Risking voters' anger is better than guaranteeing their apathy

ANALYSIS

IF THE 2003 election has been about apathy and disillusionment over the political process in Scotland, it has also been about the inability of the main party leaders to enthuse the public. What is it about Jack McConnell, John Swinney, David McLetchie and Jim Wallace that makes them unable to galvanise the voters?

Most political observers would agree that the 1999 election, which saw Donald Dewar battling it out with Alex Salmond for the job of first minister, was a more engrossing contest.

It appeared as a struggle between two political heavyweights, the equivalent of a general election tussle between UK party leaders. But this year’s vote does not seem to carry the same gravitas.

Part of this is obviously down to the experience of the contestants. Mr McConnell has been the Labour leader for only 18 months and Mr Swinney for three years.

Mr Salmond and Mr Dewar had years in Westminster to build up their reputations and their public profiles, giving them an advantage over their successors.

But one of the factors must also surely be the electoral system.

The system was created to perpetuate minority or coalition government. It is almost impossible for any party to secure an overall majority, demeaning this election as a contest between the two main parties.

It is very hard for Mr Swinney to portray himself as a first minister in waiting, who just needs a good election to topple Mr McConnell, when he knows that the most likely default position will be a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition.

However, there seems to be more to the failure of the party leaders to invigorate the electorate than that.

After all, Tommy Sheridan can manage it.

It is entirely likely that the Scottish Socialist Party would be bumping along on 1 or 2 per cent of the vote, struggling to stay ahead of the Socialist Labour Party and the Communist Party, were it not for its charismatic leader.

Mr Sheridan has lifted the SSP from being a left-wing fringe group into a political party pushing for a handful of MSPs and the chance to influence national policy.

His uncompromising style, his oratory - and even his penchant for sunbeds - have lifted him out of the political mire and made him recognisable to the public.

People either love him or hate him and this is almost certainly the key.

Mr Sheridan does not go out to win popularity contests. He advocates his policies, however unpalatable they may be to many people, and he asks voters to support him.

He does not try to move with the fickle public and at the very least this generates respect.

How many times have voters declared over the past five weeks: "I don’t like his politics but I respect the fact that he is standing up for what he believes in."

That could only be said about one of the party leaders. It is unlikely anybody would ever say that about Mr McConnell, Mr Swinney, Mr Wallace or Mr McLetchie.

The difference appears to be because conviction and principle do win votes.

Rather than trying to make themselves similar to each other in an attempt to win over floating voters, maybe Scotland’s main party leaders should strive to set their own agendas.

The survey published today shows that the leaders have not influenced the public to any great extent and that the Westminster leaders still hold sway when it comes to political leadership.

This is undoubtedly something of the Westminster effect: politicians appear to have more stature at Westminster, but it also has something to do with the calibre of politicians Westminster seems to attract.

Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Robin Cook and John Reid would all bring gravitas to the Scottish Parliament. All the main Scottish party leaders are seen as trustworthy and generally honest. None of them has made any gaffes through this campaign, to the obvious relief of their media handlers.

But perhaps they should be trying a little bit harder to be inspirational to some rather than simply acceptable to many.

It might help to take the odd risk, to try something different.

Yes, this might lose some votes but it might bring the leader concerned to a new audience or re-enthuse others who havelost faith in the political process.

None of the four main party leaders has been short of media coverage in this election. They have all been the focus of their parties’ campaigns, they have all been interviewed, individually and together, by television, radio and the newspapers, yet they have still found it difficult to show the leadership necessary to electrify the campaign.

All four will be hoping that they are all still in position in four years time when the election process comes round again.

They will no doubt argue that another four years will give them the time to build their public profiles and improve their leadership skills.

The fear lurking in all of them, however, is that their parties will not give them that chance if they muck it up this time round.