Exposing the Naked Emperors of Australian Politics

If politicians really want what they claim to want—prosperity and security for all Australians—then surely they'd evaluate any idea on its merits, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes them feel.

Yet after more than two years developing a world-first platform measuring psychological safety, I'm staggered by how the same patterns of fear-based leadership plaguing corporate boardrooms are mirrored in our political landscape.

The Prosperity Paradox: Actions Speak Louder Than Campaign Promises

Let's be honest: Right now, much of the world is suffering through a glut of political cowardice masquerading as "strength" and "decisive leadership."

As Australia heads toward a May 2025 election, we're witnessing Peter Dutton’s opposition doubling down on a "strongman" approach that mirrors the Trump and Putin playbook—emphasising law and order, pushing divisive rhetoric, and deliberately stoking fears rather than addressing complex challenges with nuance.

The shadow treasurer Angus Taylor's recent performance on ABC's Insiders perfectly exemplified this approach—ducking, weaving, and refusing to provide clear policy positions while defending the opposition leader's "act tough" stance. This isn't strength; it's avoidance wrapped in bravado.

Anyone still preaching simplistic solutions to complex problems while ignoring systemic challenges isn't just delusional—they're deliberately misleading the public.

As Mike Tyson so eloquently put it: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Yet the political landscape remains dominated by leaders who've never taken a real punch, making decisions for people who live in the ring every day.

What They Say vs. What They're Actually Terrified Of

What politicians say: "We need to be tough on [immigration/crime/national security]."

What they're actually afraid of: "If I acknowledge the nuance and complexity of these issues, I might have to admit I don't have simple solutions, and that sounds like political suicide."

What politicians say: "We can't afford to show weakness on the global stage."

What they're actually afraid of: "My entire political identity is built around being the toughest person in the room. If diplomacy and cooperation become strengths, what value do I have?"

What politicians say: "We don't have time for 'woke' discussions—we need to focus on the economy."

What they're actually afraid of: "I've never developed the emotional intelligence to navigate complex social dynamics, and I'm terrified of being exposed."

What politicians say: "Our traditional values built this country."

What they're actually afraid of: "I've spent decades mastering a political style that's becoming obsolete in a diverse, interconnected world, and I'm too scared to adapt."

What politicians say: "Voters expect immediate results, not long-term planning."

What they're actually afraid of: "I lack the courage to advocate for long-term investments in people and infrastructure, even when the data clearly supports it."

Antidotes to Political Cowardice

For each political fear, there's a courage prescription:

Fear of complexity: Start acknowledging that complex problems rarely have simple solutions. True leadership means explaining nuance to voters rather than feeding them comforting oversimplifications.

Fear of vulnerability: Begin practicing authentic leadership. Admit when you don't have all the answers. The recent confusion over insurance policy positions shows what happens when politicians refuse to be straight with voters.

Fear of emotional work: Recognise that dismissing social issues as "woke" doesn't make them disappear—it just alienates large segments of the population whose lived experiences are being invalidated. Addressing these issues directly builds broader coalitions.

Fear of change: Acknowledge that political approaches effective in previous decades are increasingly out of step with today's interconnected, complex global challenges. Adaptability isn't weakness—it's survival.

Fear of looking weak: Understand that in today's environment, pretending to have all the answers isn't strength—it's dangerous delusion. True strength comes from creating inclusive policies that address the needs of all Australians, not just those who already support you.

The False Dichotomy of Security vs. Freedom

The most persistent and dangerous myth in politics is that we must choose between security and freedom—between "strong" leadership and inclusive governance. This false dichotomy has become the comfortable hiding place for politicians unwilling to do the harder, messier work of achieving both.

When Peter Dutton borrows from the Trump playbook—"crusading on government efficiency, cutting public service and diversity roles, and seeking to deport criminal dual nationals"—he's not displaying strength. He's revealing a profound fear of engaging with complexity. When he struggles to articulate clear policy positions beyond opposition to the current government, he's not being strategic; he's being evasive.

The evidence from my work in psychological safety is clear: environments where people feel safe to speak up, challenge ideas, and contribute their unique perspectives consistently outperform their fear-based counterparts. This is backed by decades of research, including groundbreaking work by Harvard professor Amy Edmondson, who has demonstrated that psychologically safe environments lead to better outcomes, innovation, and performance. As she notes, "If you change the nature and quality of the conversations in your team, your outcomes will improve exponentially."

This applies not just to businesses but to nations as well. Ray Dalio, in his comprehensive book "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail," highlights how successful countries prioritize investments in education and create systems that allow for diverse perspectives and innovation. His extensive historical analysis shows that nations decline when they become rigid, fear-driven, and resistant to necessary adaptation.

The Elephant in the Room: Is This Intentional?

I've long preferred to give people the benefit of the doubt—to assume that fear-based leadership stems from genuine belief rather than cynical manipulation. But we must confront an uncomfortable possibility: what if some of this is intentional?

Political leaders have employed fear as a control mechanism for millennia. A fearful populace stops thinking rationally, falls back on tribal instincts, and clings to incumbent power structures. The ancient Romans understood "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses), and modern politicians understand that a population distracted by manufactured crises and enemy narratives is less likely to demand meaningful change.

This isn't to suggest a grand conspiracy, but rather to acknowledge that the "act tough" approach serves political purposes beyond mere philosophy. When people are afraid, they're more likely to vote for those who present themselves as strong protectors, even when those same leaders offer no substantial solutions to complex problems.

I don't level this accusation at any specific politician because, frankly, the intent matters less than the effect. Whether fear-based politics stems from genuine belief or calculated strategy, the result is the same: diminished capacity for collective problem-solving at precisely the moment when we need it most.

The Rise of a Viable Third Option: Australia's Independent Movement

I have long been an advocate for Direct Democracy. Yet sadly, even some of the most promising local projects in this space have collapsed in on themselves over the past decade, so it’s unlikely many of us will ever experience something truly democratic in a world dominated by media conglomerates.

Fortunately, as we approach the 2025 election, Australians (finally!) have more choices than the traditional two-party framework. The crossbench in the last parliament expanded to a record number, with independents and minor parties gaining unprecedented influence.

This growth in the independent movement represents perhaps our best hope for addressing the complexity of modern challenges. Independent representatives, freed from rigid party discipline, can focus on representing their constituents rather than maintaining party power. Their diversity of backgrounds and perspectives creates a more accurate reflection of Australia's complex society.

The evidence from parliament shows this approach works. Independent MPs have driven significant policy advances by focusing on substantive issues rather than partisan positioning. They've shown that collaborative, evidence-based approaches can break through the false dichotomies that dominate traditional politics.

Rewriting the Political Narrative: Beyond the Emperor’s New Clothes

As we approach the election, Australians have a genuine choice between leadership styles. We can continue down the path of divisive, fear-based politics that masks insecurity as strength, or we can demand more nuanced, authentic leadership that acknowledges complexity while working toward inclusive solutions.

The Trumpian approach to politics—with its emphasis on division, fear, and oversimplification—isn't strength; it's a facade covering profound insecurity. The Putin model of projecting power through intimidation isn't leadership; it's tyranny. And the Dutton strategy of "act tough" politics isn't what Australia needs to navigate increasingly complex global challenges.

To politicians still resistant to these ideas: What are you really afraid of? That inclusive, psychologically safe governance won't work? Or that it will—requiring you to fundamentally rethink everything you thought you knew about political leadership?

The world has changed. Voters have changed. Global challenges have changed. The only question remaining is: Will our political leadership evolve, or will it continue hiding behind strongman facades that ultimately hold us all back from what we could be?