Our federal election is over

By the time this article is published Australia’s political landscape is changed, albeit by degrees. Who governs us? How will they govern? Will much change?

Opinions about the quality and adequacy of political leadership in Australia abound. It doesn’t take much to coax people to provide their own unique analyses of how well our leaders are doing, and what they should do to do better.

Some will focus on the provision of services and infrastructure, others will talk about how the economy is managed, while others will pass comment on how our leaders “look” or “come across”.

Then there’s those who claim to possess unique and privileged knowledge by providing fascinating, possibly even fanciful commentary concerning what goes on behind the scenes, as though they are actually there.

A common thread runs through our varied and divergent analyses of political leaders and, more generally, of all leaders. We expect our leaders to be unlike us. We expect them to be better than us.

We expect leaders to be of outstanding character and insight; to be exceptionally resilient and thick-skinned while also being empathic and sensitive; to sacrifice all for their roles while also being good to their families and remaining connected to the experiences of everyday people; to be flawless in every way while remaining inhumanly humble. Who would ever measure up to our expectations, and yet we remain singularly committed to the belief that if we get the right leaders good things will automatically follow. Is the flow of “good things” only about the quality of leaders?

Robert E. Kelly suggests that flows of “good things” have as much to do with the quality of followers as they do with the quality of those who lead them. At the turn of this century he identified five followership styles, through an engagement and critical thinking scale, that profoundly influence group outcomes (Robert E. Kelly. (1992) The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead. New York: Bantam Dell Publishing Group). Ira Chaleff developed his own followership model by focusing on the character as well the capacity of followers.

Followers, according to Chaleff, need to take responsibility and act with integrity and accountability irrespective of what they think about their leader(s) (Ira Chaleff. (2018). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Ira Chaleff. (2024). To stop a tyrant: The power of political followers to make or break toxic leaders. Los Angeles: Wonderwell Press.).

Far from sacrificing their freedom by following, good followers invest their freedom to benefit all. Engaged, adept and accountable followers influence, enable and possibly even create good leaders. Good followers are good for us all.

St Paul urged an early Christian community in Rome to be good followers, and to not use their Christian faith and values to rubbish or undermine their leaders. This was when their powerful political leaders made life horrid for them. He wrote, “Give everyone what is owed: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour. (Romans 13:7). In this way followers model their highest ideals, their aspirations for what is good, and their profound respect for all life and vocations as gifts from God given for the good of all.

We all have much to contribute for the good of our communities, and election outcomes don’t change that. Leaders are also followers. Let’s defiantly use wise words and sincere actions to give all leaders something good to follow. •