University. This is not about being naughty but the notion of character that goes deeper than personality but into how our lives are patterned. This is more about someone being motivated, patient, courageous and principled — they cannot be a saint, more someone you’d imagine associating with. This I felt more comfortable with but how can leaders show those traits every day and we see that?
The moral code book for leadership doesn’t exist but CPI’s ‘legitimacy behaviours’ may help us have a conversation that offers neither a religious view nor a Machiavellian view on the characteristics we desire of not only government but of political leaders too. I have attempted to show how those behaviours can apply to leaders here:
- Work together with people towards a shared vision — as a leader you cooperate and respect people’s differing views
- Bring empathy into government — as a leader you show you understand and care
- Build an authentic connection — as a leader you are your authentic self, don’t fake it
- Enable the public to scrutinise government — as a leader be transparent, don’t lie or spin
- Value citizens’ voices and respond to them — as a leader, listen and respond as much as you argue
This ongoing debate about Boris’s private life and the lives of all our leaders is not very entertaining to me. Every young person is listening and watching is maybe quietly ruling themselves out of public life, and that impacts on a characteristic of government that all the above behaviours depend on: a diverse and inclusive government. Being fit for leadership is a journey, advised Dr Wiseman.
So the next time you judge your political leader, perhaps judge them for their ability to build legitimacy with people, to grow from mistakes. That is after all how you’d judge a friend, an employee or a partner in life. Wiseman said it is time we talk about the slack we should give people in politics. Slack before slaps is perhaps the way I will think about it from now on. My new moral compass.
