Judges are, in a unique sense, leaders. For society, this is healthy. People need somewhere to take their real or perceived grievances so they can be revealed, examined, and adjudicated. If injustice is bottled up and allowed to escalate without the opportunity for a wise, respected, neutral second opinion, harmful situations can develop — situations that are far from being “free from illness or injury”, in other words, unhealthy for society.
While there are common truths that bind us, there is always room for argument. Sometimes this is because the message has not been delivered clearly; other times it is because we have not interpreted it in the same way the speaker intended. Even people we believe are in complete sync — husbands and wives, siblings, children, or close friends — can misinterpret a message and arguments result. One only needs to consult a dictionary to see that a single word can have several meanings. Our understanding of the situations around us can be even more varied.
Judges anticipate, encourage, and even demand strong argument from counsel. Yet this raises an interesting question: is this position authentic or somewhat contradictory? The case before the judge usually exists because the defendant and the plaintiff are already in argument. On one hand, the judge requires argument; on the other hand, the judge’s role is to resolve it.
There is a well-known saying that, if you want friendships to remain intact on board a ship, you should avoid discussing sex, politics, or religion. In my experience, another sensitive subject can be leadership.
Many successful people — or those aspiring to be successful — are happy to define leadership when asked. However, the more successful someone has been in reaching their pinnacle, the less willing they may be to accept alternative views. That is understandable. If success has come through a particular path, why deviate from it?
Common answers about leadership include:
“You have to perform well.”
“You have to be popular with your teammates.”
“You have to inspire others.”
“You have to give a good after-match speech.”
A more formal definition might read:
“Leadership is the process of influencing and guiding individuals or groups towards achieving a common goal by setting a vision, motivating others, and fostering collaboration.”
Now measure that definition against leaders such as Prime Ministers Jacinda Ardern or Margaret Thatcher, or Presidents Indira Gandhi, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. All are undoubtedly leaders, but do their actions always represent good leadership? At times one might think we need judges on board quickly.
The characteristics attributed to leaders are many and varied, and most people would struggle to remember a long list. So here is a deliberately simple and admittedly biased definition that I often offer to anyone willing to listen. My hope is that more people will consider it — some already appear to have.
A Good Leader
“A good leader is one who, when things are going well, puts the team first. When things are going badly, the good leader goes first.”
Presidents and Prime Ministers, please note.
As with many strong positions, there can be a side effect. When this principle is practised, those observing superficially may see the good leader repeatedly taking difficult, sometimes losing positions. The underdog is given priority, and this may come at the cost of personal comfort or popularity. Sacrifice can easily turn into becoming the sacrificial lamb.
However, as with many enduring truths, while popularity may decline, respect often grows among peers and among those with deeper insight.
Judges are not always popular, yet the profession has endured for centuries — arguably since the era of the Book of Judges in the Old Testament, around 1350 BC. Fundamentally, respect from authorities and from the public has not disappeared, although it may sometimes feel challenged.
Against these pressures, the question remains: will you continue to act as a good leader?
And ultimately — is the health of society worth the fight?