Blair on Leadership

Is anyone listening to Tony? A review of his latest book.

First, a straw poll on the former prime minister of the UK:

Let’s hear about leadership, though, from someone who predates Tony Blair:

“When we reflected that Cyrus, the Persian, reduced to obedience a vast number of men and cities and nations, we were compelled to decide that to rule men might be a task neither impossible nor even difficult, if one should only go about it in an intelligent manner. People obeyed Cyrus willingly, although some of them were distant from him a journey of many months.” Xenophon, Cyropaedia, Ch 1. (Italics added; some words deleted.)

Written in 370 BCE, Xenophon’s biography of King Cyrus the Great of Persia (who died in 530 BCE) praised a ruler who’d united a vast multi-ethnic empire. (Cyrus also got good reviews in the Old Testament for letting the exiles return home.)

That’s just to show how long people have been wondering how to define and develop leadership in deliberate and intelligent ways. Since ancient times, libraries have been full of this stuff, sometimes called “mirrors for princes”, but most of it burnt to cinders or reduced to dust. And yet, leadership remains a perennial topic of interest, especially in sport, business and politics, in large part because we see so much poor leadership.

An international Pew Research survey found that, when people were asked how to improve democracy, the main thing they mentioned was “better politicians”. Leadership really does matter, and always has mattered. People everywhere need trustworthy and competent political leaders.

On the first page of his new book, Blair reminds us that he was prime minister of the UK for a decade, and he’s spent the intervening years assisting governments and leaders in about 40 countries. That’s quite a track-record. For many, however, Blair will always be Bliar: the man who told the lies he needed to tell in order to lead the UK into an unjust invasion of Iraq in 2003. Looking back, he says he was honouring the UK’s solid long-term commitment to its major ally, the US, but he doesn’t mention the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein’s execution without trial, the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, or the “shock and awe” bombardment of Baghdad. For balance, though, Blair does admit to hubris in having believed it was possible to implant stable democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan by means of guns and bombs. And he can take credit for the Good Friday agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland.

Blair’s On Leadership, however, isn’t principally intended to justify his past mistakes, although he cites examples from his time in office. It’s more forward-looking. The book makes more sense if read as a practical guide, based on lessons learned and how they may be applied in different countries. While every country is unique, he argues that processes of good governance are “similar” across nations.

He makes another important observation – made long ago by Plato – that those who lead and govern communities come to the job with no training. Would we let a person with no relevant specialised training care for the sick or build houses? No, of course not. But our elected representatives and cabinet ministers don’t even have a job description, let alone a requirement to have passed any exams on the subject. Like a lot of politicians nowadays, Blair studied law, but even an English lit graduate might become minister of finance, for instance. That partly explains why we have civil servants.

Blair admits he found himself (then aged 44) in the position of prime minister with little relevant experience. He could’ve written a chapter about dealing with impostor syndrome, but maybe a “good” leader shouldn’t suffer such self-doubt. Older and wiser now, his book could be seen as an effort to prepare others before they find themselves in similar strife. “Taught by experience” are the final three words in the book.

Budding prime ministers and presidents could benefit from it, as it’s very practical – in a Blairite kind of way, with (now conventional) economic policy ideas about stability, predictability and the rule of law. He’s forward-looking on new technologies, however. He understands that AI is about to transform the state – and everything else – and that the politics of taxing and spending around the margins are fast becoming only marginally relevant. Everything will be redesigned, intentionally or not.

Blair’s comments on working with the bureaucracy are worth attention, and he puts a big emphasis on delivery (“the only real test of government”). He has genuinely good advice on strategic communication and on dealing with scandals, conspiracy theories and toxic social media. And he understands that trust isn’t always what a leader should be looking for from others. “It’s better to be respected”, he says.

Starmer, Albanese and Luxon should make it required reading for all their cabinet ministers – even if it’s too late for them now, as they won’t have time to read it anyway, let alone listen on audio, as I’m doing.

Blair has narrated the book himself, which lends it an air of authenticity. And, not to overlook the opposition, he says “it’s extraordinary how regularly oppositions confuse the world as it is with the world as they wish it to be”. That’s a gem.

---

“It was he who led them [the citizens], rather than they who led him, and, since he never sought power from any wrong motive, he was under no necessity of flattering them. In what was nominally a democracy, power was really in the hands of the first citizen.”

That was not Blair. That was Thucydides, in his History of the Peloponnesian Wars, talking about Pericles (ca 495–29 BCE), the level-headed general and leader of Athens at her height. Pericles respected the people’s liberty, but wasn’t afraid to admonish them.

Some things don’t change much.

“Standing in front of a crowd that is expecting to be pleased but instead being prepared to displease it.”

That’s a sign of leadership, according to Blair – talking from experience!

Another thing we learn from many centuries of experience is that – despite incredible leaps in science and technology – humans are no wiser when it comes to being leaders. For evidence, we only have to look at some of the idiots, bullies, thieves and narcissists who’ve made it to the top, then and now – often, though not always, with willing support of voters. Every generation, and every individual tasked with leadership, has to work it out afresh for themselves, in the thick of it, while facing unpredictable events and unreliable people. Many leaders don’t understand their own shortcomings, however, and reading On Leadership (if they read at all) won’t make those whose moral development was arrested at adolescence think deeply.

Tony Blair’s book will sell well, but it joins a voluminous literature that doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference in human affairs since Cyrus the Great. At times, especially on foreign policy, Blair sounds like Machiavelli: don’t let your ethics get in the way of necessary and effective strategies that advance the interests of the state. That doesn’t make it a bad book though. After all, The Prince, which its author never intended for publication, is still in print in numerous languages after five centuries! He even got name-checked by Shakespeare.

I’d recommend Nelson Mandela’s autobiography if you’re looking for an inspiring story about morally courageous leadership, while Blair’s how-to text is useful for those who have to worry about the next election or the next coup d’état. Given its content, the book might have been better titled On Government, but that would’ve looked much less attractive on the shelf.

Blair has been more hated by those to his left than by those to his right – in part because the centre-right could see him maintaining the basic achievements of the Thatcher era. He’s continued in that general direction as an adviser to others, while recognising that the world has changed. As for his new book, it’s intended in part to manage the author’s own legacy, but what’s the digital equivalent of “soon to be gathering dust”?

From left to right: Jacques Chirac, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusoni. 2003.

Two decades later, can we say these leaders have left the world a better place? Were they Leaders, or just the occupants of high offices, or something worse?