ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

'No Loans for Ladies': Julia Gillard and Capital Denied

Gender
Government
Political Leadership
Political Parties
Political Psychology
James Walter
Politics Discipline, School of Social Sciences, Monash University
James Walter
Politics Discipline, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

Abstract

One might expect that leaders for whom the acquisition of political capital proves elusive are ‘inconsequential’ leaders, lacking the attributes thought integral to building capital (Bennister, ‘t Hart and Worthy, 2013). This paper tests this proposition by analyzing what it argues is a paradoxical case, that of the former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard (2010-2013). Notwithstanding episodes of policy misjudgment, her government could claim general competence, a record of delivery on policy commitments and efficient economic management. Relative policy success, however, never gained the recognition it deserved. She created and sustained parliamentary coalitions essential for minority government, despite viciously divisive tactics by her Opposition. But this did not translate into popular support. Though a courageous leader in adverse circumstances, this did not impress followers or lift morale. She won approval and loyalty from those who worked closely with her and from the majority in her Party room, but this seemed invisible to the public. She was, in effect, denied credit. The paradox, then, is that Gillard presented attributes conventionally thought conducive to the acquisition of political capital—delivery on policy commitments, effective coalition building, competence in government, courage in adversity, approval and loyalty from those most closely engaged with her—but never gained traction in the quest for capital. What, exactly, was behind this denial of credit? The paper considers numerous propositions offered to explain Gillard’s failure in the context of debates about political capital and the ‘leadership capital index’ (LCI) to gauge the applicability and rigor of the ‘elusive capital’ thesis. Analyzing a paradoxical case underlines the need for caution and nuance. The paper concludes that leadership attributes/capacities must be carefully assessed in relation to exogenous factors (specific scenarios and the issues of context, political culture and historical timing they manifest) in attempts to operationalize LCI measures.