The Lost Leader

New Zealand Listener, Volume 36, Issue 911, 25 January 1957, Page 4

The Lost Leader

HE resignation of Sir Anthony Eden, although it came suddenly, could not have been unexpected. It seemed to be inevitable from the moment of his departure for Jamaica, and his uneasy continuance in office after his return had the appearance of a truce while problems of leadership were being settled within his party. When the decision had been made and acted upon, there was widespread sympathy for a man who gave long and distinguished service to his country, who came too late to supreme ..office, and who was driven beyond his strength at the centre of large events. It is not necessary now to look closely at the Suez adventure with which hereafter his name will be linked. The relevant fact today is that Sir Anthony was unable to act with the full support of the nation. And although the rights and wrongs of the case will be long debated, the essential fact to be noted by historians is that the withholding of support was in itself a verdict. Large-scale military action, involving the risk of a world war, cannot be undertaken in these times by a democratic government unless the people are convinced that no other remedy is possible. The division of opinion in Britain has been treated by some observers as if it were not merely tragic, but culpableculpable, that is, in those who differed, from them. It was, on the contrary, a healthy operation of the democratic spirit, and in Britain -if not elsewhere — has been recognised as such, almost without question. Sir Anthony must have realised that he had failed when public opinion showed no tendency to harden into unity. The remarkable fact is that a British Prime Minister, unsure of the nation’s support, should have taken action which would fail disastrously without it. This was even harder to understand in one whose long career in statesmanship had

been concerned so closely with diplomacy. And yet there, perhaps, is part of the answer. A man skilled in negotiation is inclined by training and temperament to postpone action; and if he is persuaded to act in a grave situation, without full conviction, he may pass at once from discretion to rashness. And there is no instinct of leadership to sustain him against the whirlwind. Why did Sir Anthony Eden turn aside at the end from the course which his career seemed to have marked out for him? It is difficult to answer this question without knowing more than has been revealed of what has happened inside the Conservative Party. We do know, however, that Sir Anthony had been only briefly in office when he was subjected to Press criticism so strong and concentrated that it seemed to foreshadow a move to depose him. This took place a year ago, and although the attacks ended abruptly when it was seen what damage they were doing (for Opposition papers joined gleefully in the hunt), Sir Anthony was never far from a campaign of systematic denigration for which in recent English history it is hard to find a parallel. A strong man would have lived it down; but Sir Anthony lacked the ruggedness which Has so often been a characteristic of the English statesman. It may well be that, in trying to convince the people (and himself) that he was stronger than he appeared to be, he accepted too readily the policy of an influential group within his own party. If there is an élement of truth in this supposition, some of the responsibility for Sir Anthony’s conduct of affairs can be placed upon those who implacably pursued him. The irresponsible use of power in the influencing of opinion is not the lightest factor in the political drama we have witnessed.

M.H.

H.