The Legacy of John Howard

Posted by Andy Bracken on 02.14.2008

The culmination of the long political career of John Howard brings the obvious question- how will history judge his reign?

If you've read anything of mine over the past few years, I've little doubt that you've clicked this expecting yet another hatchet-piece celebrating the flaws of our recently ousted leader. Granted, the chances of me suddenly becoming John Howard's cheerleader sit somewhere below the odds of Amanda Vanstone signing a modelling contract, but my aim with this piece is to reflect on his legacy with as much fairness and objectivity as I can muster.

Love him or hate him, the political career of John Howard truly should be required research for any political aspirant in this country of any persuasion. From a blisteringly rapid start, to the oblivion of the eighties and early nineties, through his triumphant reign in the nation's top job and then on to his calamitous self-destruction in his last term, his public service has been a rollercoaster of extremes.

Within the party, he was earmarked for progression early. As the youthful, hard-nosed Treasurer in the Fraser Government, he became the darling of the arch-conservatives within his party. His signature traits remained constant throughout his career- his unbridled hatred for the union movement, and his almost fanatical yearning for the (in his mind, at least) halcyon days of 1950s Australia. Both traits would have a massive impact on the course of his career, both good and bad.

John Howard's greatest personal quality is resilience. After Fraser was defeated by Bob Hawke, Howard assumed the role of Deputy Leader of his party under Andrew Peacock, and then after Peacock suffered a similar fate, Howard used his wiles to push his leader to resign. Howard, having essentially executed a bloodless coup without publicly making a single wave, rose to the leadership.

His seemingly inevitable ascension through the ranks came to a crashing halt after his election bid was derailed by the unfailingly mental Queenslander, Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He was never overwhelmingly popular within his party- his ruthless ambition was certainly respected, but rarely admired- and the fallout from the lost election was enough for his party to revisit Peacock as a more suitable leader. Howard became the quintessential also-ran, and after being passed over for leadership yet again after Peacock's second election loss in favour of the more youthful John Hewson (and, later, Alexander Downer), Howard famously likened his chances of leading the party again as "Lazarus with a triple-bypass".

But the man was as patient as he was savvy. After Downer (predictably) failed to penetrate the electorate, the list of potential leaders was reduced to two. The Liberal Party could wager on the unknown (and unready) Peter Costello, or they could throw a lifeline to the seasoned warhorse in Howard.

The party room was informally consulted, and the weight of opinion was overwhelming. Howard's people, his colleagues, his own party- they determined that they would rather see likely defeat under the untested Costello than support another Howard tilt at The Lodge.

Of course, history tells us that Costello was hesitant to take on the job, citing his inexperience, and Howard became the only remaining option. The achievement was undeniable: John Howard had managed to assume the leadership of a party that had twice dumped him, appointed to lead a team that disliked and distrusted him.

This is no backhanded compliment. A politician that is competent, admired and successful often finds it hard to rise to a position where he can win the leadership of a country. For Howard to achieve the same, who had the baggage of a previous election defeat, poor economic credentials, a party room whose detest for him was barely constrained, and a personality wholly devoid of likeability or charisma, required a combination of extraordinary acumen and remarkable timing. John Winston Howard was blessed with an abundance of both.

He had visited the depths of oblivion, and returned. Not only that, but he returned at a time where his singular electable quality, his reliable image, was in high demand. He was the perfect contrast to the abrasive and animated (and polarising) Paul Keating. In 1996, he easily defeated Keating to take the reigns of power in Australia. John Howard's comeback- possibly the most impressive (and least likely) comeback in Australia's political history- was complete.

In government, Howard solidified his reputation of being perhaps the most astute pure politician since Menzies. Howard was never particularly well loved- nor, to be honest, even truly respected- in the electorate but he excelled in presenting himself (especially in his first couple of terms) not as the best candidate, but rather the least worst.

John Howard coupled this public ambivalence with incredibly canny opportunism to cement his ideology into legislation. He took images of some refugees trying to save their children from drowning, turned them into proof that dastardly foreigners would kill their children to infiltrate our country- as well as figuratively urinating on maritime law to keep out a few other stinky foreigners- and then used the public fallout to both win an election and embed his opprobrious "One Australia" policy of years prior. He took the global reduction of interest rates and parlayed it into evidence of his economic prowess, and used this windfall to scare the bejesus out of the public and win another election. His comprehension of the psychological voting triggers of his constituents was unparalleled.

This was matched by his appreciation for the psephological nuances of the Australian voting system. In 1998, he led a frankly inspired marginal seat strategy to impart another long held wish, the implementation of a consumption tax, on a majority of the public that voted against it. To put it simply, he was unquestionably the best political tactician of his generation by some margin, and wouldn't be significantly outclassed by anyone since federation.

In a nutshell, he managed to rise to a position of dominance within a party that detested him, he conquered an electorate that respected rather than admired him, and he managed to, at least temporarily, convince the electorate that his wistful memories of Australia past was a desirable vision for the country's future. The against-the-odds tale of the scrappy-nerd-come-good should be evidence of greatness.

Unfortunately, he will not be widely remembered as a truly great leader.

There is no better evidence of this than the attitude of his own party since his defeat. Aside from the most extreme right elements of the federal Libs- and by this, I refer to the likes of Wilson Tuckey- there has been an undisguised distancing from the ideological right-wing bent of Howard's reign. Howard was successful in imparting his views on the country, but very little of it will remain for long. His union-busting WorkChoices package will be consigned to history within the next couple of years, his "Pacific Solution" approach to dissuading illegal entry from the north has already ended, and his long-held opposition to aboriginal reconciliation was made irrelevant with the bipartisan apology to the "Stolen Generations" just this week. His support for the retention of the monarchy of this country (and the gerrymander that he produced during the republican debate was truly a beautiful manipulation of an outwardly neutral process) will surely be overridden in the near future.

(His only real redemption in this regard comes from his greatest triumph. His most admirable political policy was one that will endure, that being the improved firearm laws he drove home following the Port Arthur massacre. The horrific crime brought the issue into the public eye, and Howard rallied this concern into a genuine, positive change on our society. If he is remembered fondly for anything, let it be for his strength in restricting the availability of guns in our society.)

Moreover, it is the undignified end to his parliamentary service that will truly preclude any declaration of greatness. His ego, which he had masterfully suppressed until the last eighteen months or so of his reign, became the root of his extended fall from power.

He had managed to neutralise any discussion of succession by using his oft-used retirement condition: that he would stay on for as long as the party wanted him. It was publicly known that Peter Costello believed that Howard had made a deal to pass on the leadership (which was in return for Costello standing aside in favour of Howard in the mid-1990s), a belief that Howard consistently rejected. When a witness to the alleged meeting came forward and supported Costello's version of events, Howard had the option of either bowing out gracefully and giving his successor time to establish his leadership credentials, or he could hang on and widen the split between he and his deputy. Howard chose the latter, again claiming his long-standing justification- that it was the will of the party. It was shortly afterwards that his party started finding themselves behind in the polls, a position that they would not be able to correct. In hindsight, this was to be Howard's final chance of retiring without the stigma of a humbling defeat.

The party's will would later waver. After Kevin Rudd won the leadership, he widened the margin between himself and Howard, as well as that between the two parties. The parliamentary Liberal Party, growing more nervous as the anticipated election drew closer, started privately questioning whether or not Costello would indeed be the better choice to lead them into battle.

The situation came to a head within a couple of months of the election. Howard sought advice from his senior ministers, who informed him that the party's view was that Howard's time was up, and that they couldn't win the election with him as leader.

What followed behind the scenes can only be described as Howard's ego being unleashed. Against the advice of his ministers (and completely disregarding his own "will of the party" credo), he quashed any speculation of a graceful retirement by refusing to quit, knowing that Costello would severely damage not only his own public persona, but the electoral chances of the party, by launching a challenge. Costello refused to challenge unless Howard resigned voluntarily, and Howard refused to leave unless he was challenged. The stalemate meant that Howard would lead the party into defeat in the election, which would end in the ultimate humiliation- he would not only lead his party into the political wilderness, he would also lose his own seat, winning infamy as only the second sitting Prime Minister to do so.

There is little doubt that a politician as historically conscious as John Howard would have spent more than a little time pondering how he would be remembered within his country. That said, my view is that after his second term, his quest for a lengthy run in he top job became merely a method of achieving his greater goal, that of being viewed internationally as a statesman in the Churchillian mould.

Howard made little secret of his desire to sit at the big table in global geo-political circles. Being as internationally insignificant as Australia is (and for those of you screaming about how unpatriotic that statement is, settle down- it's not a slight, it's merely a fact) Howard had to hitch his proverbial wagon to a more influential leader. Bush needed an ally, and Howard wanted people around the world to know his name. Whether it was being a good wingman after Kyoto, or following his buddy into an Iraqi quagmire, Howard accepted that his best chance of international respect was a close relationship was to provide a supportive voice.

Unfortunately, his international ambitions met the same fate as his domestic ones. The Iraqi debacle has been widely discredited, and will not be looked back on in even remotely the same way as Churchill facing down the Nazis. His refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocols were forgotten before he even vacated Kirribilli, with the Rudd government making ratification their first major initiative. Howard, no longer the curiously invincible antipodean political force, has been all but forgotten internationally. At best, he can expect a repayment for his fanatical support for the monarchy with an irrelevant royal honour.

For the status of greatness to be bestowed upon a politician, the criteria must stretch to more than just endurance. He must enact a lasting, visionary change upon the society that he governs, changes that withstand the cruelty of hindsight and the test of time. He must be remembered for more than just his ruthless determination and political savvy, but also charismatic leadership and a genuine connection with his constituents.

He must be able to recognise when his term of useful service has finished, and know not to overstay his welcome. He must demonstrate the ability to not only make a triumphant entrance, but also an honourable, dignified exit from public life.

John Howard had many successes in his political life, but those must be tempered against his numerous defeats. He will remain in the history books as a Prime Minister of impressive longevity, but history will also show that his support base was a lake a mile wide but a foot deep. In the future, he will be looked back upon fondly by a few, hatefully by others, but indifferently in the most part.