By Paul Gallagher

Amid the wintry chill gripping the Alpine ski resort of Davos last week, two world leaders were losing their cool at the World Economic Forum.

It was the highly emotive crisis in the Middle East that raised the political temperature. Israeli President Shimon Peres and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan turned up the thermostat in the Swiss ski resort when they clashed in a debate over Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

Peres, 85, gave an unusually impassioned speech in response to criticism of the offensive, raising his voice at times. Minutes later Erdogan, who wanted to respond to Peres, stormed off the stage after a moderator cut him off. He complained that he had not been given as much time to speak as Peres. During the debate Erdogan had said to Peres: “When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill.”

Their displays of emotion may have resonated with voters back home but will have done little for diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Such visible anger raised an interesting question. Are leaders ever justified in displaying anger publicly in defence of their positions?

While anger is a very human emotion, it is a sign of loss of control. And if there is one thing we expect from leaders, it is control.

Question marks over U.S. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain’s temperament - he has a reputation for having a “short fuse” - may have cost him dear in the 2008 presidential race.

Occasionally voters may identify with politicians who “lose it,” but they ultimately expect their leaders to stand out for overcoming rather than succumbing to their anger.

Many voters sympathised with former British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott when he punched a protester who threw an egg at him during a 2001 election campaign.

But others would argue that the hallmarks of leadership are keeping your cool, even under intense provocation.

As Erick Clemons, professor at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania told Bloomberg: “Nobody can solve this problem with a temper-tantrum anymore than you can solve it with an Uzi or a Kalashnikov.”


(pgallagher@ecdinsight.com)