It is reasonably clear to me that the major political parties present an image whereby their "leaders" are also shown to be their group's "authorities". "Authority" has traditionally been seen as the ability to command or make decisions - something that the major parties would have us believe KRudd and Turnbull do. Scratching beneath the surface, however, reveals that these two "leaders" are constantly walking a tightrope within their parties because I, for one, believe that decisions they make are simply trying to appease the factions within their own party.
In the Australian Greens we do not have an appointed leader, and for the most part I do not believe we need one and here's why: authority needs to be shared, without shared authority there can be no shared creativity. If you and I work together, we see ourselves as "co-creators." We may continue to make individual decisions, but we do so with full knowledge of our shared purpose, and of what each other thinks and feels.
This may cause people to ask, "Who makes the tough decisions?" This question suggests that "tough" decisions involve allocating painful effects (e.g. higher taxes on everyone) and that a team is incapable of understanding them, let alone making them. However, the other view is that because these decisions are so critical, and effect so many people, they demand involvement from people who will be affected or held accountable. How do you keep decision makers honest? By making sure that everyone is aware of the long-term implications, that no one's individual interest can dominate the proceedings, and the information shared by everyone is as complete and accurate as possible. (extract from "The 5th discipline Fieldbook")
So do the Greens NEED a leader? I personally don't think so, but it may serve a purpose to appoint a figurehead.
