3 of 7

Write now Article Tools

The title of this article is a little surprising, considering that most criticisms of Brown have concerned his lack of ruthlessness, leadership qualities, or, for lack of a better term "guts". In any event, he certainly is not "The Prince" Machiavelli describes, the two may share (at least to some extent) an amoral realism, but Gordon Brown is the man who gave up his pole position for the Labour leadership in 1994, and then spent the next twelve years bitching about the man he gave it up to.

He had plenty of opportunities to stab Tony Blair in the back, or the front, and failed to do so every time. Blair was never really popular with the Labour backbenches, Brown was much more deeply involved in the Labour movement and had a better intuitive feel for their wants. If he had challenged for the leadership earlier, he probably would have won. Instead of displaying anything like courage, he sulked, and was known around Whitehall for literally stamping his feet and slamming doors.

As a leader he simply cannot compare with Blair. Brown is probably the more intelligent of the two, he handled most of domestic policy under Blair, because he was more able. He is also the harder-working, to the point of obsessing over his work and eating Chinese takeaways at his desk in the very late hours. Yet he lacks Blair's charisma, charm and what Machiavelli called "Virtu", basically translating as 'manliness' (including the ability to lie) rather than moral virtue. Regardless of what you may think of Brown's apparent lack of moral integrity, there really is no denying that he is far more readable than Blair. In terms of policy there has been little difference between himself and Blair

My own personal abiding memory of Brown, for all his policy disasters and the fact that it is under him that the government really seems to have lost itself, will be him on television trying to justify his reason not to call a general election in 2007. It was an awful situation for Brown to be in, feeling that he had to appear on the news to explain this (itself a sign of weakness) being harassed by a journalist who clearly had his number. Brown felt he was going to lose the election, despite this coming off the heels of the "Brown Bounce". This was perhaps his best chance to win an election, but he turned it down. The question is does this show that Brown is "Machiavellian" because he refused the calls for an election to hold onto power for three more years, or does it show Brown's lack of courage and political judgment, as it preceded a drop in the opinion ratings for himself. The latter is more likely, but what it really shows me is that Brown will not be around much longer, that he will be little more than a footnote in history, despite his talents and achievements as Chancellor, and that for better or worse, the Labour Party will regret he ever was Prime Minister

Learn more about this author, Anonymous Anomaly.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: Gordon Brown as Machiavelli?
We want to hear your view. Write now!