Churchill Lecture

Date: 5 Mar 2005
Speaker: Secretary-General Don McKinnon
Location: Blenheim Palace, UK

When I was invited to deliver the Churchill Lecture, my immediate reaction was: great - but what can I say about the great man that hasn't been said before?

As I started doing some reading about Churchill, I did a Google search and came up with over 2 million results! That's more than Shakespeare!

Surfing through some of these websites, I realised that, in many ways, Churchill was not only a great historical figure, one of the most influential statesmen of the past century. He was also, quite simply, a political superstar.

Churchill's trademark signatures - cigar, "V-sign" salute and all - are instantly recognised by millions around the world. He is known even by people who don't take much interest in history. He is admired even by those who do not generally admire politicians.

More books have been written about him than about any other modern politician. In fact, there are 672 of them! And how popular is the name!

Many children born during the post-war period were named Winston. In Malta, I once met a man who was the second consecutive generation to be called Winston. His grandmother had named his father Winston because she was so impressed by the great man. His father had then in turn chosen the name for his son because he was so impressed with himself!

I am aware of the fact that I am one of the very few people invited to give this lecture never to have met the great man. In a way, this is a disadvantage, since I'm not able to draw on personal encounters and have to rely on the knowledge and impressions of others. But, hopefully, I might be able to turn this into an advantage: not knowing him has forced me to try very hard to imagine what he was like in real life and get closer to the man himself.

So tonight I would like to draw on my own "experience" of Churchill and reflect on his legacy from three different perspectives:

First, I'd like to look at Churchill's impact on leadership. Having been in elected office for more than 25 years, political leadership has always fascinated me; in my own career, it has driven me up, driven me down and sometimes driven me nearly mad! But throughout my career, the Churchill factor has been important to me as it has for a whole generation of politicians.

Second, given that my home country is New Zealand, I'd like to look at how Churchill is seen from the other side of the world.

And finally, I would like to share my thoughts about Churchill's impact on the modern Commonwealth.

1. Churchill the leader
Trying to understand Churchill means trying to understand what made him such a great leader.

Of course, there are some characteristics all leaders have in common:

• Their character, their make-up, their personalities are always complex; they are never easily pigeonholed, they are anything but one dimensional, their thoughts and decisions can never be fully predicted.

• Most successful leaders have huge energy levels, they can all work 16-18 hours a day for sustained periods and it is often thanks to this relentless activity that they are able to see off their opponents. In today's words, they are "24/7 people".

• Leaders are all engaging in their own way; they draw strength from being interested in people and despite a sometimes negative public persona those who see the more personal side are usually impressed.

• Leaders also believe in themselves and have the courage of their convictions.

Churchill had all these characteristics and more.

At a time of great danger to his country and the rest of the free world, he acted with courage and resolution. Let us never forget that in 1940, he stood alone across Hitler's path.

Many of his colleagues did not agree with him; some would have preferred to negotiate with Hitler. But this, for Churchill, would have been the first step on a "slippery slope" which would have granted Hitler an easy victory.

Churchill was also a visionary. He foresaw the rise of a war-hungry Germany as early as 1924, when he said: "The enormous contingents of German youth growing to military manhood year by year are inspired by the fiercest sentiments, and the soul of Germany smoulders with dreams of a war of liberation or revenge."

He understood Hitler better than anyone else at that time. In 1935, he said: "When Hitler began, Germany lay prostrate at the feet of the Allies. He may still see the day when what is left of Europe will be prostrate at the feet of Germany."

Leadership is about inspiring confidence. Confidence in who you are, what you want, where you want to be. His early experiences gave Churchill a huge capital of self-confidence. As a soldier, a prisoner of war, a writer, an MP, a Minister, he proved that he could seize opportunities and show others the way forward. He was not only confident in his abilities; he also was able to display his self-assurance to others and convince them to follow him. When he was a boy, Nicholas Soames I'm told once entered the study at Chartwell and said to Churchill: "Grandpapa, is it true that you are the greatest man in the world?" "Yes, now bugger off."

Most notably during the Second World War, Churchill used his talent as a leader to give strength to hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth soldiers in the struggle against fascism. He inspired them, he gave them confidence in themselves and in the cause they were fighting for. He also trusted them, showed them that their actions, their courage and their sacrifice would shape a better future for the world.

Churchill's adventures during the Boer war helped forge his character. Even though physical courage is not generally recognised as a measure of character anymore, those who have faced threats to their lives, those who understand the capacity and limits of the body, those who have suffered assaults and who have been tested to their limits often come out of their experiences with an increased self-confidence, will power and a stronger determination to achieve their goals.

Knowing when to go and when not to go is important. Like a good cricket batsman, the successful leader can pick the balls he can hit over the boundary, and know which balls you let go through to the keeper.

Expectations we have of our leaders have changed since the early part of the last century. Today, we demand much more of politicians - particularly Prime Ministers - than ever before. For instance, could a leader today afford to spend two weeks living in the White House in order to convince the American President to change his mind, and still go on to bigger things? I think not.

Churchill's ability to use the power of words to sway a crowd is well known and many will suggest it is disappointing that this kind of talent is no longer in demand. Twenty-first century politicians must - possibly regretfully - look good on camera, be "on message" and speak in "sound bites" - very different from long, rhetorical statements.

But we should not despair. Every true political leader will adjust to the demands of the age. Anyone who has serious political ambitions very soon realises the skills required to succeed and adapts accordingly.

Let us not forget that politics is about winning and taking power. In politics, you only go for gold! There is no such thing as a second prize.

Effective leadership is also about experience and good relations with people. According to New York's former Mayor, Rudi Giuliani, the five "golden rules" of leadership are:

1. Be sure of your objective
2. Surround yourself with good people
3. See and experience for yourself
4. Give and expect loyalty
5. Under-promise and over-deliver

And he added: "he with the wisdom of personal experience has a head start".

Churchill had all these qualities. Good people followed him, but his talents were not only evident in wartime - although that is what most people remember him for. It also impressed me that during his tenure as Home Secretary in the 1920s:

• He reformed prisons in order to make disciplinary probation a better alternative.

• He introduced legislation to make mines safer for those who went down them.

• He introduced minimum wage legislation as it had been implemented in Australia and New Zealand some 18 years earlier.

• He strengthened the pension system.

These landmark pieces of legislation recognised the value and worth of the individual, the person, the father, brother or son, without reducing them to an economic statistic or an irrelevant digit in a budget.

That is why I believe that Churchill was the first aristocratic Prime Minister who truly understood the common man. And that is why he secured people's loyalty in return.

It is because Churchill displayed all these qualities that he still inspires leaders today. Of course, political leadership does come in many shapes and sizes, but if we are looking at what makes a good leader, things don't change much over time.

They must be able to articulate the vision and the direction. But it's still the energy, the commitment, the ability to communicate, a wide range of personal experiences - including some failures - the capacity to face down threats, and a rock solid determination to win.

I could probably think of a few leaders today who display some of these characteristics. But it wouldn't be appropriate for me to praise or criticise current Commonwealth leaders - I'll keep those comments for my memoirs!

2. The antipodean Churchill
Let me revert to my younger years. As a pre-war baby, Churchill's name had little impact on me until the late 1940s. After that, it became synonymous with victory in WWII, post war politics, a changing world, and of course, the Iron Curtain.

New Zealand, like most countries in the English-speaking world, soon had its Churchill Roads, Churchill Schools, and Churchill scholarships.

Of course the legacy of the Churchill name did not always provoke admiration in our part of the world. The Gallipoli defeat, in which many New Zealand soldiers died, is closely associated with Churchill.

Refusing to allow Australian troops posted in Europe to go back to the Pacific to deal with the Japanese threat is another bitter memory amongst my parents' generation.

Most importantly in a Commonwealth context, his opposition to granting Dominion status to India in the 1930s and his disparaging descriptions of Mahatma Gandhi, did not go down well with many.

Also his role in the shaping of modern Iraq: as colonial secretary in the 1920s, he used the Hashemite dynasty to "pacify" Iraq, thereby placing a predominantly Shia population under minority Sunni rule.

Restoring the British pound to the gold standard in 1925, was not a wise decision.

I don't highlight these to diminish the man but to show he is human. These failures do not diminish his contribution to history. No leader - not even the greatest leader - can claim to be entirely without fault. A leader who has never made a mistake is a leader who has never taken a risk or never risen to the challenge. Moreover, a hero who is not perfect in every possible way will be seen as a real human being, a leader people understood and therefore a credible role-model.

Give me a leader whose nose has been bloodied and who has made mistakes, ahead of total perfection.

In the Commonwealth and beyond, Churchill is chiefly remembered for having stood in the path of Hitler firmly and resolutely and providing that great leadership for the free world. As a Wartime leader, he was successful because he knew what to do and did it with enormous confidence.

Looking back at the post-war years, it is clear that Churchill came to symbolise the fight against the forces of fascism and communism and the defence of democratic values.

Today, referring to a political leader as a "modern Churchill" or as having "Churchillian traits" is probably the greatest compliment that can be paid.

Of course any sharp reporter will instantly pick up Churchillian phrases used by politicians: "some chicken - some neck" or "we shall fight on the beaches…" or "the end of the beginning".

Most of you would be familiar with Churchill's wicked wit. There is even a book entirely devoted to his humour! These jokes that politicians instantly recognise will be around for many more generations:

"As one who devoted hours to preparing impromptu speeches"

"You only make a long speech when you haven't had time to prepare a shorter one."

Or the well-known quip to Lady Astor, who told Churchill: "Winston, if I were your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee." To which he replied: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it!"

One of my favourites is the story about an American General who once asked Churchill to look over a draft of an address he had written. Churchill returned it with the comment "too many passives and too many zeds." The general asked him what he meant, and was told: "Too many Latinate polysyllabics like "systematize", "prioritize" and "finalize". And then the passives. Who would have listened if I had said "Hostilities will be engaged with our adversary on the coastal perimeter" when it's easier to say "We shall fight on the beaches"?

3. Empire to Commonwealth
Let me turn now to the third of my perspectives - the Commonwealth.

Churchill famously said: "I have not become the King's first Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire".

It is quite clear that Churchill was an "Empire man" rather than a "Commonwealth man".

His views were certainly shaped by his aristocratic origins and by his admiration for his forebear, the Duke of Marlborough - for whom this wonderful Palace was built.

Like many of his peers, he believed in the "civilising mission of the Empire". He believed in the positive influence of the English speaking peoples and in their role in shaping history.

His commitment to the Empire as many of you would know sometimes seemed to run against his passionate belief in democracy.

For instance, in 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill signed a joint declaration on the purposes of the war against fascism. They called it the "Atlantic Charter". In it, they clearly recognised "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."

This got many nationalists very excited, but Churchill later made it clear that the objectives of the Charter did not apply to the Empire in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean or the Pacific colonial Empire. In Churchill's own words: the Charter was "directed to the nations of Europe whom we hoped to free from Nazi tyranny, and was not intended to deal with the internal affairs of the British Empire."

So Churchill's position was: yes to democracy, but not for the colonies. His main concern was to ensure that Britain's influence was maintained and he thought that any attempt to dismantle the Empire would diminish the significance of Britain's role in the world.

But during Churchill's lifetime, the Empire did die and the Commonwealth was born. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the Commonwealth evolved naturally out of the diminishing Empire. After the end of the colonial era, most nations previously under British rule along with others maintained their links to form a community of free and equal partners, united in the pursuit of their joint interests. And so, a unique organisation came into being.

Contrary to other international organisations, the Commonwealth was not the product of a political blueprint, it was not the brainchild of bureaucrats, it was not the result of a communiqué - it evolved naturally out of the history of the British Empire. "It just growed", to quote the inimitable Homer Simpson.

The Commonwealth he knew was very much the Commonwealth of its time but not of today. At the time of his death, in 1965, the Commonwealth had only half the number of member countries as today.

It had no real centre and no clear boundaries. As the historian Darwin put it, The Commonwealth was "a constitutional hotchpotch of independent, semi-independent and dependent countries, held together not by formal allegiance to a mother-country but by economic, strategic, political or cultural links that varied greatly in strength and character."

With 53 very diverse member states, today's Commonwealth is a marriage of extremes: some of the largest countries in the world joined up with some of the smallest island states, some of the wealthiest, most influential states coupled with some of the least developed countries that struggle to get their voices heard in the concert of nations.

And our member states are also diverse historically: among the countries that were under British rule,

• 24 are former British colonies
• 19 are former protectorates
• 4 are former dominions
• 10 were in part or whole one time under French control
• 4 are former German colonies
• 1 was part of the Portuguese empire
• and some had their colonial authority changed up to 7 times.

The Commonwealth is the result of an extraordinary adventure, unique in the history of nations: the coming together of a group of countries that put their imperial past behind them, transforming the bonds of colonialism into bonds of friendship and mutual respect.

As the historian Nicholas Mansergh once said: "The nature of the Commonwealth is not easy to understand. Englishmen would be much disappointed if it were, for the incapacity of foreigners to comprehend the working of British institutions is for them a source of unfailing satisfaction" - similar to outsiders trying to understand cricket.

So, what would Churchill have thought then of the Commonwealth as it is today - an equal partnership of countries where no voice is heard louder than any of the others?

Churchill died the year the Commonwealth Secretariat was established - 1965. But he lived through the period when the foundations for the new Commonwealth were being laid. And he chaired three Commonwealth Prime Ministerial Meetings: in 1944, 1953 and 1956, the latter two being among the first meetings of the new Commonwealth, where India, Pakistan and the then Ceylon participated on equal terms as independent nations, soon to be joined by other new members from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean.

The 1944 Communiqué is full of Churchillian overtones and there is no doubt that Churchill had his hand in writing it. The vision of the Commonwealth that it outlines is one of a partnership of nations, free and equal, working together for the benefit of all their peoples.

The Communiqué states: "In a world torn by strife, we have met here in unity. That unity finds its strength, not in any formal bond but in the hidden springs from which human action flows. We rejoice in our inheritance of loyalties and ideals, and proclaim our sense of kinship to one another. Our system of free association has enabled us, each and all, to claim a full share of the common burden… We believe that when victory is won and peace returns, this same free association, this inherent unity of purpose, will make us able to do further service to mankind." - Most uplifting words. Are they not?

There can be no better definition of the Commonwealth today. Back in 1944, Churchill foresaw what the Commonwealth could become. He grasped the enormous potential of this partnership of nations, united in the pursuit of common ideals. He understood - to a greater extent, perhaps, than many people in this country today - that the Commonwealth community, with its shared language, values and political traditions, could be used to strengthen international co-operation and secure consensus on key global issues.

Churchill would have found the Commonwealth's stance on free trade very close to his own position first taken in 1900. To the question: "why are we a great trading nation?", Churchill answered: "It is because our harbours are more nearly as nature made them; because the perverted ingenuity of man has not been occupied in obstructing them with fiscal stake nets and tariff mud bars."

Today's Commonwealth is one of the most vocal advocates of free and fair trade. Our objective is to ensure that trade benefits not only rich countries, but also the poorest of the poor. I passionately believe that, if we want to live in a more stable world, we should abolish impediments to free trade and allow developing countries to trade their way out of poverty. I am sure Churchill would have subscribed to that.

Churchill is often described as an arch-imperialist. But in my opinion, this is wrong. Churchill did not believe in "empires of domination", but in "empires of influence". "To think imperially", he once said to President Kennedy's father, "means to think of something higher and more vast than one's own national interest." Churchill thought that the unique strength of nations under British rule was their collective power to co-operate, assist each other and influence the course of global events. In this statement, he is showing the colours of being more a "Commonwealth man" than a "British Empire man".

He would certainly have lamented Britain's diminished influence in the world - but would not have blamed the modern Commonwealth for that. In fact, he would have been gratified to see that, through the Commonwealth of Nations, the British Parliamentary tradition, the legal systems, education systems, business systems and culture lived on, binding together a diverse group of countries and allowing them to grow stronger by sharing each others' strengths.

He may have been disappointed that Britain was not at the centre of the Commonwealth anymore, but I think he would have recognised that this was a logical consequence of the Commonwealth's transformation into a modern organisation. He would also have been delighted to see the growing influence of the English language, not only in the Commonwealth, but in the entire world, as a truly global language.

Churchill would also have been pleased to see that the promotion of democracy and human rights became one of the central planks of the Commonwealth's work. Churchill, who defended democracy when it was facing its greatest threat, would certainly have recognised the merits of an organisation that helped strengthen democratic culture in its member countries. He maybe even would have said - not that I would wish to put words in his mouth - that the Commonwealth continued, in some way to "carry the flame", and was a worthy successor to the work he pursued in his own lifetime.

But had Churchill lived today, I think he would, with justification, have been worried about the health of our democracies.

Through the 1990s we saw the greatest expansion of democracy the world had ever seen. The fall of the Berlin Wall - which Churchill famously called the "Iron Curtain" - signalled a new era for democracy. Fascism had been defeated in the Second World War. Now communism was dead too. This, in a sense, was the victorious outcome of the fight Churchill had taken on in 1940.

During this period, the number of liberal democracies nearly doubled worldwide. In Eastern Europe, in Africa, in South America, authoritarian regimes came tumbling down, replaced by fledgling democracies.

Some called this the end of history.

But it wasn't necessarily the end of the story. The war of ideologies was over. But the fight to promote democracy had to continue.

More than ten years on, it does look like the democratic honeymoon is over.

In many parts of the world, there are signs that people may be losing faith in democracy. A mood of cynicism and disenchantment is spreading and some are even starting to wonder whether the fight for freedom was really worth it.

There are three trends we need to be concerned about:

First, democratic apathy. In most countries today, there is a steep decline in membership of political parties, increased cynicism towards politicians and voter turn-out is at an all time low. I am told that, in this country, more people voted for the television programme Big Brother than at the last European Elections!

Second, democratic exhaustion. In many parts of the world, people have fought long and hard for democracy, but it's not delivering the economic dividends they expected. In the post-war years, many were led to believe that prosperity without freedom was meaningless. Now many have come to realise that freedom without prosperity is empty. As the cynics would say, "you can't eat democracy".

A recent UN survey in South America showed that 55 percent of people would support the replacement of a democratic government with an "authoritarian" regime if it could produce economic benefits. Moreover, more than half said they felt that economic development was more important than maintaining democracy.

The third trend is democratic erosion. Many people - particularly in the developing world - have come to doubt the intentions of those who claim they wish to "spread democracy". Some feel - rightly or wrongly - that democracy is a kind of Trojan horse, a thinly disguised instrument of "western imperialism".

Moreover, the credentials of those whose aim it is to promote democracy are often called into question. Alleged abuses of human rights and civil liberties in the context of the war on terror have cast doubts on the legitimacy of the campaign. Shortly after 9/11, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General said: ""We should all be clear that there is no trade-off between effective action against terrorism and the protection of human rights…while we certainly need vigilance to prevent acts of terrorism, and firmness in condemning and punishing them, it will be self-defeating if we sacrifice other key priorities - such as human rights - in the process."

Once again the great man got it right - His 1945 warning: "the challenge for Parliaments, he said, is to preserve all the title-deeds of democracy while waging war in the most stern and protracted form."

This crisis of confidence in democracy should be a matter of concern to all of us. But what is to be done? I believe three lessons can be drawn from these observations:

First, there is an urgent need to reinvigorate trust in politicians and the democratic process by fighting dishonesty, corruption and promoting good governance.

Second, we should bring home the point that democracy and development do go hand in hand and that, in the long run, liberal democracies will be more successful economically than authoritarian and corrupt regimes.

Third, we should resist the idea there is a universal model of democracy that could simply be transplanted in countries where there is no democratic tradition. There is no such thing as a "one size fits all", pre-assembled democratic model that could be exported to a country without any regard for its particular circumstances. Democratic systems will always work best when they are properly embedded in local cultures and allowed to develop alongside traditional models of governance. They must be designed, owned, nurtured and defended by the people.

Finally, we should realise that, in order to promote democracy, elections are indeed essential, but they are not enough. They are only part of the story, they are merely the first chapter. Other chapters include the supremacy of Parliament, an independent judiciary, human rights and freedom of information, transparency of public accounts. Part-time democracies coming alive at election time and going into hibernation for 4-5 years don't provide firm foundations for freedom and prosperity and do not give the people confidence.

Just as important is the development of democratic institutions that respond to people's needs and allow them to take an active part in the democratic life of their country. These institutions must be allowed to grow deep roots, so that they will not be swept away at the first sign of political upheaval.

Conclusion
In drawing to a conclusion these reflections on Churchill's legacy, these are the thoughts that stay with me:

Democracy must never be taken for granted. There is no room for complacency.

Democracy must be fought for in times of peace as well as in times of war.

Sixty years ago, the challenge was to save democracy from tyranny; today, the challenge is to save it from indifference.

Because it is the only political system that allows individuals to live free, rich, fulfilling lives.

Churchill's perennial and inspirational message must never be forgotten.

Download the speech: Churchill Lecture