Certain MPs in Australia have recently been front-page news for all the wrong reasons, which has further damaged many Australians' faith in our political leadership.
For those of you that don't follow Australian politics, the political humiliations I am referring to involve Labor MP Craig Thomson, who has been accused of spending Health Services Union funds on prostitutes and his federal election campaign, and Parliamentary Speaker, Peter Slipper, who had to step out of the Speaker's chair while sexual harassment and Cabcharge rorting allegations were lodged against him.
Okay, so political disgraces are nothing new, but what I did find interesting was Prime Minister Julia Gillard's response to the crises.
Her solution? An idea to introduce a code of conduct for MPs: in other words, a list of "dos" and "don'ts" for them to abide by.
Is this really the best answer to ensure politicians behave in a manner that befits their position of power?
As a leader, Prime Minister Gillard should realise that a code of conduct is only one part of the ethics infrastructure that is required for ethical behaviour. Unless the other elements in this infrastructure, such as training, communication, leadership support and discipline, are present, then a code is not only meaningless, but also becomes a basis for increased cynicism and reduced trust for the people it is aiming to influence.
Sure, a code can help in achieving certain objectives, such as communicating values and standards of behaviour, but it cannot be relied upon solely for achieving ethical behaviour. It can be effective in businesses and public sector entities if they truly reflect the ethical culture, which is the responsibility of the leaders. Leaders should reward or punish behaviour, in addition to role-modelling the very behaviour they are advocating. The old adage of leading by example applies here.
A real leader, whether in politics, business or community, in substance will always put ethical leadership ahead of self-preservation. But, to me, it seems there are increasing examples of a desire to remain in power rather than acting on and addressing issues with decency. The way in which leaders deal with crises exposes their real values and communicates powerfully what really matters.
In the cases of Mr Thomson and Mr Slipper, they really aren't about a lack of clear rules. The alleged behaviours are clearly unacceptable, and only highlight the need for leaders to deal with alleged transgressions in a timely, visible and effective manner.
A code of conduct in isolation is not a remedy for unethical behaviour, nor does it allow leaders to abdicate their responsibilities for the behaviour of their party or organisation. No matter what country you're in, leadership that prioritises the interests of the country and its institutions, stands for what is right and has the courage to act, is a necessity.
If you were to frame leadership not based or founded on self-preservation, who in your world would you call a leader?