When the Voice referendum failed, political commentators and Opposition leaders demanded an immediate response from Anthony Albanese.

His refusal to offer quick emotional reactions or blame-shifting revealed something rare in Australian politics: genuine patience. In a political culture dominated by speed, slogans, and reactive soundbites, Albanese’s willingness to wait, listen, and resist the short-term sugar hit of easy populism points to a different kind of leadership – one grounded in the psychological maturity on which democracy depends.

A leader’s job is to keep their head amidst the turbulence of human need, greed, opinion, threats and global pressures. Throughout history, most leaders have failed to do so. Holding onto the capacity for listening and deep thinking — and taking the time that requires — has been the exception, not the norm, with dire consequences.

As prime minister, Albanese seems to influence his cabinet and party to follow the same approach. We are beginning to see a slow and steady direction emerge across policy areas including cost-of-living pressures, tax reform, childcare, housing, climate action and international relations. It is a direction that is firm, but not indifferent, and consistent with long-held Labor values.

This approach is notably less reactive than that of recent prime ministers including Morrison, Turnbull, Abbott, Rudd, and Gillard. Consider Albanese’s measured response to the AUKUS debate, refusing to be drawn into inflammatory rhetoric about China while maintaining Australia’s strategic interests. His handling of housing policy has similarly avoided grand promises, instead focusing on systematic reforms like the Housing Future Fund and build-to-rent schemes. Even on cost-of-living pressures — where the political temptation for quick fixes is enormous — he has resisted over-promising, instead implementing targeted measures like cheaper childcare and energy bill relief.

There are few more powerful ways to disarm political adversaries than to not bite back emotionally and to carry on, at least outwardly, unaffected by the daily political noise.

It is, of course, impossible to know from a distance exactly how Albanese manages this unfortunately exceptional approach – how he can hold steady in the face of paradox and ambiguity, the swirling, contradictory and dynamic pressures of democratic leadership.

We all carry within us the capacity for emotional extremes – love and hate, generosity and selfishness, hope and fear. Every human and human group yearns for security and fears its opposite, whether we’re talking about actual survival or the psychological pain of losing status or cherished beliefs about ourselves. Immature or manipulative leaders mobilise these emotions for short-term political gain, ultimately harming everyone.

Recognising this with humility, waiting until initial emotional reactions subside enough to weigh perspectives and consequences before acting – this separates mature leadership from reactive politics. This process takes time. There is no avoiding time and its frustrations, despite promises that technology and “efficiency” can somehow shortcut democratic deliberation.

We see what happens when such patience is absent: in Trump’s America, on social media echo chambers, and too often in Australia’s mainstream press. In such states, survival instincts and righteously held beliefs create a fearful refusal to acknowledge complexity or contradiction. It makes us blind to truths other than our own and is, in this way, profoundly anti-democratic.

Patience — watching, waiting, listening over time with genuine openness to changing perspective — signals the inner strength needed for democratic leadership. Such an approach always provokes resistance and attack from those who prefer the psychological comfort of simple answers and clear enemies.

To be fair, there are times when decisive action takes precedence over deliberation – genuine crises demand swift responses. But in most policy areas, the patient approach of building consensus, considering unintended consequences, and implementing sustainable solutions serves democracy better than reactive populism.

As citizens, we also need to mature politically. Democracy requires patience, not only from leaders, but from us as voters. We must resist the seductive appeal of politicians who promise easy solutions and quick wins.

Leaders can mobilise our psychological tendencies for good or ill. In the long run, we are all better off when inspired and motivated to work together for the common good rather than divided into winners and losers.

Albanese’s leadership suggests that democracy is strengthened not by speed or slogans, but by patience, humility, and the capacity to listen. It is a reminder that our politics can still make space for psychological maturity – if we, too, resist the immediate gratification of political point-scoring and embrace the slower, more difficult work of democratic deliberation.

The question for Australian voters is whether we can appreciate and support this kind of leadership, or whether we will continue to reward the politics of instant reaction and simple solutions.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.