Green Party deputy leader: being 'good and decent' should count for something
As in many areas of policy and process, the Green Party is ahead of its time. (That’s one way of being progressive.)
Take this statement about leadership from us as it pertains to good governance:
‘We seek a society in which people are empowered and involved in making the decisions which affect them.
We advocate participatory and democratic politics. Leadership should always be accountable, consensus-driven and moral.
We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers.’
The complaints of Corbyn’s erstwhile front bench colleagues have become a cacophony over the last few days. A vote of no confidence was precipitated and won by them. Corbyn has never looked more vulnerable.
Far from seeking to capitalise on Labour’s grief for party political gain, I simply wish to understand it and what it says about leadership in politics.
Given Corbyn’s refrain that he was elected overwhelmingly by grassroots members to pursue a new and different way of doing politics, we should ask whether his leadership style needs to be given a better chance.
The scenes of people gathering to greet and support the Labour leader outside parliament this week were quite extraordinary.
Far from finding himself undermined in their eyes, Corbyn is seen as representing their cause more vividly, as the underdog versus the establishment. Here is a leader they can identify with – for them, it is his detractors who have lost touch.
What does this tell us about what his detractors say makes a good leader? Should Corbyn have made others believe in something he didn’t, or at least not to the extent required, by confecting emotion? How does that sit with honesty and authenticity in politics, characteristics in all too short supply?
The biggest clue comes from Hilary Benn’s put-down of Corbyn:
‘He’s a good and decent man, but he’s not a leader. That’s the problem.’
Benn begs the question about what counts as a leader, or at least a good one.
It sounds like he is claiming Corbyn’s stated attributes count for nothing towards leadership. Yet surely he is wrong about that.
To be a good leader one should surely be at least ‘good and decent’; call it a necessary if not sufficient condition.
Leaders pursuing wrongful causes are ten-a-penny. They are bad leaders in the most important sense, in their failure of moral judgement.
While Corbyn’s own colleagues plot against him, they might reflect on the alternative: empower thyself – not to have control over Corbyn, but rather to direct oneself to post-Brexit emergency planning.
This might require rather more leadership than they are used to showing, and it sounds to me, for all their protest, that they would not make for good leaders.
Shahrar Ali is deputy leader of the Green Party
See: Jeremy Corbyn ‘will not betray’ members by resigning
See: Is Corbyn’s mandate as robust as he thinks it is?
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
20 Responses to “What do Jeremy Corbyn’s critics mean by ‘good leadership’?”
Ruth Smart
A leader has to be able to lead, to set our a clear vision of the way forward, advocate for that vision and bring their team along with them, being a decent person is not enough to be a leader.
In my opinion Corbyn could only ever be a leader of a socialist protest party, not a party of government, but that is for the Labour Party to decide.
Dadad
The answer is simple; we need the Harrogate Agenda (qv) Now.
A Powell
It’s great having a leader who talks sense and thinks. But it might pacify the ranks if his post was a job-share, maybe with Andy Burnham, who also talks sense. Given the Brexit turmoil, we may need a leader who can be in two places at the same time!
Eric Jarvis
So far I see more repetition of the idea that Jerry Corbyn is “not a leader” but nobody explaining what that actually means. Like most in the country I am getting increasingly irritated by meaningless rhetoric repreated ad infinitum as if that is a substitute for actually having something substantial to say.
Carey
Me too Eric Jarvis!