IWR in the news

13/12/07

Leading with courage

Matt Qvortrup, Guardian Comment is Free

As if Gordon Brown didn't have enough troubles already, the new EU treaty has thumped back into his overloaded in-tray.

The press have been trying to cause problems for him over whether he would or wouldn't sign the EU treaty in public tomorrow. And in the new year the bill to ratify the treaty will start its difficult passage through parliament.

Can Brown shrug off calls for a referendum? The first round of the debate about the treaty, when it was being agreed, certainly wasn't much fun for Brown. The Sun accused the prime minister of "surrender". The Express called him a "traitor". But it didn't really matter much because for a month or two he was a giant, national leader - practically floating above petty politics on a 13-point poll lead.

But now, as the EU issue rears its head again, Brown is in a rather weaker position. Troubles now seem to crowd in on a prime minister who needs to quickly shake off a series of negative associations the opposition want to stick on him - a reputation as a "bottler" or "coward" and someone who retreats into his bunker at the first sign of trouble.

Some people argue that exactly because of these criticisms Brown cannot afford to change direction on a referendum - he doesn't want to be accused of being a wimp again.

But surely that must be wrong. If Brown calls a referendum he will certainly not be accused of being a coward or a weak leader. Quite the reverse.

To show leadership is to stand up for what you believe in, to stand tall in the face of adversity and to fight for your beliefs - despite what the polls and the focus groups seem to say.

Some papers and writers see referendums as a sign of weakness, an indication that a leader lacks backbone and succumbs to the (populist) views of the public. In fact it is the other way round. To call a referendum is the true sign of belief in one's abilities and convictions and ability to truly lead the country.

A few historical examples will suffice. French president Charles de Gaulle called a referendum on French withdrawal from Algeria in the early 60s and won despite strong resistance. Spanish prime minister Felipe Gonzales did the same when he defied the hardliners in his party and called, fought and won a referendum on Spanish membership of Nato in 1986. The same was true when Frederick W de Klerk called a referendum on the abolition of apartheid. None of these leaders were sure of success, but they took matters into their own hands; they fought for what they believed in.

Calling a referendum certainly proves that a leader has courage. But it also fits with the politics that Brown wants to build in other ways. Remember the "new politics" of "listening and learning", which Brown promised in his speech accepting the Labour leadership? That might seem like a long time ago, but it was the right message for an electorate who are fed up of party politics, and insist on having their say.

But isn't the referendum a crude device? Do ordinary voters really know enough about the issues to make informed choices on complex issues?

The evidence, perhaps surprisingly, shows that they do. A representative sample of Danish voters in the 1992 Maastricht referendum campaign, in fact, knew more about the treaty than did the average backbench MP.

Moreover, the evidence suggests that frequent use of referendums leads over time to increased political participation, a higher turnout rate and greater knowledge about political issues.

For example, in countries that have held referendums on European integration, such as Ireland, France and Denmark, respondents could answer twice as many questions correctly about EU institutions as could respondents from Germany, Italy and Belgium - countries that had not held referendums on the EU.

Some might counter that ordinary voters are reactionary and will just say "no" to whatever is proposed to them.

This is not the case. More than 75% of all the 41 referendums held around Europe on EU related issues have resulted in a yes vote, including the 1975 referendum in Britain (where the yes side was initially far behind in the opinion-polls).

Brown is an astute politician. He knows that he needs to stamp his authority on developments lest he should be overtaken by events.

For, as Brown shows in his book on courage, great leaders are those who lead from the front. Great historical individuals are those who challenge their times - not the ones who shy away from facing the voters.

In the grand scheme of things, Brown is still relatively new at Number 10. It still remains to be seen if he will join the ranks of memorable political leaders. What is clear is that the first big test is whether he will lead on Europe.