Calls for the resignation of Premier Gladys Berejiklian should end now, and not be revisited unless ICAC makes findings of her direct personal involvement in corrupt conduct.
First, the premier is doing an excellent job of an exceptionally difficult task: keeping us safe from COVID-19, while also keeping schools and the economy functioning. And lest you think that is some trivial achievement, consider that Victoria remains under lockdown, while we continue to enjoy semi-normal life.
Getting rid of a pragmatic and effective leader in these circumstances is a huge and unnecessary gamble. And if you think these sorts of transitions always end well, just consider what countries like Brazil have witnessed since deciding to take an expansive approach to ousting leaders associated with, but not directly involved in, corruption.
It’s pretty safe to suggest that many Brazilians would do a lot to rewind the clock on presidential impeachment and have Dilma Rousseff instead of Jair Bolsonaro as their leader.
Second, we want the premier to be human, not robotic in her approach to life and politics.
US Vice-President Mike Pence recently demonstrated what it looks like when political leaders turn full robot: they no longer flinch when a fly decides to nest on their head for minutes at a time — or when they are witnessing the degradation of democratic norms by their own White House.
Leaders who are more human than robot, in contrast, have the capacity to empathise, and to understand the importance of family and loved ones to our happiness and resilience — and thus of public policies that put human wellbeing and safety first.
But there are pretty constant pressures on female leaders to be robots. For women to succeed in a man’s world, they often have to be extremely tough, downplaying their own emotional needs and reactions.
And female political leaders face even greater pressures than most women in leadership roles: to succeed they cannot be too feminine or masculine, too assertive or too passive, or too affected by sexist slander on social media.
Encouraging female leaders to develop rather than suppress their capacity for empathy, therefore, should be something we all support and encourage. And often, that requires the capacity to love, and be loved, even by someone who is distinctly flawed.
Third, there is something quite gendered — and unrealistic — about the idea that female leaders can have personal relationships only with model citizens.
Sure, it would be wonderful if all premiers could enjoy the good fortune of Jacinda Ardern and have good-looking domestic partners who are kind, loyal, hold the baby, fold the washing, do the shopping and cooking, never let them down or rely on their connections for any personal or political advantage.
But it would also be great if Cleaver, Richard Roxburgh’s character in Rake, was faithful and avoided alcohol and illegal drugs.
The problem is that partners both male and female, gay and straight, rarely come without flaws — and it is even rarer to find a flawless male-identifying, heterosexual political partner willing to endure the spotlight, pressure and endless hours alone involved in a relationship with a leading female politician.
So, Wendy (sort of) had Cleaver, and Gladys had Daryl.
We should not blame either of them for their partner’s flaws — unless they supplied the cocaine, or the political approvals or position that allowed illegal conduct to occur.
And so far, there is little suggestion that this is what occurred in the premier’s case.
So, we should just let her get on with the job — a job she does very well — and stop hoping for robots as leaders or blaming women for the failures of men.
Help us keep up the fight
Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.
If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today and get your first 12 weeks for $12.
Cancel anytime.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
Really this read like the sort of thing a high school student would knock up for an assignment. Pretty grating when you consider the quality of the articles preceding it.
As a high school teacher I totally agree with this.
Rosalind immediately preceding your article is one by David Hardaker – I earnestly recommend that you read that article for your own credibilty’s sake
I’m afraid Rosalind, she is not being blamed for the failures of men. What Daryl did or did not do is irrelevelant to her actual failure, and by her own admission and indeed vehement assertion as an excuse, she turned a blind eye to them as they affected not only her job, position as Premier and duty to the people of NSW, her supposedly first duty by Consorting with a known corrupt individual in whichever way you want to take the meaning of that word, is unforgivable. She has brought the high office of Premier into public disrepute. This is now a salacious circus, not just an examination of the possible or alledged corrupt dealings of a man’s machinations. Whether the Commision finds against him or not, the questions about “pillow talk” and what was said will stick like very large lumps of gooey mud to her crediblity forever and a week (a day will not suffice). She should save herself the agony NOW.
I agree, Albo does too, this sort of feeding frenzy is an example of the formula for “entertaining” people rather than informing themof useful and important matters. If the outcome finds Gladys guilty well then so be it , otherwise its just reading a tabloid ,reading drivel and removing your thoughts from anything relevant.
It could have just as easily been a man but having a nosey into a woman private business has a patriarchal misogynist type of intrigue.
Th e clamoring articles refered to are a typical media distraction designed to alienate the reader from politics and politiciians in general.
It’s a little disappointing Crikey bothered albeit they are fairer, it’s still a waste of effort.
I still agree with the heading , but as stated I don’t read this type of article and didn’t read this one, bit slack, judging on others comments its exactly the type of crap I find annoying. But I stand by the heading ..for what its worth..ICAC exists ,wasn’t completely defunded,and lets wait till the findings are delivered.
On reflection smatterings of andrew bolt like behavior on mypart but not hard right wing,. ha.. eergh.
This regrettable reading. Very low on substance. Questionably written. Ideologically driven. Priciply barren. Mind you, it would a winner over at the New Idea.