Brawler statesman: Paul Keating and prime ministerial leadership in Australia

Abstract

Prime ministerial power resides in the institutions of government, and relies on complex interactions between the leader and the leadership environment. The party and the electorate can terminate a leader's tenure, and other institutions such as the media, parliament and sources of advice can all impact on the relative success of the prime minister. How these power sources are navigated is influenced by personal leadership styles. Because these styles vary, there is more than one path to effective leadership and political dominance. The Paul Keating Prime Ministership (1991-1996) tells us much about prime ministerial power and Australian political leadership. The lessons from his tenure are that prime ministers must maintain support in the electorate and the party room, because power is dependent on interaction with, and the support of, others. Prime Minister Keating was a dominant leader in relation to his colleagues in the caucus and the cabinet; his leadership was individual and authoritative. His downfall was the result of the ultimate power wielded by the Australian electorate used to devastating effect. Thus prime ministers are only ever as powerful as they are allowed to be; by the party room and by the people. The media and modern competitive electoral pressures provide increasing scope for individual leadership, but neglect of either of these domains still invites political oblivion. Australian prime ministers can act 'presidentially', but only within the confines of public and party expectations. This thesis utilises new material and an interactionist framework to re-examine the prime ministerial power debate and conclude that powerful leadership relies heavily on a willingness of others to be led. Paul Keating's stores of immense authority and influence relied on his personal approach but also, most importantly, on the compliance of his colleagues in the cabinet and caucus