Thinking and Working Politically to Support Developmental Leadership and Coalitions - Denney and McLaren (2016)

This research paper from the Developmental Leadership Program examines how Australia’s aid programme applied Thinking and Working Politically (TWP) principles in practice across the Pacific by reviewing four reform coalitions supported by the Pacific Leadership Program (PLP), Vanuatu (reserved seats for women), Tonga (the Leadership Code), Solomon Islands (local livelihoods), and a regional green-growth initiative.

• Locally led, pragmatic coalitions: Rather than insisting on ideal "good governance" templates, PLP adopted a pragmatic approach that prioritised leaders and coalitions with the real influence and political acumen to effect change, regardless of whether they fit standard democratic ideals. Across the case studies, coalitions varied widely, showing that reform groups do not have to be uniformly inclusive, formal, or egalitarian to succeed politically.
• Deep contextual and relational knowledge: TWP in PLP relied heavily on staff who were Pacific Island nationals. Their personal, kinship, church and professional networks allowed the programme to interpret nuanced political dynamics and identify credible local reformers instead of relying on open calls for proposals or standard challenge funds.
• Working behind the scenes: PLP functioned as a facilitator, convener and "critical friend," deliberately maintaining a low profile so that reforms were seen as wholly domestic rather than driven by external Australian interests. Staff strategically addressed contentious reforms indirectly (such as tackling child protection through women’s economic empowerment or promoting governance through traditional dialogue formats (talanoa)).
• Navigating donor bureaucracy: The authors highlight that TWP depends fundamentally on the donor's internal enabling environment. Early co-location of AusAID staff within the implementation team provided essential political cover, risk tolerance, and rapid decision-making. Following AusAID’s integration into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and subsequent aid budget cuts, rigid compliance and short-term results pressures constrained the program's flexibility, underscoring the friction between political agility and traditional donor accountability.