INTERNATIONAL
[COLUMNIST] In Praise of Composure
![[COLUMNIST] In Praise of Composure](https://img.astroawani.com/2020-07/41594960516_TBEVOTINGx.jpg)
In an era of global uncertainty, voters are favoring leaders who embody calm and competence over confrontational populism. - FREEPIK
IN the age of the 24-hour news cycle, the temptation to conflate noise with strength has never been greater. Social media favours the brash over the thoughtful, the reactive over the reflective. Yet recent elections in two of the world’s more stable democracies-Canada and Australia-suggest that voters are increasingly less enamoured with volatility in their leaders. In both countries, electorates rewarded calm, consensus-seeking individuals and rejected opposition leaders whose styles evoked the antagonism and theatricality of the current American leadership.
Canada’s newly elected prime minister, Mark Carney, offers a case study in quiet competence. A former head of two central banks with deep institutional credibility, Carney represents a return to technocratic steadiness after years of political strain. His opponent, Pierre Poilievre, who relished partisan confrontation and mirrored many of MAGA’s rhetorical instincts, failed to convince voters that pugilism was a substitute for thoughtful policy.
Australia’s election delivered a still more dramatic outcome. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government was re-elected in a landslide, while Peter Dutton—whose hard-edged, culture-war style was unmistakably Trumpian—lost not only the contest, but his own parliamentary seat.
This is not merely a repudiation of individual personalities. It is a broader reflection of what voters increasingly value in their leaders: sobriety, steadiness, and a willingness to unify rather than divide. These traits are not new to politics, but they are newly salient. When the world was simpler—when economies grew predictably and geopolitics followed a Cold War script—leadership style was perhaps a secondary concern. Today, with war in Europe, democratic backsliding, and the U.S.–China rivalry shaping a more brittle world order, temperament has become a geopolitical variable.
History is instructive. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps America’s most lionised president, surrounded himself with political rivals in his cabinet—not as a show of magnanimity, but as a strategy for national unity in the face of existential crisis. His ability to manage conflict without personalising it, and to endure pressure with remarkable emotional discipline, was essential to preserving the Union. Similarly, Winston Churchill, for all his rhetorical thunder, governed through a war cabinet that emphasised cohesion and strategic clarity over bluster.
Contrast this with those of an erratic style and who have arelish for conflict, both domestic and diplomatic. Foreign policy became a theatre of grievance rather than a vehicle for global order. The recent electoral defeats of some of these figures abroad—including Bolsonaro in Brazil, Dutton in Australia, and Poilievre in Canada—suggest that voters are not only wary of ideological extremism, but also of the temperament that often accompanies it.
Temperament is not merely a matter of optics or etiquette. It is a governing asset. Nowhere is this clearer than in the management of U.S.–China relations, the defining geopolitical challenge of this century. The relationship is tense but deeply interdependent, requiring leaders who can distinguish between firmness and provocation. A slip of the tongue, a tweet too far, can have outsized consequences in an environment primed for confrontation. Leaders with the discipline to think strategically, resist performative escalations, and engage adversaries without capitulation are at a premium.
Voters, it seems, are beginning to understand this. At a time when complexity demands coherence, the cult of personality is losing its appeal. Populists may still make noise, but the ballast of democracy depends on something quieter: the ability to govern with a cool head and a steady hand.
Dr Helmy Haja Mydin is chairman of Social & Economic Research Initative (seri.my)
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
Your gateway to global news, insights, and stories that matter.
Canada’s newly elected prime minister, Mark Carney, offers a case study in quiet competence. A former head of two central banks with deep institutional credibility, Carney represents a return to technocratic steadiness after years of political strain. His opponent, Pierre Poilievre, who relished partisan confrontation and mirrored many of MAGA’s rhetorical instincts, failed to convince voters that pugilism was a substitute for thoughtful policy.
Australia’s election delivered a still more dramatic outcome. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government was re-elected in a landslide, while Peter Dutton—whose hard-edged, culture-war style was unmistakably Trumpian—lost not only the contest, but his own parliamentary seat.
This is not merely a repudiation of individual personalities. It is a broader reflection of what voters increasingly value in their leaders: sobriety, steadiness, and a willingness to unify rather than divide. These traits are not new to politics, but they are newly salient. When the world was simpler—when economies grew predictably and geopolitics followed a Cold War script—leadership style was perhaps a secondary concern. Today, with war in Europe, democratic backsliding, and the U.S.–China rivalry shaping a more brittle world order, temperament has become a geopolitical variable.
History is instructive. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps America’s most lionised president, surrounded himself with political rivals in his cabinet—not as a show of magnanimity, but as a strategy for national unity in the face of existential crisis. His ability to manage conflict without personalising it, and to endure pressure with remarkable emotional discipline, was essential to preserving the Union. Similarly, Winston Churchill, for all his rhetorical thunder, governed through a war cabinet that emphasised cohesion and strategic clarity over bluster.
Contrast this with those of an erratic style and who have arelish for conflict, both domestic and diplomatic. Foreign policy became a theatre of grievance rather than a vehicle for global order. The recent electoral defeats of some of these figures abroad—including Bolsonaro in Brazil, Dutton in Australia, and Poilievre in Canada—suggest that voters are not only wary of ideological extremism, but also of the temperament that often accompanies it.
Temperament is not merely a matter of optics or etiquette. It is a governing asset. Nowhere is this clearer than in the management of U.S.–China relations, the defining geopolitical challenge of this century. The relationship is tense but deeply interdependent, requiring leaders who can distinguish between firmness and provocation. A slip of the tongue, a tweet too far, can have outsized consequences in an environment primed for confrontation. Leaders with the discipline to think strategically, resist performative escalations, and engage adversaries without capitulation are at a premium.
Voters, it seems, are beginning to understand this. At a time when complexity demands coherence, the cult of personality is losing its appeal. Populists may still make noise, but the ballast of democracy depends on something quieter: the ability to govern with a cool head and a steady hand.
Dr Helmy Haja Mydin is chairman of Social & Economic Research Initative (seri.my)
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.