Extremism requires a new type of leadership

This was tough talk, using considerably more robust language than in her previous statements and while the British public would expect no less than a strong response from their prime minister in the aftermath of another grisly onslaught on one of their cities, only the most wide-eyed of political naïfs would fail to understand that her statement was also electioneering.

Despite various assertions from all parties that it would be business as usual in the campaign from today onwards, the London Bridge attack will inevitably place the L-word — leadership — firmly front and centre in the contest. The timing of this latest atrocity ensures that it will be used a political football by the two rival parties, whether as a deliberate ploy or simply as an inevitable consequence of it.

The political inference was clear from Mrs May’s hard-hitting address — she and her party are the only choice for any voter with concerns about the escalating aggression towards Britain by extremists, while Sadiq Khan, Labour’s London lord mayor, and Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s leader, can only offer “keep calm and carry on” sentiments.

It can also reasonably be predicted that the next few days before polling day will be dominated by discussion on what constitutes strong leadership, as other contested policy issues dealing with taxes and the NHS get elbowed aside. Supporters of Mrs May will once again zoom in on Mr Corbyn’s statements on the IRA — a stance that Labour insists has been deliberately misrepresented by the Tories, while Corbynites will reference the Conservatives’ cuts to the UK’s police force.

The role of leadership is rarely out of the headlines these days, particularly since increasing numbers of European countries are grappling with outbreaks of Islamic State violence. Increasingly, country leaders have acquired an extra front-of-house job, that of responding

to terrorist attacks by reassuring the citizenry that the situation is under control (even if this is actually uncertain) while simultaneously promising action against the perpetrators. Heads of government or state have become practised at issuing rapid statements of support to other countries that have been struck. Within hours of the London Bridge attack, Australia’s prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, France’s president Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, had denounced the atrocity and pledged their solidarity.

The instant reaction from one of the most controversial world leaders, President Trump, was telling. He first retweeted a flash from the rightwing sensationalist news website, the Drudge Report ,which (erroneously) claimed; “Fears of new terror attack after van ‘mows down 20 people’ on London Bridge”. This was followed by a tweet reading: “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety.” His tasteless opportunism and politicking sparked a backlash. The television network NBC even cautioned its viewers as to the veracity of the president’s retweet and refused to relay it in their news bulletins. Shortly afterwards it vanished from his timeline to be replaced by a more supportive message to the UK, only for that to be succeeded by one criticising Mr Khan. In the eyes of many observers, his one supportive tweet was too little, too late and his first instinctive reaction was typical of America’s solipsist-in-chief.

As instability increases in many territories, there’s a growing focus on the differing styles of political leadership; from the dangerous volatility of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un to the

youthful newcomer Mr Macron. While domestic policies still form the cornerstone of every leader’s programme, how they react to jihadi attacks and how they interact with other leaders has taken on greater importance.

The L-word has been in the headlines in Ireland too in recent weeks too, with much attention focused on the battle between Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney.

There was much debate between the two candidates about their proposals on taxation, infrastructure, Brexit, housing and health. The two sets of proposals did differ, but strictly within the confines of the party’s centre-right ethos. Inevitably, attention also honed in on the personalities of the wannabe leaders because although both hail from comfortable backgrounds, their temperaments are markedly dissimilar. The known unknown surrounding any new head of government is how he or she reacts when the literal or metaphorical bullets begin to fly. When the financial crash happened in 2008, the then taoiseach Brian Cowen fell sadly short in providing the sort of front-of-house leadership which a severely rattled nation badly needed. It was left to others such as the then governor of the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, to inform the populace that the IMF was en route.

Hopefully the mettle of the next taoiseach will never have to be tested in the manner faced three times now by Mrs May and repeatedly by other global leaders of countries stuck by extremist violence.

It would be heartening to know that our government would be ready if the need should ever arise. It would also be reassuring if we could trust that our gardaí, defence forces and hospitals could cope, and would not be hamstrung through lack of either necessary funding or forward planning. Leadership isn’t about scoring political points over opponents any more; all too often now it’s a matter of life or death.