In many backward countries there are military leaders who are also political leaders. It usually arises because of view that “managing” a country can only be done though force, micro-managing events and the public necessarily involving a loss of freedom, both physical and emotional.
We’re pretty fortunate in New Zealand to be a democracy with a reasonable amount of freedom. I can write pretty well anything I wish to express a view here on this blog, without interference. I felt uneasy when it was announced that the new governor-general was to be a man who was a public servant heading the spy agency and very recently had headed the defence force. Part of that was his reputation for being a micro-manager which didn’t inspire the sort of leadership that we might expect from our head of state’s representative. He said on his first day in the job that he was looking forward to getting to know New Zealanders and it’s been reported that he will bring an informal style to the role.
On day two he’s back to where he was – responding with indignation that anyone should question the integrity of the defence force. This followed Nicky Hagar’s book making allegations about the defence’s actual role in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rights or wrongs of whatever Hagar says is not relevant to Mataparae’s reaction. What I think is most concerning is that our supposedly independent governor-general has breached that impartiality almost immediately. What if a government is to be sworn in that has a commitment to dismantling parts of the defence force? Would Mr Mataparae have a view on that, that he would similarly feel the need to share? On current form, you would have to say he would, which would be totally inappropriate as his comments now are.
In leadership development we often talk about a leader’s inability to obtain appropriate feedback at the most senior levels from those around them. Having watched the sycophancy displayed by those that support politicians and senior civil servants, I can imagine no-one said anything. And being a micro-manager, he wouldn’t have welcomed such feedback. I hope that those who are there to support our new GG will have the courage to help the man in what is obviously a difficult leadership step up for him.
The defence force can speak for itself and the head of state’s representative, whatever his intimate knowledge, has no role in launching into the topic. Count to ten next time! You’ve got 4 years and 363 days to go.
Stephen
Stephen Drain's Leadership Blog 
A bit of a worry, really, having this guy as G.G. I suspected, when Mataparae was made director of GCSB that this was a man who was absolutely compatible with (although probably not understanding of- most likely he sees things in terms of “collective interest of the civilised world”) John Key’s vision of hegemony to a plutocracy of financial elite of which Key is an agent and cadet member. . Mataparae has already shown himself to be not up to the job as you rightly say from his breach of impartiality re. Hagar’s allegations.
Despite my personal leanings towards devolved autonomy for individuals and communities I have always held a candle for the constitutional monarchy and particularly the role of the G.G. as the legal commander-in-chief of the armed forces, police and so-on as an insurance against the siezure of power by a political faction. Despite the fact that these powers are, by constitutional convention, never used they are nevertheless very real and pertinent in times of crisis. It seems that the present political faction have managed to foist “their man” into the position at just the critical time. I believe that during the next five years, we will see some kind of “end game” played out and the last thing we need is a G.G. who is a poodle of the cabal that seeks to destroy the sovereignty of the crown “as representative and guardian of the common-wealth of citizens”.
LikeLike