Political Leadership: Towards A General Analysis

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
Towards a General Analysis
J E A N BLONDEL
() S A G E P u b l i c a t i o n s L o n d o n Beverly Hills N e w b u r y P a r k N e w D e l h i
Copyright 1987 by Jean Blondel First published 1987 AH rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
S A G E Publications Ltd 28 Banner Street London EC1Y 8QE SAGE Publications Inc. 275 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212 and 2111 West Hillcrest Drive Newbury Park, California 91320 SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd C-236 Defence Colony New Delhi 110 024
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Blondel, Jean Political leadership: towards a general analysis. 1. Political leadership 1. Title 306'.2 JF2111
ISBN i B039 8036-1 I Ilnn ol Congrill Catalog Card Number 87-060197

.1 ... . . . ii I M i l . m i l l y I . W . A l i m v . m i l h I .til, l l l ' i s l o l
Contents
Preface Introduction 1 W h a t is political leadership a n d h o w can it be assessed? 2 3 4 5 T h e role of political leadership past a n d present A c o n c e p t u a l a s s e s s m e n t of t h e i m p a c t of p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s T h e influence of personal characteristics on political leadership T h e influence of institutions on political leadership 6 7 T h e future of the study of political leadership Conclusion 10 36 80 vii 1
115
148 181 195 204 211
Bibliography Index
Preface
T h i s b o o k o n p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p i s b o t h logically r e l a t e d t o a n d different in character from t h e previous volumes on c o m p a r a t i v e e x e c u t i v e s . I t c o n s t i t u t e s , s o t o s p e a k , t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e last v o l u m e t h a t i s t o a p p e a r i n t h e series, c o n c e r n i n g t h e i m p a c t o f g o v e r n m e n t s . T h e o v e r a l l a i m o f t h e series i s t o d e s c r i b e t h e w a y s i n which the national executive operates in the world today and to e x a m i n e t h e r e a s o n s for s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d d i f f e r e n c e s . S u c h a n a p p r o a c h p r e s u p p o s e s that there is clarity a n d , indeed, consensus as to what the object of the analysis should be an assumption that is valid, by a n d large, with respect to the.assessment of what constitutes a n a t i o n a l e x e c u t i v e , b u t o n e t h a t t u r n s o u t t o b e less f o u n d e d , i f f o u n d e d at all, w h e n we c o m e to consider w h a t executives m a y or m a y not achieve. W e are a c c u s t o m e d t o believe t h a t actions o f g o v e r n m e n t s h a v e s o m e effect; w e d o i n d e e d b l a m e g o v e r n m e n t s a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y p r a i s e t h e m for w h a t w e b e l i e v e t o b e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e i r actions. But we are equally p r o n e to think that governments are constrained by the environment in which they operate so m u c h so, indeed, that we are sometimes inclined to conclude that they have no r o o m for m a n o e u v r e a n d t h a t t h e i r b e h a v i o u r i s e n t i r e l y d i c t a t e d b y the e n v i r o n m e n t . This inconsistency in o u r m i n d is reflected in the d e b a t e b e t w e e n t h o s e w h o believe t h a t g o v e r n m e n t s m a t t e r a n d t h o s e w h o think that they do not ' m a k e any difference', a debate that is fuelled m o r e b y i d e o l o g y a n d , o n e m a y a d d , b y p r e j u d i c e s i n f a v o u r or against particular g o v e r n m e n t s t h a n by a close analysis of the extent to which certain outcomes can be attributed to the deeds of various executives. Given this situation, it becomes impossible to proceed to an analysis of the i m p a c t of g o v e r n m e n t s before clarifying w h a t this i m p a c t can b e e x p e c t e d t o b e , i n o r d e r t o assess w h e t h e r i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o believe that governments do m a k e a difference. But the question is further complicated because, within the g o v e r n m e n t , leaders a p p e a r to be, p r i m a facie a t least, r a t h e r s p e c i a l . T h e y a p p e a r s p e c i a l b e c a u s e t h e i r status is different from that of the other m e m b e r s of the g o v e r n m e n t ; t h e y a p p e a r special also b e c a u s e t h e y a r e felt t o b e e n d o w e d , a t least i n s o m e cases, with the potential to attract the emotional a n d even almost religious support of their followers: personalized or 'charismatic' leadership is thus deemed to be able to achieve results on a level t h a t is clearly d i f f e r e n t in k i n d f r o m w h a t o r d i n a r y m i n i s t e r s c a n o b t a i n , a l t h o u g h o r d i n a r y m i n i s t e r s , o f c o u r s e , m a y well b e n e f i t from the vast protective mantle that leaders m a y deploy a r o u n d t h e m .
viii
Preface
As the problem of the impact of governments is c o m p o u n d e d by that of the impact of leaders, there seems to be no alternative but to pause in the sequence of t h e analysis of c o n t e m p o r a r y executives and t o e x a m i n e m o r e closely t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p . T h i s is the object of the present w o r k , w h i c h , given the c o m p l e x i t y of the subject, does not pretend to p ro vid e m o r e t h a n a partial answer to this controversial problem; rather, the aim is to indicate the ways in which enquiries into the impact of leaders and therefore of governments c a n b e c o n d u c t e d , a s well a s t h e l i m i t s w i t h i n w h i c h i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t o d i s c o v e r h a r d f i n d i n g s , a t least a t p r e s e n t . I t i s h o p e d t h a t t h i s b o o k will s t i m u l a t e r e s e a r c h i n b o t h t h e m e t h o d o l o g y a n d t h e instruments with which to analyse the impact of leadership, while m a k i n g i t p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r t a k e (in a s u b s e q u e n t v o l u m e ) a n a n a l y s i s of what governments do achieve: This b o o k could not have been written without the extraordinarily generous s u p p o r t of the Russell Sage F o u n d a t i o n of N e w Y o r k , where I was f o r t u n a t e to be a Visiting Scholar d u r i n g the a c a d e m i c year 1 9 8 4 - 5 . The magnificent working conditions and the exceptionally c o n g e n i a l a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e F o u n d a t i o n , a s well a s t h e s t i m u l a t i n g intellectual e n v i r o n m e n t of New Y o r k City, m a d e the p r e p a r a t i o n a n d early drafting of this b o o k a wholly enjoyable affair: it is h o p e d that t h e o u t c o m e will b e t h o u g h t t o j u s t i f y t h e t r u s t w h i c h t h e F o u n d a t i o n placed in m e . I wish therefore to t h a n k m o s t w a r m l y the President of t h e F o u n d a t i o n , M a r s h a l l R o b i n s o n , t h e T r u s t e e s a n d t h e s t a f f for h a v i n g given me this u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y . I wish particularly to t h a n k the Vice-President, Peter de Janosi, whose constant encouragement a n d i n f i n i t e p a t i e n c e t r u l y m a d e t h i s w o r k p o s s i b l e . 1 wish a l s o t o t h a n k t h e m a n y c o l l e a g u e s a n d friends w i t h w h o m I discussed a s p e c t s of this w o r k , a n d in particular R o n a l d King of Cornell University for his c o n t i n u o u s h e l p , R o b e r t M e r t o n o f C o l u m b i a University a n d Russell Sage F o u n d a t i o n , Pierre T a b a t o n i of t h e University of P a r i s , Robert D a h l a n d Robert L a n e of Yale University a n d B a r b a r a K e l l e r m a n n o f F a i r l e y D i c k i n s o n , for t h e i r a d v i c e a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t a s well a s , i n t h e c a s e o f t h e l a t t e r t w o , for b e i n g p r e p a r e d t o r e a d a n e a r l i e r d r a f t o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t . I wish t o t h a n k D a v i d B r o o k s a n d D a v i d H i l l o f S a g e P u b l i c a t i o n s for h a v i n g a l l o w e d m e t o m a k e t h i s d e t o u r i n t h e series o n c o m p a r a t i v e e x e c u t i v e s . I wish t o t h a n k m y w i f e , w h o s e p a t i e n c e w a s often b r o u g h t c l o s e t o t h e limit. T o all, I w a n t t o r e c o r d m y w a r m e s t g r a t i t u d e for t h e i r h a v i n g h e l p e d t o r e n d e r less i m p e r f e c t a s t u d y t h a t is, in m a n y w a y s , an attempt at r e c o n n o i t r i n g a n e x t r e m e l y rich a n d c o m p l e x terrain.
Florence, Italy
M a y , 1986
Introduction
L e a d e r s h i p is as o l d as m a n k i n d . It is u n i v e r s a l , a n d i n e s c a p a b l e . It exists e v e r y w h e r e in s m a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d in l a r g e o n e s , in businesses a n d i n c h u r c h e s , i n t r a d e u n i o n s a n d i n c h a r i t a b l e b o d i e s , i n tribes a n d i n u n i v e r s i t i e s . I t exists i n i n f o r m a l b o d i e s , i n street g a n g s a n d in mass demonstrations. It is not, indeed, confined to the h u m a n race: it c a n b e f o u n d i n m a n y a n i m a l societies, precisely w h e r e a n i m a l s f o r m a society. L e a d e r s h i p is, for all i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s , t h e n o . 1 f e a t u r e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . F o r l e a d e r s h i p t o exist, o f c o u r s e , t h e r e h a s t o b e a g r o u p : b u t w h e r e v e r a g r o u p exists, t h e r e is a l w a y s a f o r m of l e a d e r s h i p . A m o n g t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f l e a d e r s h i p , political l e a d e r s h i p , i n p a r t i c u l a r in t h e n a t i o n - s t a t e , o c c u p i e s a special p o s i t i o n . It is n o t t h a t it is intrinsically different in k i n d or c h a r a c t e r f r o m l e a d e r s h i p in o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , b u t i t i s v a s t l y m o r e visible a n d , o s t e n s i b l y a t least, vastly m o r e i m p o r t a n t . W i t h i n e a c h n a t i o n , political l e a d e r s h i p c a n c o m m a n d a n d r e a c h o u t widely a n d extensively; a n d t h e r u l e r s o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t n a t i o n s h a v e a r e s o n a n c e t h a t carries a n e c h o t o all c o r n e r s o f t h e w o r l d . T h u s far, political l e a d e r s h i p a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l level, save i n s o m e a r e a s a n d i n a l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f fields, c o n t i n u e s t o d e p e n d o n the leadership of t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t states, while at the regional a n d local level, in m o s t c o u n t r i e s at least, it is an essential, b u t also r a t h e r limited, e l e m e n t i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f p u b l i c life. I f o n e r e d u c e s politics t o its b a r e b o n e s , t o w h a t i s m o s t visible t o m o s t citizens, i t i s t h e n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s , b o t h a t h o m e a n d a b r o a d , t h a t r e m a i n o n c e e v e r y t h i n g else h a s b e e n e r a s e d ; t h e y a r e t h e m o s t u n i v e r s a l , t h e m o s t r e c o g n i z e d , t h e m o s t t a l k e d a b o u t e l e m e n t s o f political life. G i v e n t h i s r e c o g n i z e d i m p o r t a n c e o f political l e a d e r s h i p , i t i s p r i m a facie s u r p r i s i n g t h a t a g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n s h o u l d b e s o little a d v a n c e d . As R. M. Stogdill n o t e s in his, c o m p r e h e n s i v e s u r v e y p u b l i s h e d i n 1974, ' L e a d e r s h i p i n v a r i o u s s e g m e n t s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n ( s t u d e n t s , m i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l , a n d b u s i n e s s m e n ) h a v e [sic] b e e n h e a v i l y r e s e a r c h e d , while o t h e r s ( p o l i t i c i a n s , l a b o u r l e a d e r s , a n d c r i m i n a l leaders) h a v e been relatively n e g l e c t e d ' (Stogdill, 1974: 5). T h e r e h a s been s o m e c h a n g e in, a n d i n d e e d a m a r k e d a w a k e n i n g t o , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e subject f r o m t h e m i d - 1 9 7 0 s , b u t t h e political scientists w h o h a v e since d e v o t e d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o l e a d e r s h i p ( a n d t h e r e a r e still n o t m a n y ) , i n p a r t i c u l a r G . D . P a i g e , J . M . B u r n s , B . K e l l e r m a n , M . Rejai a n d R . C . T u c k e r , n o t e h o w little r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e field, a s t h e s u r v e y u n d e r t a k e n b y L . S e l i g m a n for t h e International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences a m p l y d e m o n s t r a t e s (Sills, 1968: 1 0 6 - 1 3 ) . ' W e shall h a v e t o e x a m i n e t h e r e a s o n s for s u c h a neglect, w h i c h i s r a t h e r p a r a d o x i c a l , since, f r o m t h e G r e e k s t o t h e
Political leadership
m o d e r n p e r i o d , m a n y p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s h a v e been c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e elaboration of mechanisms designed to improve on the methods of a p p o i n t m e n t o f r u l e r s a n d o n t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e s e rulers w h e n t h e y w e r e in office. W h a t i s political l e a d e r s h i p ? T h e r e i s i n reality n o g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d definition o f t h e c o n c e p t , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t s e e m s t o a p p l y a l s o t o l e a d e r s h i p i n g e n e r a l . S t o g d i l l , for i n s t a n c e , finds t h a t t h e m a n y d e f i n i t i o n s given by social scientists fall w i t h i n n i n e d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s , some of which, admittedly, partly overlap; they range from personality t o s t r u c t u r e a n d f r o m r o l e s t o f o r m s o f effectiveness ( S t o g d i l l , 1974: 716). N o r d o r e c e n t w o r k s i n p o l i t i c a l science p r o v i d e clear g u i d a n c e : n o single d e f i n i t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p i s given i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f Paige, Burns or Kellerman, although each of these a u t h o r s is e m p h a t i c a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e g e n e r a l p h e n o m e n o n o f political l e a d e r s h i p . T h e r e i s a n e f f o r t t o s u r v e y t h e field, t o m a p o u t t h e d i r e c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e s t u d y o f political l e a d e r s h i p n e e d s t o b e u n d e r t a k e n ; but there is limited concentration on what might be the core element of the concept. P e r h a p s this is because there is concern not t o lose sight o f t h e m a n y w a y s i n w h i c h l e a d e r s h i p s h o u l d b e e x a m i n e d ; i t i s i n d e e d i m p o r t a n t t h a t w e s h o u l d focus o n p e r s o n a l i t y while n o t f o r g e t t i n g t h e r o l e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , t h a t w e s h o u l d give a t t e n t i o n t o b e h a v i o u r w h i l e n o t ceasing t o b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e roles a n d t h e institutional structures that are embedded in these roles, or, indeed, that w e s h o u l d s t u d y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s w h i l e n o t losing sight o f t h e p r o b l e m s p o s e d b y their a i m s a n d their a c h i e v e m e n t s . Yet i t i s n o t p e r m i s s i b l e t o u n d e r t a k e b r o a d , i n d e e d g e n e r a l , s t u d i e s o f a s u b j e c t w i t h o u t a t t e m p t i n g t o d e l i n e a t e , a s precisely a s p o s s i b l e , t h e b o u n d a r i e s of that subject. T h u s , a definition of leadership must be s o u g h t e v e n if, b e c a u s e it h a s to be g e n e r a l , it is of necessity r a t h e r v a g u e a n d m a y d e m a n d further elaboration over t i m e . M o r e o v e r , a definition n e e d s t o b e given i n o r d e r t o clarify t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w h a t s h o u l d be described as the core, the central aspect of leadership, and elements that are tributaries of or dependent on this core. We have to d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n w h a t l e a d e r s h i p i s a n d w h a t its origins o r s o u r c e s a r e , w h a t its v a r i o u s m o d e s m a y b e a n d w h a t its c o n s e q u e n c e s o r effects consist of. P a r t o f t h e difficulty t h a t w r i t e r s i n this field h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d in r e c e n t years with respect to s u c h a definition seems to c o m e f r o m t h e fact t h a t n o t e n o u g h h a s b e e n d o n e t o e l a b o r a t e t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s , a n d t h u s t h a t causes, m o d e s a n d effects o f l e a d e r s h i p s e e m to be discussed on the same plane as the p h e n o m e n o n of leadership itself. W h a t , t h e n , is p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p ? It is m a n i f e s t l y and essentially a p h e n o m e n o n of p o w e r : it is p o w e r b e c a u s e it c o n s i s t s of the ability of t h e o n e o r few w h o a r e a t t h e t o p t o m a k e o t h e r s d o a number o l t h i n g s
Introduction
(positively o r n e g a t i v e l y ) t h a t t h e y w o u l d n o t o r a t least m i g h t n o t h a v e d o n e . But i t i s n o t , o f c o u r s e , j u s t a n y k i n d o f p o w e r . I t a p p e a r s t o b e p o w e r exercised f r o m t h e t o p d o w n , s o t o s p e a k : t h e l e a d e r i s , i n v a r i o u s w a y s , ' a b o v e ' t h e n a t i o n (in t h e c a s e o f n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s h i p ) , a n d c a n give o r d e r s t o t h e rest o f t h e citizens. H o w e v e r , a m o m e n t ' s reflection suggests t h a t all p o w e r i s f r o m t h e ' t o p d o w n ' , since i t implies I h a t A c a n m a k e B do s o m e t h i n g a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t A is in s o m e sense superior, t o B . T h u s , w h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s f r o m o t h e r forms of power is not so m u c h the nature of the relationship between t h e l e a d e r a n d t h e rest o f t h e n a t i o n b u t t h e fact t h a t , i n t h e c a s e o f l e a d e r s h i p , t h e ' A ' w h o gives t h e o r d e r , w h o h a s p o w e r , exercises t h i s power over a large n u m b e r of ' B s ' , that is to say, over the whole n a t i o n . T h u s , while p o w e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e a l w a y s u n e q u a l (they c a n o f c o u r s e be r e c i p r o c a l , if A m a k e s B do s o m e t h i n g a n d , l a t e r , B m a k e s A o b e y h i m ; b u t even t h e n t h e r e i s i n e q u a l i t y , a l t h o u g h t h e roles a r e s u b s e q u e n t l y r e v e r s e d ) , t h e p o w e r r e l a t i o n s h i p exercised i n t h e leadership context is particularly unequal in that leaders are able to m a k e all o t h e r s i n t h e g r o u p ( a n d , i n t h e c a s e o f t h e n a t i o n , all t h e citizens) d o w h a t t h e y w o u l d o t h e r w i s e n o t h a v e d o n e , o r m i g h t n o t h a v e d o n e . I t m i g h t b e a d d e d t h a t this ability o f t h e l e a d e r i s also d u r a b l e a n d i n d e e d , i n s o m e c a s e s , c a n b e e x e r c i s e d for a l o n g p e r i o d . T h u s i t s e e m s p o s s i b l e t o d e f i n e p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p , a n d specifically n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s h i p , as t h e p o w e r exercised by o n e or a few ind i v i d u a l s t o direct m e m b e r s o f t h e n a t i o n t o w a r d s a c t i o n .
2 1
T h e p o t e n t i a l i m m e n s i t y o f s u c h a p o w e r o f l e a d e r s is, o f c o u r s e , i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t ; this i n d e e d a l r e a d y p r o v i d e s a n insight i n t o w h a t m i g h t b e o n e o f t h e r e a s o n s w h y n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s h i p p o s e s f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s t i o n s a b o u t its o r i g i n s , its m o d e o f o p e r a t i o n a n d its effect. I n d e e d , t h e p o t e n t i a l , a n d o n o c c a s i o n t h e a c t u a l i m m e n s i t y o f t h e p o w e r , a l s o reveals in p a r t w h y , at first sight s u r p r i s i n g l y , political t h e o r i s t s h a v e n o t s t u d i e d l e a d e r s h i p directly a n d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y . A s H o b b e s w o u l d h a v e p u t it, political l e a d e r s h i p is a L e v i a t h a n , a f r i g h t e n i n g b e a s t , which i t i s p e r h a p s m o r e u r g e n t t o t a m e t h a n t o dissect. It frightens b e c a u s e it a p p e a r s so d a n g e r o u s ; t h e r e is t h e r e f o r e s o m e r e l u c t a n c e t o a p p r o a c h i t c a l m l y a n d objectively, while t h e r e is, o n t h e c o n t r a r y , a great u r g e t o e n s u r e t h a t m e a n s a r e d i s c o v e r e d t o d i m i n i s h its effects. T h u s t h e s t u d y o f l e a d e r s h i p h a s t e n d e d t o b e viewed i n t e r m s o f a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e m e c h a n i s m s b y w h i c h t h e a c t i o n s o f l e a d e r s w o u l d b e sufficiently c o n s t r a i n e d s o a s n o t t o e n c r o a c h u n d u l y u p o n t h e lives o f c i t i z e n s . Yet, after g e n e r a t i o n s i n w h i c h e f f o r t s were d e v o t e d t o ' t a m i n g ' t h e ' b e a s t ' , t h e t i m e m a y h a v e c o m e t o c o n s i d e r all a s p e c t s o f l e a d e r s h i p , n o t m e r e l y i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e lives o f citizens a r e m o r e s e c u r e b u t i n o r d e r t o see h o w t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s c a n b e positively h a r n e s s e d
for t h e g o o d o f m a n k i n d . F o r , i f t h e p o w e r o f leaders c a n b e exercised t o c o n t r o l , d o m i n a t e a n d s u b j u g a t e , i t c a n surely also b e exercised t o uplift, i m p r o v e a n d d e v e l o p . A s i t i s m a n i f e s t t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n o f m a n k i n d deserves a m e l i o r a t i o n , a n d a s l e a d e r s h i p a p p e a r s t o b e a p o w e r t h a t c a n affect m a n k i n d , it is clearly v a l u a b l e i n d e e d , i m p e r a t i v e t o see h o w t h i s p o w e r c a n h e l p t o b r i n g a b o u t a ' b e t t e r ' s t a t e of affairs in o u r s o c i e t i e s . T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y so since political l e a d e r s h i p a p p e a r s t o b e o n e o f t h e clearest w a y s i n w h i c h m e n a n d w o m e n c a n b e i n d u c e d t o w o r k j o i n t l y for t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e i r lot; l e a d e r s h i p s e e m s a b l e , b y v i r t u e o f w h a t i t is, b o t h t o b r i n g citizens t o g e t h e r i n a c o n c e r t e d effort a n d t o d o s o o v e r t i m e b y g r a d u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s a i m e d a t a c o m m o n g o a l . T h u s , while l e a d e r s h i p m a y b e a ' b e a s t ' w h i c h c a n frighten m a n k i n d , i t c a n also b e o n e o f t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l m e a n s o f l e a d i n g t o collective a c t i o n , n o t j u s t severally a n d i n a discreet m a n n e r , b u t in a c o m m o n e n d e a v o u r o v e r s u b s t a n t i a l p e r i o d s : i t c a n t h u s result i n d e v e l o p m e n t for t h e w h o l e society. T h i s i s n o t o f c o u r s e t o d e n y t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f l e a d e r s h i p c a n differ widely a n d , specifically, t h a t t h e s e c a n b e b a d a s well a s g o o d i n d e e d , t h a t t h e y c a n v a r y m a r k e d l y f r o m excellent t o a b y s m a l . B u t i t i s precisely b e c a u s e t h e y c a n v a r y s o m u c h t h a t t h e y h a v e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i n their e n t i r e t y . I f l e a d e r s h i p i s t o b e h a r n e s s e d for t h e c o m m o n g o o d a n d for d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d i f this h a r n e s s i n g h a s t o o c c u r b e c a u s e t h e r e are no obvious alternatives readily available to m a n k i n d , then it is i m p e r a t i v e to s t u d y l e a d e r s h i p in its g e n e r a l i t y ; a n d it is essential to assess h o w f a r , a n d u n d e r w h a t c o n d i t i o n s , l e a d e r s h i p i s likely t o b e g o o d . T h i s i s w h y all t y p e s o f political l e a d e r s h i p n e e d t o b e classified a n d c a t e g o r i z e d a n d t o b e related t o t h e s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e y e m e r g e a s well a s t o t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t result f r o m t h e m . T h i s i s also w h y , s t a r t i n g f r o m t h e g e n e r a l definition t h a t n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s h i p i s t h e p o w e r exercised b y o n e o r a few i n d i v i d u a l s t o direct t h e a c t i o n s o f the m e m b e r s of the n a t i o n , one has to ask three questions in succession. F i r s t , w h a t a r e t h e origins o f t h i s p o w e r ? S e c o n d , w h a t a r e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s b y w h i c h this p o w e r i s e x e r c i s e d ? T h i r d , a n d o b v i o u s l y m o s t i m p o r t a n t , w h a t difference d o l e a d e r s m a k e ? Let u s e x a m i n e t h e s e q u e s t i o n s t o see w h e t h e r t h e p r o b l e m o f l e a d e r s h i p c a n b e a p p r o a c h e d i n this m a n n e r . I t i s clear t h a t w e a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s : w e w a n t t o k n o w t o w h a t extent t h e y m o d i f y t h e s o c i e t y t h e y rule. But b y m e n t i o n i n g this i m p a c t , w e a r e immediately raising t w o problems: the actions of the leaders, and the nature of the response. The impact of leaders depends on the e n v i r o n m e n t , a t a n y r a t e i n t h e sense t h a t t h e a c t i o n s o f leaders m u s t b e related to t h e character of the e n v i r o n m e n t . Leaders have to adapt to t h e p r o b l e m s o f t h e i r societies; t h e y c a n n o t r a i s e m a t t e r s a s they c o m e t o m i n d a n d e x p e c t t o b e successful. T h u s , t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e effect o f
Introduction
loaders i s i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d t o t h e s t a t e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t ; s o m e h a v e even said t h a t l e a d e r s a r e p r i s o n e r s o f t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t , i n t h a t t h e y c a n ilo o n l y w h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t ' a l l o w s ' t h e m t o d o . E v e n i f t h i s v i e w p o i n t is e x a g g e r a t e d , it is difficult to c o u n t e r , at a n y r a t e until we h a v e e x a m i n e d closely b o t h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d t h e character of the leaders' actions. A s s u m i n g for t h e m o m e n t t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e a n effect o n t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t , we s e e m j u s t i f i e d in s t a t i n g t h a t this effect is t h e result of both the personal origins of these actions and the instruments by which i hese a c t i o n s c a n b e i m p l e m e n t e d . B y a n d l a r g e , t h e o r i g i n s w o u l d seem t o lie i n t h e p e r s o n o f t h e l e a d e r , w h i l e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s s t e m f r o m t h e nature of the institutional structures that are at the disposal of the l e a d e r s . B u t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s m o r e a n a l y t i c a l t h a n r e a l ; i t i s difficult t o distinguish t h e p e r s o n f r o m t h e p o s i t i o n w h i c h t h a t p e r s o n o c c u p i e s , for i n s t a n c e ; t h e i n s t r u m e n t s also a p p e a r t o b e i n p a r t a t least a s o u r c e o f t h e power of leaders. T h u s , although we must maintain the analytical distinction, we must be prepared to recognize that the two elements are in part intertwined a n d that it is s o m e w h a t theoretical to ask what exactly a r e t h e s o u r c e s a n d w h a t exactly a r e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s . T h e three questions that the p o w e r of leaders seemed originally to raise s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e p r o b a b l y b e r e p h r a s e d i n a different w a y . W h e n l o o k i n g a t l e a d e r s h i p , w e h a v e t o c o n s i d e r first t h e p e r s o n a l o r i g i n s o f l h e l e a d e r s ' p o w e r , s e c o n d , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t h e l p (or constrain) leaders, and third and fourth, the actions of the leaders and I he characteristics of the environment in which these actions t a k e place. Little n e e d s t o b e said a t this p o i n t a b o u t t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n a l origins o f l e a d e r s ' a c t i o n s , a s a n y o n e w h o believes t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e a n influence w o u l d r e a d i l y r e c o g n i z e t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y h a s a p a r t t o p l a y ; w e will find i n t h e c o u r s e o f this b o o k t h a t w h a t i s m e a n t b y ' p e r s o n a l i t y ' m a y n o t a l w a y s b e clear a n d t h a t t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n is still in its i n f a n c y . B u t , in p r i n c i p l e at least, t h e r o l e of t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of the leader in starting the process of influence appears unequivocal. W e e n c o u n t e r m o r e difficulties w h e n w e c o m e t o a t t e m p t t o c i r c u m s c r i b e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t h e l p l e a d e r s t o b e effective. T o b e g i n w i t h , t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s i n c l u d e t h e ' p o s i t i o n ' , especially t h e legal a n d constitutional position, which the leader holds: leaders a p p e a r to 'have p o w e r ' b e c a u s e t h e y a r e 'in p o w e r ' . H o w e v e r , n o t all l e a d e r s o c c u p y a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y defined p o s i t i o n : t h e y m a y h a v e t a k e n office a s a result of a c o u p , for i n s t a n c e , a n d it is t h e r e f o r e as a result of an ill-defined s i t u a t i o n t h a t t h e y ' h a v e ' p o w e r . M o r e o v e r , even t h e l e a d e r s w h o s e p o s i t i o n i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a n d legally d e f i n e d o w e e l e m e n t s o f their p o w e r t o c u s t o m s , h a b i t s a n d special c i r c u m s t a n c e s . T h u s , w h i l e t h e p o s i t i o n o c c u p i e d b y t h e l e a d e r h e l p s i n a l a r g e n u m b e r o f cases t o determine in b r o a d terms what power this leader has, this is true in
general t e r m s o n l y , a n d i t m a y even n o t b e i m p o r t a n t i n s o m e c a s e s . A f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t i o n r e s u l t s f r o m t h e fact t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n t h e l e a d e r o c c u p i e s c a n b o t h e s t a b l i s h a n d curtail t h e p o w e r o f t h e l e a d e r . T h e curtailment m a y in t u r n result from the constitution or the law, or f r o m c u s t o m a n d h a b i t . T h u s n o t o n l y a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r e s i d e n t s , for i n s t a n c e , f o r b i d d e n t o exercise c e r t a i n t y p e s o f p o w e r s , b u t t h e s e p o w e r s m a y b e r e d u c e d (or i n d e e d i n c r e a s e d ) a s a result o f p r a c t i c e . T h e c u r t a i l m e n t c a n even a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y a b o l i s h t h e p o w e r : m o n a r c h s i n p a r l i a m e n t a r y s y s t e m s o f t e n m a y b e n o l o n g e r a b l e t o wield a n y political p o w e r a l t h o u g h ' t e c h n i c a l l y ' ( i . e . , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ) t h e y m a y still h a v e s o m e p o w e r s . T h i s i s o n l y a n e x t r e m e e x a m p l e o f t h e m a n y w a y s i n w h i c h , o f t e n a s a result o f t h e p r e s s u r e o f p u b l i c i s t s a n d t h e o r i s t s , t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s h a s b e e n limited a n d c o n s t r a i n e d ; h o w e v e r , a s t h e s e a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e n o t necessarily effective, a s t h e y m a y b e set a s i d e o r m a y fall i n t o d i s u s e , o r a s s o m e i n d i v i d u a l s m a y b e s t r o n g e r o r w e a k e r , t h e p o w e r exercised b y a given l e a d e r m a y t u r n o u t t o b e g r e a t e r o r less t h a n t h a t o f his p r e d e c e s s o r s o r his s u c c e s s o r s . To a large extent, the analysis of the 'position' of leaders h a s been h a m p e r e d b y t h e m u c h g r e a t e r e m p h a s i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y given t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a ' t h e o r e t i c a l ' set o f p o w e r s t h a n t o t h e e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s , o n a c o m p a r a t i v e b a s i s , o f t h e effective basis o f t h e p o w e r o f leaders. Indeed, by concentrating on discovering m e a n s of curtailing t h e p o w e r s o f l e a d e r s , a n d b y u n d e r t a k i n g t h i s analysis o n t h e basis o f t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s , s t u d e n t s o f l e a d e r s h i p h a v e t o o o f t e n given a l o w priority in the past to the elaboration of the typologies a n d classifications t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y i f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h e p o w e r o f political l e a d e r s a c r o s s t h e w o r l d a r e t o b e realistically assessed a n d r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f societies. Moreover, the 'position' is only o n e of the instruments through w h i c h l e a d e r s c a n exercise their p o w e r . A s a m a t t e r o f fact, t h e w h o l e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m a n d even o f t h e social s y s t e m , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t i m p i n g e s o n p o l i t i c a l life, i s p a r t o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e a t their disposal. This is why leadership is often viewed in terms of ' r e g i m e s ' , o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l styles c h a r a c t e r i z i n g polities u n d e r given r u l e r s ; for w h a t i s i m p o r t a n t , besides t h e p o s i t i o n , i s t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e o r g a n i z e d b e t w e e n l e a d e r s a n d their i m m e d i a t e ' e n t o u r a g e ' , in particular the g o v e r n m e n t , a n d also with the m o r e d i s t a n t s u b o r d i n a t e s a n d indeed with t h e n a t i o n a s a w h o l e . T h u s t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f l e a d e r s h i p cover a w i d e r a n g e o f t y p e s o f l i n k a g e s , all o f which affect, in s o m e manner, the operation and therefore, p r e s u m a b l y , t h e r e s u l t s of l e a d e r s h i p . It is m a n i f e s t t h a t o n l y a d e t a i l e d a n d l a b o r i o u s e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a c r o s s t h e w o r l d c a n t r u l y reveal which o f t h e m i s t h e m o s t s u i t a b l e for e a c h society.
Introduction
Yet t h e m a i n q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by l e a d e r s h i p is t h a t of its effect; it is also t h e m o s t difficult q u e s t i o n t o h a n d l e , i n l a r g e p a r t b e c a u s e , a s w e saw, it encompasses t w o separate matters, that of the actions of the leaders a n d t h a t o f t h e c h a r a c t e r a n d r e a c t i o n s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . W i t h i n this c o n t e x t , a series o f c o m p l e x p r o b l e m s a r i s e s . W e s t a t e d earlier t h a t l e a d e r s exercise t h e i r p o w e r t o direct m e m b e r s o f t h e n a t i o n t o w a r d s a c t i o n : w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e ' a c t i o n s ' o f t h e citizens for t h e p u r p o s e of political life is of c o u r s e a m e n a b l e to a w i d e v a r i e t y of interpretations, as the notion can be construed broadly or narrowly. T h e a c t i o n s o f t h e citizens c a n e n c o m p a s s b o t h p u b l i c m a t t e r s a n d t h e m o s t p r i v a t e activities, s u c h a s life w i t h i n t h e family. I n p r a c t i c e , t h e s c o p e o f activity o f l e a d e r s h o v e r s b e t w e e n e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n s . I t includes n o t m e r e l y f o r e i g n affairs a n d i n t e r n a l o r d e r , w h i c h t e n d a l m o s t e v e r y w h e r e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s , b u t also a s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s i n t h e e c o n o m i c , social a n d c u l t u r a l fields. H o w e v e r , t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f l e a d e r s i n t h e s e m a t t e r s c a n v a r y t o a m a r k e d d e g r e e . L e a d e r s m a y b e c o n c e r n e d m e r e l y with t h e d r a w i n g tip o f g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y m a y delve fully i n t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n a n d m o b i l i z a t i o n o f t h e activities o f all t h e citizens. W e m a y find i t difficult t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e citizens f r o m t h e p o i n t o f view o f a n analysis o f their r e a c t i o n s t o l e a d e r s h i p ; t h e a c t i o n s o f l e a d e r s m a y t h e r e f o r e s e e m easier t o c i r c u m s c r i b e . T h i s i s d o u b t f u l , h o w e v e r , as even t h e a c t i o n s of a single l e a d e r a r e so n u m e r o u s a n d s o v a r i e d t h a t i t i s difficult t o i m a g i n e t h a t o n e c o u l d even begin t o list t h e m ; i n p r a c t i c e , s o m e m e a n s will h a v e t o b e f o u n d t o r e d u c e their n u m b e r . But even if s u c h a m e a n s is f o u n d , t h e r e a r e further p r o b l e m s arising f r o m t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and the e n v i r o n m e n t . It is true, of course, that a leader m a y decide to p u t g r e a t e r or less e m p h a s i s on a p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m , for i n s t a n c e in c o n t r a s t w i t h his o r h e r p r e d e c e s s o r s ; a s a m a t t e r o f fact, a l m o s t a n y leader is likely to differ s o m e w h a t f r o m p r e d e c e s s o r s in this r e s p e c t , as this i s o f t e n h o w leaders m a k e t h e i r m a r k o n political life. T h e s c o p e o f activities o f l e a d e r s i s c o n d i t i o n e d b y t h e i r ' e n v i r o n m e n t ' , h o w e v e r . First, t h e e n v i r o n m e n t s t r u c t u r e s this s c o p e b y establishing some 'habits' or an 'ideology': there are thus matters that a r e felt t o b e w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f l e a d e r s , either directly o r i n d i r e c t l y , because they are deemed to be part of the questions that the state should deal w i t h : for i n s t a n c e , i t m a y o r m a y n o t b e t h e case t h a t t h e l e a d e r i n t e r v e n e s d e e p l y i n e c o n o m i c o r social q u e s t i o n s . A m o n g t h e m e a n s t h a t s t r u c t u r e t h e s c o p e of activity of l e a d e r s is a v a r i e t y of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d legal a r r a n g e m e n t s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e frontiers b e t w e e n w h a t i s a n d i s n o t t h e r o l e o f t h e s t a t e i n society a n d t h e r o l e o f t h e l e a d e r w i t h i n t h e s t a t e . T h e r e a r e also c u s t o m a r y a n d d e f a c t o b o u n d a r i e s t h a t result f r o m p r a c t i c e s o f p r e v i o u s l e a d e r s , o f t h e
b u r e a u c r a c y , a n d o f t h e c i t i z e n s . I n d e e d , a s i s w e l l - k n o w n , legal a n d constitutional arrangements are often, perhaps usually, unable to e n s u r e t h a t t h e s c o p e o f t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f l e a d e r s i s effectively determined. O n e o f t h e r e a s o n s w h y legal a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e i n a d e q u a t e i n this respect i s b e c a u s e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t also affects t h e activities o f l e a d e r s a s a result o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e t o face. I n t e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l crises a r e likely t o h a v e a n i m p o r t a n t effect, a s l e a d e r s h a v e t o r e s p o n d t o ' u n f o r e s e e n ' s i t u a t i o n s . T h e s e crises c a n t h e n m a r k e d l y c o n s t r a i n l e a d e r s a n d force t h e m t o act i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n o r t o c o n c e n t r a t e in a p a r t i c u l a r field; b u t t h e y c a n also o c c a s i o n a l l y give l e a d e r s n e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; crises m a y even indirectly e n a b l e l e a d e r s t o e x p a n d their s c o p e of i n t e r v e n t i o n in o t h e r fields as w h e n a d e v e l o p m e n t i n foreign a f f a i r s , for i n s t a n c e , s u d d e n l y c h a n g e s t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e ruler vis-a-vis t h e n a t i o n a n d specifically t h e rest o f t h e political class. T h e role of the leaders' o w n perspective, alongside the role of the e n v i r o n m e n t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t t h e ' a f f a i r s o f t h e n a t i o n ' consist of, t h e r e f o r e n e e d s to be carefully e x a m i n e d in e a c h case if an a s s e s s m e n t is t o b e m a d e o f t h e effect o f l e a d e r s h i p . T o a c h i e v e r e a l p r o g r e s s , a s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y m u s t e x p l o r e widely t h e r a n g e o f o c c u r r e n c e s a c r o s s t h e w o r l d , i n c l u d i n g c h a n g e s t h a t t a k e p l a c e a s s i t u a t i o n s alter a n d a s t h e views a b o u t w h a t l e a d e r s s h o u l d d o also a l t e r . B u t s u c h a n e m p i r i c a l analysis c a n n o t o f c o u r s e b e u n d e r t a k e n w i t h o u t a g e n e r a l f r a m e w o r k : a l o n g s i d e t h e effort t o o b t a i n a w i d e v a r i e t y o f e m p i r i c a l d a t a , e f f o r t s m u s t b e m a d e t o d e v e l o p a m o d e l o f t h e s c o p e o f activities o f l e a d e r s a n d o f t h e w a y s i n w h i c h t h e s i t u a t i o n c a n v a r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e with t h i s s c o p e . I n o r d e r t o b e p r a c t i c a l l y useful t o t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f e m p i r i c a l d a t a , t h i s f r a m e w o r k m u s t g o well b e y o n d s i m p l e t y p o l o g i e s a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , d i c h o t o m i e s a n d t r i c h o t o m i e s : o n e m u s t l o o k for c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n s , as only t h e s e will p r o v i d e a s u i t a b l e t o o l for assessing t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e s c o p e o f activities v a r i e s a m o n g l e a d e r s a s well a s t h e c o m p l e x m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e ' c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' a r e likely t o affect t h i s s c o p e o f activities. T h e p r e s e n t s t u d y c o n s t i t u t e s a m o v e in t h e d i r e c t i o n of such a g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s . A f t e r h a v i n g e x a m i n e d t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f political l e a d e r s h i p studies a n d c o n s i d e r e d t h e extent t o w h i c h a n s w e r s h a v e b e e n given t o the general p r o b l e m s posed by the power of leaders, in particular in t e r m s of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a classificatory f r a m e w o r k , I shall a t t e m p t t o c a t e g o r i z e t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e w o r l d b y r e f e r e n c e t o their activities. T h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n will t a k e into a c c o u n t b o t h t h e g o a l s o f t h e l e a d e r s t h e m s e l v e s a n d t h e c o n s t r a i n t s a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s r e s u l t i n g from t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . I shall t h e n consider t h e p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s o f t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s a n d assess h o w r a p i d l y o n e c a n m a k e s o m e p r o g r e s s i n t h e
Introduction
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r r o l e . A n effort will t h e n b e m a d e t o e x a m i n e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s a t t h e d i s p o s a l o f l e a d e r s , t o see t o w h a t e x t e n t t h e p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p , a s well a s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l e a d e r s a n d s u b o r d i n a t e s a n d b e t w e e n l e a d e r s a n d citizens, c a n h a v e a n effect o n t h e influence of l e a d e r s . T h i s s t u d y is a s t a r t i n g p o i n t , d e s i g n e d to p r o v i d e a basis for s u b s e q u e n t a n d c u m u l a t i v e a n a l y s e s . T h e a i m i s t o g o b e y o n d s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t w h a t l e a d e r s m i g h t o r s h o u l d b e like i n o r d e r t o e x a m i n e w h a t t h e y a r e a c t u a l l y like, n o t o n l y b y d e s c r i b i n g t h e m i n d i v i d u a l l y b u t b y c o m p a r i n g t h e m g e n e r a l l y . T h i s i s t h e o n l y realistic w a y i n w h i c h , u l t i m a t e l y , i t will b e p o s s i b l e t o d i s c o v e r h o w t h e p o w e r of l e a d e r s c a n be b e s t o r g a n i z e d if it is to be u s e d to t h e full for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n societies.
Notes
1. See Bibliography for a list of works on leadership. 2. See K.F. Janda, 'Toward the Explication of the Concept of Leadership in Terms of the Concept of Power', in Paige (1972: 45-64); see also Blondel (1980: 11-15). 3. Strictly speaking, one could conceive of a group that has almost no duration at all: leadership in street demonstrations can be of this kind. In practice, however, some duration is required in the large majority of cases; indeed in many cases, in particular of course that of the state, the duration of the organization is very long and that of leaders can also be long.
1 What is political leadership and how can it be assessed?

' C a n w e d i s t i n g u i s h leaders f r o m m e r e p o w e r - h o l d e r s ? ' a s k s J . M c G r e g o r Burns at the end of the Introduction of his b o o k on Leadership ( B u r n s , 1978). T h i s q u e s t i o n e c h o e s t h o s e t h a t m a n y writers on leadership h a v e asked a n d t h a t are also asked by t h e i n t e r e s t e d p u b l i c . A r e w e r i g h t t o call ' l e a d e r s ' m o s t o f t h o s e w h o r u n our governments? Are they not often mere 'managers', enjoying the t r a p p i n g s o f p o w e r b u t n o t r e a l l y h a v i n g t h e effect t h a t w e feel t h e y s h o u l d h a v e ? W e a r e l o o k i n g for g r e a t m e n a n d w o m e n w h o , t o u s e B u r n s ' s e x p r e s s i o n , will ' t r a n s f o r m ' t h e c h a r a c t e r o f p o l i t i c a l life: d o we not merely have, most of the time, office-holders?
1
Paradoxically, t h o u g h p e r h a p s not too surprisingly, we also seem often to think that 'great' leaders are a thing of the past. We seem s o m e t i m e s t o h o l d t h e view t h a t w e a r e c o n s t r a i n e d , i n W e s t e r n democracies at least, to have only m a n a g e r s as leaders. T h e c o m p l e x i t i e s o f p o l i t i c a l a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e life i n a d v a n c e d i n d u s t r i a l countries a p p e a r to result in rulers being 'merely' able to modify, by very small touches, the a r r a n g e m e n t s of society. As in W a g n e r i a n d r a m a s , we seem to be experiencing the end of heroes. T h i s view is a little s u s p e c t , in p a r t b e c a u s e it is c l e a r t h a t p e o p l e h a v e a l w a y s felt t h a t t h e l e a d e r s i n t h e p a s t w h o w e r e d e e m e d t o b e g r e a t w e r e , i n d e e d , g r e a t e r t h a n life; i n p a r t a l s o b e c a u s e w e s o q u i c k l y forget the m a n y limitations, defects a n d failures of dead ' h e r o e s ' . T h e y w e r e a r r o g a n t a n d selfish b u t t h e y a r e n o l o n g e r h e r e for u s t o be the subject of this arrogance; they were often mistaken but we do n o t suffer daily f r o m the consequences of their e r r o r s ; n o r are we the targets of their repressive acts, or taxed u n d u l y to finance their g r a n d i o s e p r o j e c t s . T h e r e is a French saying, ' Q u e la R p u b l i q u e tait belle s o u s l ' E m p i r e ! ' ( ' H o w g r e a t w a s t h e R e p u b l i c n o w t h a t w e a r e under the E m p i r e ! ' ) Isn't it the same with leaders whose 'epic' characteristics c o m e to be truly perceived only after they h a v e died? T h e a p o t h e o s i s , a f t e r all, a l w a y s t a k e s p l a c e a f t e r t h e p a r t h a s b e e n played ! I n d e e d , a m o m e n t ' s reflection suggests t h a t n o n e of the great ' h e r o e s ' were w i t h o u t their bad indeed, very d a r k sides. P e r h a p s L y c u r g u s w a s t r u l y a w i s e m a n o r a s a i n t : o u r k n o w l e d g e o f his d e e d s i s rather l i m i t e d . But we k n o w enough a b o u t the leaders of m o r e recent periods to be m o r e cynical: is there no controversy a b o u t Cromwell, N a p o l e o n , Bismarck, Lenin or M a o ? They permitted or engineered
2
What is political leadership?
11
killings, b y w a r o r o t h e r w i s e ; t h e i r e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l a c h i e v e m e n t s a r e , t o say t h e l e a s t , i n p a r t q u e s t i o n a b l e . T h e y m a y h a v e c a u g h t t h e i m a g i n a t i o n o f w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n s b o t h d u r i n g t h e i r t e r m s o f office a n d since a n d t h i s i s n o t t o b e d i s c a r d e d a s b e i n g w i t h o u t its i m p o r t a n c e ; b u t t h e n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s m u s t a t least b e e x a m i n e d alongside a p p a r e n t successes. A n d while W a s h i n g t o n , Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt or Churchill cannot be faulted on the same scale, they t o o m a d e their mistakes a n d h a d their limitations. P e r h a p s o t h e r p o l i c i e s m i g h t h a v e led t o fewer d e a t h s i n w a r o r less m i s e r y a t h o m e ; p e r h a p s they could have achieved the same results by different a n d ' s o f t e r ' m e a n s , h a d t h e y b e e n m o r e f a r s i g h t e d , less s t u b b o r n , better p r e p a r e d . M e a n w h i l e , at the other extreme, the 'great villains' the Hitlers a n d the Stalins, to quote only from the dead of the relatively r e c e n t p a s t m a y h a v e h a d s o m e p o s i t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t s , o r a t least m a y h a v e r e s p o n d e d t o s o m e ' n e e d s ' , t o s o m e t w i s t e d u r g e s , i n the populations they ruled. W h e t h e r or n o t views a b o u t a golden ' h e r o i c ' age are correct, the feeling d o e s r e m a i n t h a t , m o s t o f t h e t i m e , w e s e e m t o b e r u l e d b y m e n and women who do not appear to measure up to the requirements of 'real' leadership. T h e evidence seems to be that large n u m b e r s of presidents and prime ministers or other heads of states and governments are not the heroes we think they should be. This is an i n t u i t i v e feeling, w h i c h m a y o f c o u r s e b e i n c o r r e c t , a s s e e m s p r o b a b l e , w i t h r e s p e c t t o b o t h t h e p a s t a n d t h e p r e s e n t . B u t since t h i s i n t u i t i v e feeling e x i s t s , i t c a n n o t b e e x p e c t e d t o d i s a p p e a r u n l e s s a p o w e r f u l d e m o n s t r a t i o n i s m a d e t h a t , i n d e e d , t h e feeling i s w r o n g . T h e r e m u s t therefore be an analysis of w h a t leaders, past a n d present, do achieve, f r o m w h i c h i t will h a v e t o b e c o n c l u d e d t h a t s o m e a t least d o n o t deserve the ' b a d ' j u d g e m e n t s passed on t h e m while others m a y not deserve the p o s t h u m o u s praise that they are given. As long as there is n o s u c h a n a l y s i s , t h e r e c a n n o t b e a n y r e a l g r o u n d for h o p i n g t h a t m i s c o n c e p t i o n s a b o u t l e a d e r s will b e r e d r e s s e d , i f t h i s i s w h a t t h e i n t u i t i v e feeling t r u l y i s . T h e r e is t h e r e f o r e a n e e d for a s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o n d u c t e d e m p i r i c a l analysis of t h e achievements of l e a d e r s , an analysis t h a t so far h a s n o t been d o n e except in a partial m a n n e r a b o u t s o m e revolutionary leaders (see Rejai a n d P h i l l i p s , 1979,1983). W h y i t h a s n o t been u n d e r t a k e n h a s m u c h t o d o w i t h t h e ' u n e a s e ' a b o u t l e a d e r s h i p w h i c h w e shall e x a m i n e i n t h e n e x t chapter; b u t it also has to do with m e t h o d o l o g i c a l difficulties. C o m p a r i s o n s across t i m e a n d space raise m a j o r p r o b l e m s , especially w h e n a t t e m p t i n g t o assess t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s , s i n c e o n e n e e d s t o d i s c o v e r t o o l s b y w h i c h t o c o n t r o l for d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d a n d socialization processes t h e y u n d e r w e n t . T h i s h a s n o t yet t a k e n p l a c e , i n large p a r t n o d o u b t b e c a u s e s o few s c h o l a r s h a v e f o u n d i t
12
imperative to devote themselves to the task. But the assessment of the leaders' worth does not merely require an operation of data-gathering guided by a framework a n d by tools of c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s . I t r e q u i r e s , first a n d f o r e m o s t , a b e t t e r conceptualization of the p r o b l e m at h a n d . It m a y seem strange t h a t this should be t h e case after political scientists h a v e for so long b e e n c o n c e r n e d , a t least i n d i r e c t l y , w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f r u l e , b u t t h e r e i s still little conceptualization of w h a t leadership entails: t h e idea is m o r e intuitive t h a n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d ; yet w i t h o u t s u c h a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , progress can scarcely be m a d e . T h e first t a s k m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e t o d i s c o v e r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s h i p a n d t o find criteria t h a t h e l p t o d i s t i n g u i s h ' r e a l ' l e a d e r s f r o m ' m e r e ' m a n a g e r s or office-holders. W h i l e d o i n g so, we shall discover t h a t it is incorrect to divide rulers in a d i c h o t o m o u s m a n n e r between t h e ' r e a l ' a n d t h e unsuccessful, o r i n d e e d b e t w e e n ' g o o d ' a n d ' b a d ' . A s a m a t t e r o f fact, t h e s e s i m p l e d i s t i n c t i o n s , p e r p e t u a t e d b y m a n y classical t h e o r i s t s , w h o , often for n o r m a t i v e r e a s o n s , p a i n t e d leaders i n either very d a r k o r shining colours, have in part contributed to t h e limited d e v e l o p m e n t of an analytical f r a m e w o r k for t h e s t u d y o f l e a d e r s h i p . I n this c h a p t e r t h e r e f o r e w e shall first s u r v e y t h e e l e m e n t s t h a t e n t e r i n t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p ; w e shall see h o w far c o n t i n u o u s dimensions c a n be substituted for dichotomies; a n d we shall examine the basis on which to distinguish leadership from o t h e r forms of rule, in particular from coercion or imposition.
What is 'real' leadership?

I n t h e first p l a c e , g r e a t e r r i g o u r h a s t o b e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e definition of the concept of leadership. T h e r e are difficulties, however, partly because the contours of the concept emerged gradually in the English language alongside other words describing various forms of rule. It is not irrelevant to note that the word 'leader' i s difficult t o t r a n s l a t e . I n F r e n c h , for i n s t a n c e , t h e r e i s n o d i r e c t equivalent: ' c h e f is somewhat more autocratic than 'leader' and suggests n o t merely a hierarchy, but a structure of c o m m a n d which the w o r d ' l e a d e r ' e n c o m p a s s e s , b u t does n o t necessarily entail; ' d e c i d e u r ' , a r a t h e r r e c e n t a c q u i s i t i o n , i s m u c h t o o closely r e l a t e d t o decision-making a n d therefore too n a r r o w ; 'guide' an expression that was d e a r to De Gaulle is simply n o t c o m m o n l y used in political life ( e x c e p t p e r h a p s w i t h sinister c o n n o t a t i o n s ) : its u s a g e i s c o n f i n e d p r i m a r i l y t o t h e c o n t e x t o f m o u n t a i n e e r i n g o r t o visits t o m u s e u m s o r o t h e r b u i l d i n g s o f a r t i s t i c i n t e r e s t . ' D i r i g e a n t ' i s p e r h a p s t h e closest t o the English w o r d , b u t it is used primarily in a collective context: o n e rarely refers to a single 'dirigeant', rather to a ' d i r i g e a n t ' a m o n g others w h o jointly participate in the leadership process. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , e v e n i n F r a n c e , w h e r e t h e s u s p i c i o n i s h i g h w i t h respect
13
t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f E n g l i s h w o r d s , t h e w o r d ' l e a d e r ' itself h a s b e e n adopted by the political literature and even beyond. If the w o r d ' l e a d e r ' is t h u s difficult to translate into other languages, it must be that the concept is to some extent culture-bound. T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t b e u s e d , o r i n d e e d t h a t its introduction has n o t contributed to the enrichment of the analysis by h e l p i n g t o d e s c r i b e a specific r o l e b e t t e r o r b y l i n k i n g t o g e t h e r a set o f r o l e s ; b u t t h e fact t h a t t h e w o r d ' l e a d e r ' i s u s e d i n s u c h a c o n t i n g e n t m a n n e r d o e s a c c o u n t i n p a r t for t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f a p p r e h e n d i n g its precise m e a n i n g .
Position and behaviour Perhaps the most important contribution of the concept, both in p o l i t i c a l life a n d e l s e w h e r e , is t h a t it h e l p s to d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n between position a n d behaviour a distinction that has to be m a d e s h a r p l y i f w e a r e t o a p p r e h e n d fully t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p o l i t i c a l a n d indeed other forms of rule. Leadership is a behavioural concept. This is one of the reasons why the French words ' c h e f and 'dirigeant' are u n s a t i s f a c t o r y t r a n s l a t i o n s , since b o t h o f t h e m a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e h o l d i n g of p o s i t i o n s in a p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r e . A l e a d e r is s o m e o n e w h o influences a g r o u p whether or not he or she h a p p e n s to be formally at the head of that g r o u p . T h u s , not only are there leaders in informal b o d i e s , b u t t h e r e a l l e a d e r o f a c o n s t i t u t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n m a y well b e someone w h o does not occupy a formal position in the g r o u p . T h e distinction is obviously important: it makes the concept of l e a d e r s h i p b r o a d e r , m o r e s u b t l e a n d m o r e flexible; b u t i n t u r n i t c r e a t e s m a j o r difficulties b e c a u s e t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n p r a c t i c e , between leadership and the positions that are held; furthermore, in view o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r p a r t t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s p l a y i n p o l i t i c a l life, for b o t h e m p i r i c a l a n d n o r m a t i v e r e a s o n s , t h e difficulties a r e correspondingly greater in the political context t h a n in other arenas. T h e relationship between leadership as a m o d e of behaviour and the holding of a ' t o p ' position poses t w o types of p r o b l e m s . First, 'real' leadership has to be distinguished from purely formal office-holding, since t h e t w o concepts overlap b u t d o not coincide. S o m e leaders d o not hold top positions; some holders of top positions are not leaders. A h e a d of s t a t e m o n a r c h or p r e s i d e n t in a p r i m e m i n i s t e r i a l s y s t e m is n o t a p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r if h i s or h e r activities a r e l i m i t e d to b e i n g w h o l l y s y m b o l i c . I n B r i t a i n , for i n s t a n c e , t h e Q u e e n i s n o t a p o l i t i c a l leader; nor is the president in West G e r m a n y . T h e English m o n a r c h was a political leader in the past, but the g r a d u a l a b a n d o n m e n t of p o w e r s h a s r e s t r i c t e d his o r h e r p o w e r s i n p u b l i c a f f a i r s t o s u c h a n e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e i s n o s c o p e left for p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p . C o n v e r s e l y ,
14
the secretary general of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n is a political leader not merely within the p a r t y , but in the n a t i o n as a w h o l e , i n view o f t h e fact t h a t , a t least s i n c e S t a l i n , t h e p a r t y g e n e r a l (or first) s e c r e t a r y h a s c o n t i n u o u s l y b e e n r e c o g n i z e d a s t h e t o p d e c i s i o n - m a k e r . A d m i t t e d l y , u n d e r B r e z h n e v a n d his t w o i m m e d i a t e successors, the C P S U secretary has also been appointed president of the c o u n t r y (and a similar d e v e l o p m e n t occurred in several o t h e r c o m m u n i s t states); but, while the position of president h a s given the C P S U leader a formal leadership position in the nation, only because a n d as long as the position of president has been occupied by the C P S U secretary has that position c o m e to be i m p o r t a n t . U n d e r Stalin a n d K r u s c h e v ( a n d e v e n w h e n B r e z h n e v w a s p r e s i d e n t f o r t h e first t i m e ) , the position of h e a d of state in the Soviet U n i o n was purely symbolic and resembled that of president in West Germany. It came to h a v e t h e s a m e c h a r a c t e r u n d e r G o r b a c h e v i n t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f his r e g i m e a s h e d e c i d e d i n t h e first i n s t a n c e n o t t o b e p r e s i d e n t a s well a s party secretary. F o r m a l p o s i t i o n h a s t o b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m ' r e a l ' p o w e r . But t h e c o n c e p t o f l e a d e r s h i p i s a l s o difficult t o h a n d l e b e c a u s e f o r m a l position a n d real p o w e r often i n d e e d , nearly always h a v e an effect on e a c h o t h e r : s o m e o n e is likely to b e c o m e a l e a d e r as a result of t h e fact t h a t h e o r s h e o b t a i n s a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n ; t h e p o l i t i c i a n w h o is chosen as leader of a political p a r t y in Britain b e c o m e s p r i m e minister as a result of t h a t p a r t y ' s d o m i n a n c e in a general election. L e a d e r s h i p is t h u s in p a r t the product of o f f i c e - h o l d i n g . T h e s i t u a t i o n m a y c h a n g e o v e r t i m e , m o r e o v e r : a n office t h a t d i d n o t r e s u l t i n l e a d e r s h i p m a y d o s o i n t h e f u t u r e a f t e r s o m e o n e w h o w a s a l e a d e r (in t h e r e a l s e n s e ) o c c u p i e d t h a t office. W e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r t h i s will h a p p e n to the Soviet presidency eventually; but it did h a p p e n to the French presidency, which de Gaulle gave an i m p o r t a n c e that it did not have before, an importance that went beyond what the Constitution s t i p u l a t e d a n d w a s i n h e r i t e d b y his s u c c e s s o r s ; c o n v e r s e l y , b y becoming chancellor rather than president, A d e n a u e r contributed to the reduction in the 'standing' of the G e r m a n presidency to the point where it b e c a m e as symbolic as the position of the m o n a r c h in the countries of north-western Europe.
1
This m e a n s that it is not permissible to ignore positions and c o n c e n t r a t e exclusively on 'real' leadership. This is p r o b a b l y true in all o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e c a s e i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a r e n a , h o w e v e r , a s i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e often g i v e n g r e a t p r e s t i g e precisely i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e y h a v e a n effect: s p e c i f i c a l l y , p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s h a v e r e p e a t e d l y d e v i s e d m e c h a n i s m s d e s i g n e d t o s u p e r v i s e o r limit leadership. T h e r e is therefore a long t r a d i t i o n of efforts aimed at ensuring that the contours of behavioural leadership be determined by
15
positional leadership, efforts which, of course, have often been only partly successful. Power and political leadership Leadership is a b e h a v i o u r a l concept: the definition of leadership m u s t therefore be b e h a v i o u r a l . But if this is so, h o w does o n e d e t e r m i n e w h o t h e l e a d e r s a r e ? W e c a n easily d i s c o v e r w h o t h e positional l e a d e r s a r e , b u t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f behavioural l e a d e r s i s n o t s o s i m p l e . P r i m a f a c i e , l e a d e r s h i p a p p e a r s r e l a t e d t o p o w e r : a l e a d e r (in t h e b e h a v i o u r a l sense) i s a p e r s o n w h o i s a b l e t o m o d i f y t h e c o u r s e o f e v e n t s . B u t t h e o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f p o w e r i s e l u s i v e , a s i s well known. The operationalization of behavioural leadership is c o n s e q u e n t l y e q u a l l y difficult t o a c h i e v e . M o r e o v e r , n o t all exercises o f p o w e r a r e i n s t a n c e s o f l e a d e r s h i p . Power that occurs in a once-and-for-all context is not leadership; nor is l e a d e r s h i p t h e r e c i p r o c a l or successive i n f l u e n c e of a v a r i e t y of m e m b e r s of a c o m m i t t e e . Leadership suggests continuity, not merely t h e o c c a s i o n a l u s e o f p o w e r . T h i s m e a n s t h a t l e a d e r s h i p will t e n d t o b e e x e r c i s e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f well o r g a n i z e d g r o u p s , w h i c h i s w h y i t i s critically i m p o r t a n t i n b o d i e s s u c h a s t h e s t a t e , t h o u g h , o f c o u r s e , i t i s a l s o r e l e v a n t i n o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d , a t t h e limit ( b u t o n l y a t t h e limit), in very i n f o r m a l b o d i e s . F i n a l l y , political l e a d e r s h i p is a special t y p e of p o w e r in t h a t it is e x e r c i s e d o v e r a w i d e r a n g e of subject-matters. While m a n y of us have power over a g r o u p , perhaps for r e l a t i v e l y l o n g p e r i o d s , a n d m a y b e l e a d e r s a s a r e s u l t , p o l i t i c a l leaders exercise this p o w e r over an area comprising foreign affairs, d e f e n c e , t h e e c o n o m i c a n d social w e l l - b e i n g o f c i t i z e n s , a n d e v e n culture and the arts. There are, admittedly, substantial variations, not m e r e l y b e c a u s e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t (as t h e r e c a n b e w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o p u l a t i o n a n d time), but also for personal reasons. T h e leader m a y n o t w i s h t o b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h all t h e a f f a i r s o f t h e n a t i o n . P e r h a p s h e or s h e feels i n c o m p e t e n t in a p a r t i c u l a r field; p e r h a p s he or s h e feels t h a t it is n o t r i g h t to i n t e r v e n e in a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a , for i n s t a n c e in f a m i l y m a t t e r s , religion o r t h e a r t s . B u t , a t least i n p r i n c i p l e , p o l i t i c a l leadership is b r o a d and might be all-embracing: decisions that could be t a k e n by the leader might cover a n y s u b j e c t .
4 s
T h u s , political leadership is almost certainly b r o a d e r t h a n a n y other f o r m o f l e a d e r s h i p , a n d for t h i s r e a s o n t o o i t i s a s p e c i a l k i n d o f power. There are, of course, variations, as we have just noted. The b r e a d t h of political leadership c a n n o t be expected to be the s a m e from leader to leader, from country to country or from period to period. W e a r e t h u s a l r e a d y e n c o u n t e r i n g g r o u n d s for s u b s t a n t i a l v a r i a t i o n s likely t o affect t h e c h a r a c t e r o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p . B u t , d e s p i t e t h e s e v a r i a t i o n s , political leadership is a l m o s t certainly o n e of the m o s t
16
exalted and most general f o r m s of power. Power is the central ingredient of leadership; but this ingredient has to be e x a m i n e d carefully before we can d e t e r m i n e the extent to which it results in leadership. The components of political leadership L e t u s a t t e m p t t o c i r c u m s c r i b e t h e c o n c e p t a little m o r e a n d see whether we can ' d e c o m p o s e ' the power of leadership into a n u m b e r of e l e m e n t s . ' L e a d e r s h i p ' , w r i t e s R . C . T u c k e r , 'is d i r e c t i o n ' ( 1 9 8 1 : 15). It is direction in t h a t it is ultimately geared t o w a r d s a c t i o n . But l e a d e r s h i p will b e effective a n d ' r e a l ' o n l y i f t h e d i r e c t i o n m a k e s s e n s e with respect to a given situation, to w h a t the ' m o m e n t ' , so to speak, ' d e m a n d s ' . This is why Tucker analyses leadership in terms of three elements which are analytically successive, although they m a y n o t occur in chronological order in every situation. These three phases are the 'diagnosis', the 'prescription of the course of action', and the ' m o b i l i z a t i o n ' o f t h o s e w h o will b e i n v o l v e d i n e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e a c t i o n d o e s t a k e p l a c e . T h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e a s p e c t s , w h i c h give l e a d e r s h i p ' p u r p o s e ' , i s t h e r e a s o n w h y T u c k e r believes t h a t p o l i t i c a l activity m u s t be defined not in t e r m s of p o w e r , but in t e r m s of leadership (1981: 26): as was suggested earlier, it is p r o b a b l y m o r e correct to view leadership as a subset, or a special f o r m , of p o w e r ; b u t T u c k e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n is i m p o r t a n t in t h a t it helps to determine a n u m b e r of elements, or phases, which c o r r e s p o n d to the stages t h r o u g h which ' d e m a n d s ' (inchoate or not) or needs (latent or not) are transformed into a course of action. Because leadership, and particularly political leadership, is exercised over a substantial p e r i o d , w i t h i n a g r o u p a n d in a w i d e v a r i e t y of fields, t h e s u c c e s s i v e e l e m e n t s become truly distinct. The 'diagnosis' is the phase during which the leader grasps the s i t u a t i o n i n t e l l e c t u a l l y a n d assesses w h a t i s w r o n g , i n his o p i n i o n , a n d therefore w h a t h a s to be redressed. T h e leader t h e n devises a course of action designed to meet these problems; or at any rate he comes to a conclusion, often based on advice, to be sure, as to what the better c o u r s e o f a c t i o n s h o u l d b e . B u t t h i s s e c o n d e l e m e n t i s n o t sufficient for w h a t i s u l t i m a t e l y essential i n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n : a s T u c k e r a l s o rightly points o u t , this can be achieved only t h r o u g h mobilization. Mobilization h a s to be conceived b r o a d l y : it covers the mobilization o f s u b o r d i n a t e s , i m m e d i a t e o r d i s t a n t ( w i t h i n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , for instance), a n d of the population as a whole, or at a n y rate the fraction of the p o p u l a t i o n t h a t is relevant to the c o u r s e of action. This m a y m e a n ensuring that the rank-and-file of the government party s u p p o r t s w h o l e h e a r t e d l y t h e m e a s u r e p r o p o s e d a n d i n t u r n acts i n s u c h a w a y t h a t t h e rest o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n b e c o m e s s u p p o r t i v e ; i t m a y
17
m e a n t h a t a p p e a l s a r e m a d e t o t h e n a t i o n t o a c h i e v e a s u b s t a n t i a l level of consensus; it m a y m e a n , in wartime, that the leader ensures that the morale of the troops and of the country is high. Even in the most m u n d a n e actions, a n d even where the regime is autocratic, some a m o u n t of m o b i l i z a t i o n h a s to occur, albeit with respect to a n a r r o w g r o u p . Leadership is always m o r e t h a n analysis and decision-making: it consists also in affecting the m i n d s a n d energies of those w h o have a part to play in the implementation. 'Ideal' leadership thus always implies c o m b i n a t i o n s of the three elements, even if the f o r m s t h a t this combination takes vary greatly from one situation to another. Leadership and the environment While examining the successive phases of the leadership process, we c a m e to discover repeatedly that the actions of leaders were directly related to t h e situations they faced. In fact, leadership c a n n o t be dissociated from the e n v i r o n m e n t in which it takes place: this is o n e of t h e m a i n r e a s o n s w h y i t i s difficult t o assess a n d h a s p r o v e d e v e n m o r e difficult t o m e a s u r e . I n d e e d , w e f o u n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t f i g u r i n g a t every point of the analysis. W h e n discussing the distinction between b e h a v i o u r a l a n d p o s i t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p w e r e f e r r e d t o it, since t h e e n v i r o n m e n t d e t e r m i n e s b o t h t h e f o r m a l p o s i t i o n s a n d t h e effective s t r e n g t h of t h e s e p o s i t i o n s t h a t is to s a y , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e specific c o n t e x t of a l e a d e r . In a strict sense, no t w o positions are exactly t h e s a m e over t i m e a n d over space: the formal powers of the presidents of West G e r m a n y and I t a l y m a y n o t b e v e r y d i f f e r e n t ; t h e y a r e n o n e t h e less s o m e w h a t different, a n d the strength a n d weight of these positions also differ. T h e powers of the president of the United States were b r o a d l y the s a m e i n t h e 1980s a s t h e y w e r e i n t h e 1880s; b u t t h e y w e r e a l s o s o m e w h a t different; the strength a n d weight of the United States presidency has also c h a n g e d . T h e e n v i r o n m e n t also plays a p a r t in relation to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the ' p o w e r ' of the leader, since the relative strength of the various actors changes continuously over time a n d is also different from one c o u n t r y to a n o t h e r at a given point in time. This relative power also includes the role of political leaders of other countries, w h o play a different part, depending on c i r c u m s t a n c e s , in either strengthening or reducing the p o w e r of each leader internally. We also saw t h a t the e n v i r o n m e n t was central to each of the phases into which leadership is to be d e c o m p o s e d : diagnosis m e a n s surveying the e n v i r o n m e n t ; determining a course of action means taking into account the environment and the i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t the leader h a s at his or her disposal; a n d mobilizing t h e p o p u l a t i o n consists i n k n o w i n g w h a t t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f f o r c e s i s i n a specific c o n t e x t a n d i n b e i n g a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w t h e s e f o r c e s
18
a r e likely t o o p e r a t e i f t h e y a r e p u s h e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n . It is because the influence of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t is so vast t h a t it has been argued that leadership does n o t really count a n d is merely an e p i p h e n o m e n o n . T h e environment structures the situation with which the leader has to cope a n d from which s / h e cannot escape; the m e a n s at the disposal of the leader also structure the response a n d the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n process; finally, t h e leader, by being p a r t of the e n v i r o n m e n t , is socialized in such a w a y as n o t to be able to distinguish himself or herself from the e n v i r o n m e n t : s / h e breathes a certain 'air' a n d this m a k e s t h e l e a d e r c o n t i n u o u s l y d e p e n d e n t o n w h a t t h e environment proposes, suggests, even dictates. P r e s e n t e d in this general w a y , the case against the real i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a d e r s i s difficult t o c o m b a t s u c c e s s f u l l y ; a n d , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t the 'falsification' of historical events is impossible, the supporters of the 'leaders-do-not-matter' thesis a p p e a r to have an unanswerable c a s e , b u t o n e a s u n a n s w e r a b l e a s t h e c a s e o f t h o s e w h o felt t h a t t h e a r r o w c o u l d n o t r e a c h its t a r g e t , o r w h o felt t h a t t h e h a r e w o u l d n e v e r o v e r t a k e t h e t o r t o i s e . T h e p r i m a facie c a s e for a n a l y s i n g a n d d i s c u s s i n g t h e r o l e o f l e a d e r s m u s t rest o n a c o m b i n a t i o n o f i n t u i t i v e standpoints a n d gradually improved empirical tests; these tests, in t u r n , require the d e v e l o p m e n t of a c o m p a r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k , a f r a m e w o r k t h a t is still l a r g e l y u n d e t e r m i n e d . S i n c e it is g e n e r a l l y believed t h a t leaders do m a t t e r , whatever the weight of the e n v i r o n m e n t , i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p l o r e t h e p r o b l e m f u r t h e r ; since t h e only tools at our disposal are somewhat blunt or rough, there is no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o t r y a n d s h a r p e n t h e m w h i l e a l s o e x a m i n i n g closely what these tools, so far, help us to discover. Yet t h e e n v i r o n m e n t d o e s m a t t e r , a n d i t m a t t e r s m a r k e d l y . I f w e a r e t o assess r e a l i s t i c a l l y t h e r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a d e r s , a n d , t o b e g i n w i t h , if we a r e to see w h e t h e r s o m e o n e is a ' m e r e ' o f f i c e - h o l d e r or a ' r e a l ' l e a d e r , w e m u s t d o s o after t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e m a g n i t u d e o f the p r o b l e m with which the leader was faced. T h e leadership that C h u r c h i l l e x e r c i s e d i n 1940 w a s n o t o f t h e s a m e n a t u r e a s t h a t w h i c h h e e x e r c i s e d i n 1951 w h e n h e r e t u r n e d t o p o w e r , o r t h a t w h i c h M r s T h a t c h e r e x e r c i s e d i n t h e 1980s, a s t h e s i t u a t i o n w a s d i f f e r e n t i n e a c h of these cases. S t r a n g e l y , p e r h a p s , i t s e e m s easier t o c o m p a r e l e a d e r s w h e n t h e r e a r e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n s t h e y face. I n d e e d , ' o r d i n a r y ' discussions a b o u t leaders often c o n c e n t r a t e on these small differences; o n e is often tempted to do the s a m e in the scholarly literature. But it is m o r e urgent and m o r e i m p o r t a n t to c o m p a r e leaders w h o exercise 'their' power in vastly different environments for i n s t a n c e T h i r d W o r l d l e a d e r s w i t h c o m m u n i s t o r W e s t e r n l e a d e r s , war leaders with leaders in peacetime as these differences are m o r e
19
r e v e a l i n g a b o u t l e a d e r s h i p a n d its r o l e . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , j u d g e m e n t s h a v e s o far b e e n r a p i d a n d v a g u e . T h i s m a y b e i n e v i t a b l e g i v e n t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p s t u d i e s ; this i s therefore p r o b a b l y w h e r e the bulk of the effort should take place. T h e conceptualization of political leadership thus entails an attempt at characterizing m o r e accurately the situation that leaders a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h o r , p e r h a p s m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , a r e a p a r t of. T h i s a s p e c t o f l e a d e r s h i p h a s s o f a r b e e n little s t u d i e d , i n p a r t b e c a u s e i t p o s e s difficult m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s , b u t a l s o b e c a u s e i t m a y s e e m paradoxical that the study of the environment should be one of the m a i n r o u t e s b y w h i c h t o c o m e t o assess t h e r e a l s t r e n g t h o f l e a d e r s . O f course, one should not ignore the personal characteristics of l e a d e r s h i p . W e a r e far f r o m h a v i n g o b t a i n e d a s a t i s f a c t o r y level o f k n o w l e d g e of these characteristics; efforts in this direction are therefore badly n e e d e d . But t h e analysis a n d classification of the types o f s i t u a t i o n s w i t h w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e c o n f r o n t e d a r e a t least e q u a l l y urgent tasks. By a n d large, those w h o have studied the environment h a v e d o n e s o i n o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t l e a d e r s c o u n t little o r a r e interchangeable. T h o s e w h o wish to s h o w , on the c o n t r a r y , t h a t leaders are important are therefore apt to concentrate primarily on the study of psychological characteristics. T h e danger, then, is that the s a m e p h e n o m e n a will b e e x a m i n e d o n t w o d i f f e r e n t p l a n e s o f a n a l y s i s a n d t h a t n o s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e a r g u m e n t will r e s u l t . B y improving the m e a n s of c o m p a r i n g different environments, on the o t h e r h a n d , i t will b e c o m e p o s s i b l e t o assess t h e r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of leaders, not merely in particular cases, but in general. T h e strength of the a r g u m e n t that leaders do not m a t t e r results f u n d a m e n t a l l y f r o m t h e fact t h a t , a s l o n g a s m e a n s a r e n o t f o u n d t o classify s i t u a t i o n s , t h e i n s u p e r a b l e h u r d l e o f h i s t o r i c a l ' f a l s i f i c a t i o n ' m a k e s any conclusion suspect: by improving the m e a n s of c o m p a r i n g different e n v i r o n m e n t s , by elaborating classifications or typologies of s i t u a t i o n s , i t will b e c o m e p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e m o r e a c c u r a t e l y t h e extent of the contribution of leaders, as the sculpture gradually emerges from the block of marble under the h a m m e r of the artist.
The unwarranted dichotomy between 'heroes' and 'mere' office-holders

The prevailing dichotomy in the analysis of the impact of leadership Such is the background that has to be adopted if the study of leadership is to advance; it suggests that leaders are of m a n y kinds a n d should therefore be categorized with care and on the basis of m a n y v a r i a b l e s . Yet i t h a s b e e n c o m m o n , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e a r e i n d e e d
20
classifications, to divide leaders into t w o broad g r o u p s , from the p o i n t o f view o f t h e i r i m p a c t o n s o c i e t y : (1) t h e ' r e a l ' l e a d e r s , t h e ' h e r o e s ' (or ' v i l l a i n s ' ) , a n d (2) t h e ' o f f i c e - h o l d e r s ' , t h e ' m a n a g e r s ' , t h e o r d i n a r y m e n a n d w o m e n w h o h a v e little o r n o effect o n t h e c o u r s e of events. This d i c h o t o m y prevails in the literature on leadership. It is so diffuse and so latent that it is n o t seriously challenged. F r o m P l u t a r c h to the present day, it has apparently been accepted that there are ' h e r o e s ' , 'illustrious m e n ' (or, alternatively, 'great villains'), w h o shaped the course of history; a n d t h r o u g h o u t the centuries it has also b e e n a s s u m e d t h a t t h e r e w a s v e r y little t o b e s a i d for o r a b o u t t h e g r e a t majority of leaders, w h o r e m a i n e d largely a n o n y m o u s a n d are at most, occasionally, the subject of ephemeral biographies or autobiographies. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s s o w i d e l y a n d s o u n c o n s c i o u s l y a d o p t e d t h a t few h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o e x a m i n e t h e b a s i s of, a n d t o give g r o u n d s f o r , t h e d i c h o t o m y . R . C . T u c k e r , for i n s t a n c e , s e e m s t o a c c e p t a s a g i v e n t h e p o i n t t h a t l e a d e r s a r e e i t h e r ' r e a l ' l e a d e r s o r m a n a g e r s ( 1 9 8 1 : 16). I t s e e m s t o b e a s s u m e d t h a t o n l y l e a d e r s , i n t h e s e n s e t h a t T u c k e r gives the w o r d , exercise the functions of diagnosis, a c t i o n - p r e p a r a t i o n a n d mobilization t h a t were outlined earlier. This seems strange, since it is m a n i f e s t t h a t a t least t h e first t w o o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s h a v e t o b e fulfilled by m a n a g e r s in relation to any decision they take a n d the third, m o b i l i z a t i o n , a l s o h a s t o b e fulfilled b y m a n a g e r s , a l b e i t p e r h a p s i n a less g r a n d i o s e m a n n e r , i f t h e s e m a n a g e r s w i s h t o see t h e i r d e c i s i o n s implemented. J. M c G r e g o r Burns is the c o n t e m p o r a r y writer on leadership w h o h a s m o s t c o n s c i o u s l y a t t e m p t e d t o g i v e a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s for t h e d i c h o t o m y ( B u r n s , 1 9 7 8 : P a r t s III a n d I V ) . H i s b o o k o n l e a d e r s h i p i s devoted to t h e successive analysis of w h a t he considers to be two types: transforming a n d transactional l e a d e r s h i p . It is n o t a l t o g e t h e r c l e a r whether there is a further, residual, category (the ' m e r e ' powerholders); given t h a t he d o e s not discuss this g r o u p , h o w e v e r , it m u s t be a s s u m e d t h a t all t h e l e a d e r s , i n his o p i n i o n , a r e e i t h e r ' t r a n s f o r m i n g ' o r ' t r a n s a c t i o n a l ' . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , e v e n i f h e w e r e t o view leadership as divided into three rather t h a n t w o types, the main difficulty o f t h e a p p r o a c h w o u l d s c a r c e l y b e d i m i n i s h e d . T h e essential value of Burns's distinction is t h a t a g r o u n d is given for t h e d i v i s i o n . O n e g r o u p o f l e a d e r s , t h e ' t r a n s f o r m i n g ' g r o u p , h a v i n g a v i s i o n o f t h e society, sets a b o u t d o i n g s o m e t h i n g t o implement that vision; the 'transactional' leaders, on the contrary, m e r e l y o p e r a t e t r a d e - o f f s o r e x c h a n g e o n e a d v a n t a g e for a n o t h e r . T h e y act i n t h e h e r e - a n d - n o w a n d focus o n d e t a i l s , w i t h o u t a n y g l o b a l perspective as to h o w society should be ultimately. This distinction is
What
is political leadership?
21
manifestly i m p o r t a n t ; it seems to c o r r e s p o n d to differences which we feel i n t u i t i v e l y exist a m o n g l e a d e r s a n d w h i c h s e e m t o b e b o r n e o u t b y the evidence d r a w n f r o m biographical material: Lenin or Franklin D. Roosevelt each h a d a vision of the society he w a n t e d to p r o m o t e ; H a r o l d Wilson, on the c o n t r a r y , except during a short period p r e c e d i n g t h e t i m e o f h i s first e l e c t i o n a s U K p r i m e m i n i s t e r i n 1964, s e e m e d t o live f r o m d a y t o d a y ; his t i m e - h o r i z o n w a s s h o r t i n t h e extreme. A d m i t t e d l y , the distinction did n o t originate entirely from B u r n s : P a r e t o ' s d i v i s i o n o f l e a d e r s i n t o l i o n s a n d foxes ( P a r e t o , 1963) w h i c h B u r n s h a d u s e d , i n d e e d , i n his 1963 s t u d y o f F r a n k l i n D . Roosevelt h a d similar c o n n o t a t i o n s . But Burns is m o r e systematic in the examination of the characteristics and consequences as he looks at the various g r o u p s in society in which o n e or the other type of leader emerges. B u r n s also relates (as P a r e t o h a d d o n e earlier) the t r a n s f o r m i n g or transactional character of the leadership to the situation in which the l e a d e r s find t h e m s e l v e s . T h e r e a r e l o n g d e v e l o p m e n t s i n his w o r k describing the various institutional and behavioural characteristics t h a t will r e s u l t i n o n e o r t h e o t h e r o f t h e t w o f o r m s o f l e a d e r s h i p . Leadership arising o u t of party political activity, in n o r m a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t l e a s t , will b e t r a n s a c t i o n a l ; l e a d e r s h i p a r i s i n g o u t o f r e v o l u t i o n s , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , will h a v e a t r a n s f o r m i n g c h a r a c t e r . A l t h o u g h B u r n s stops short of elaborating a tight scheme which would provide a universal a n d necessary relationship between environmental situations and one or the other type of leadership, t h e r e a r e c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h e r e i s a t least a d e f i n i t e p r o p e n s i t y for certain situations to result in t r a n s f o r m i n g or transactional leadership. T h u s , B u r n s ' s analysis constitutes a significant a d v a n c e over a m e r e distinction between 'real' leaders a n d ' o t h e r s ' ; but it is a limited a d v a n c e only, i n a s m u c h as it seems clear that the reality is m a r k e d l y richer a n d cannot be comfortably compartmentalized into these t w o c a t e g o r i e s . N o r , for t h a t m a t t e r , w o u l d a t r i c h o t o m y b e v e r y h e l p f u l . A m o n g the trichotomies that have sometimes been elaborated, that of W e b e r s e e m s t o ' s t i c k ' even less c l o s e l y t o t h e r e a l i t y t h a n B u r n s ' s analysis. In fact, W e b e r consciously refers to ideal-types, rather t h a n t o c a t e g o r i e s o f existing l e a d e r s . I t m i g h t b e a r g u e d , a d m i t t e d l y , t h a t B u r n s ' s ' t r a n s f o r m i n g ' leadership bears m a n y similarities to the characteristics of leaders in a charismatic context, while b u r e a u c r a t i c a u t h o r i t y m a y b e felt t o give rise n a t u r a l l y t o t r a n s a c t i o n a l l e a d e r s , t h e case of the traditional leaders remaining uncovered, p e r h a p s because B u r n s sees little c a u s e for giving m u c h e m p h a s i s t o t h i s g r o u p i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y world. While W e b e r ' s analysis deserves closer e x a m i n a t i o n ( a n d h a s o f c o u r s e g i v e n rise t o m u c h e x e g e s i s ) , i n p a r t
7
22
because of the ambiguity attached to the concept of charisma, Burns's presentation is a m o r e determined a t t e m p t t h a n Weber's at developing a m o d e l t h a t will r e s u l t i n c a t e g o r i z i n g l e a d e r s ; b u t h i s a t t e m p t remains unsatisfactory because it does not break away from the straitjacket of the dichotomy. Why the dichotomy has prevailed W h y has B u r n s , together with o t h e r political scientists, c o n t i n u e d to a d o p t a d i c h o t o m o u s a p p r o a c h to l e a d e r s h i p , while t h e diversity of leaders in both the 'heroic' a n d the 'ordinary' groups is glaring? It seems o b v i o u s that N a p o l e o n ' s leadership differed from t h a t of Hitler, and Lenin's from that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It seems e q u a l l y o b v i o u s t h a t n o t all t h e ' t r a n s a c t i o n a l ' l e a d e r s b e l o n g t o t h e same group: should J.F. Kennedy or Harold Macmillan, Brezhnev or G o m u l k a , be placed alongside the ephemeral prime ministers of G r e e c e , F r a n c e o r E g y p t o f t h e l a t e 1940s a n d e a r l y 1950s? P a r t of the answer seems to relate to a widespread practice in p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , i n w h i c h t h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e a p e n c h a n t for d i c h o t o m i e s or t r i c h o t o m i e s . F o r g e n e r a t i o n s , political scientists h a v e distinguished between liberal a n d a u t h o r i t a r i a n states, democracies and autocracies, centralized and decentralized countries. Only gradually, and indeed recently, has there been a trend to substitute d i m e n s i o n s for these s h a r p divisions. T h e simple distinctions die h a r d p a r t l y o u t o f h a b i t , r e g i m e s h a v i n g b e e n classified a n d d e s c r i b e d i n this m a n n e r for very long periods; they c o r r e s p o n d to a l a n g u a g e that has b e c o m e familiar both in the scholarly c o m m u n i t y and beyond; they have also resulted in part from the influence of law, which n a t u r a l l y d i v i d e s s i t u a t i o n s i n t o t w o , t h r e e o r a t m o s t a few c a t e g o r i e s . But, while constitutional law creates the classifications, as in the case of the opposition between presidential and p a r l i a m e n t a r y systems, political science h a s to m o n i t o r and analyse characteristics occurring in the world. It should not therefore i m p o r t m e t h o d s from a p r e s c r i p t i v e d i s c i p l i n e s u c h a s l a w a n d h o p e t h a t t h e y will b e satisfactory in an empirical context. T h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f d i c h o t o m o u s d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h e field o f leadership studies does n o t stem merely from general traditions in political science, h o w e v e r ; it also results from b r o a d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g n o r m a t i v e s t a n d p o i n t s . F o r i t i s n o t o n l y i n p o l i t i c a l science t h a t t h e s i m p l e d i v i s i o n o f l e a d e r s i n t o ' h e r o e s ' a n d ' m e r e ' officeh o l d e r s h a s o c c u r r e d ; i t h a s also b e e n c o m m o n l y u s e d i n h i s t o r y . A s B . Mazlich points out, The first thing to be said [about the way historians deal with leadership in their work] is that historians have always been attracted to the 'great men in
23
history' theory. Biography is a major adjunct of history, as is the 'cult of personality'. W h a t I am calling traditional history, generally devoid of causal analysis other than the account itself, frequently 'explained' a whole period or a major event in terms of some leading personality. (Mazlich, 1984: 1-2) T h e s e ' g r e a t m e n ' h a v e b e e n v e r y ' g o o d ' o r ' v i l l a i n s ' , b u t t h e stress was on their m a j o r i m p a c t . T h u s , political science was c o n f r o n t e d with a tradition that gave leaders a c o m m a n d i n g position in the explanation of events; as historians (traditional ones at least) were typically concerned only with the period they studied a n d with 'explanatory' factors of the events of that period, there was no c o m p a r a t i v e dimension that might h a v e led t o a n e f f o r t t o r a n k t h e s e l e a d e r s . T h e r e w a s n o r m a l l y a gallery of p o r t r a i t s , e x a m i n e d successively, discretely, a n d in such a d e t a i l e d m a n n e r t h a t t h e r e w a s little o r n o p o s s i b i l i t y t o g r a s p t h e material in a c o m p r e h e n s i v e m a n n e r . T h e approach was of course shaken by the ieaders-do-not-matter' s c h o o l . S o c i o l o g i s t s , b u t a l s o s o m e h i s t o r i a n s social a n d e c o n o m i c historians in p a r t i c u l a r c a m e to reject leaders. As Mazlich (1984: 2) points out, 'the mass, not the leader, is the new hero'; but although, as h e f u r t h e r s t a t e s , ' e v e n social h i s t o r i a n s a r e i n t h e i r o n i c p o s i t i o n o f discovering t h a t masses are n o t leaderless' (1984: 2-3), the c h a s m b e t w e e n t h e t w o s c h o o l s w a s t o o g r e a t for a n a c c o m m o d a t i o n t o o c c u r , at least for l o n g p e r i o d s . T h i s r e s u l t e d in a s t a l e m a t e , a c o l d w a r between the two approaches, and perpetuated the distinction. T h e a c c e p t a n c e o f a few g r e a t l e a d e r s o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d o f a m a s s o f ' o r d i n a r y ' l e a d e r s o n t h e o t h e r w a s i n d e e d c o m f o r t a b l e for s c h o l a r s in both schools. No one seems prepared to deny the influence of very great leaders, not even the Marxists, w h o of course are s o m e w h a t e m b a r r a s s e d b y t h e fact t h a t a t least L e n i n a n d M a o , a n d p o s s i b l y other c o m m u n i s t leaders also, have to be placed in the category of s u p e r i o r l e a d e r s h i p , a s well a s b y t h e fact t h a t , i n t h e Soviet U n i o n a n d in other c o m m u n i s t states, the phraseology places i m m e n s e e m p h a s i s on the part played by some leaders. M o r e generally, it seems so difficult t o u n d e r m i n e t o t a l l y t h e r o l e o f g r e a t l e a d e r s , w h o a p p e a r a s i m m e n s e Moore-like statues in the landscape of politics, that it seems p r a c t i c a l l y easier t o drill i n t o t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t m a k e s u p t h e ' g n o m e s ' w h o m o r e c o m m o n l y run our affairs. T h u s , as a m o d u s vivendi, social a n d p o l i t i c a l scientists u s u a l l y h a v e s i m p l y c o n c e n t r a t e d o n s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h c o u n t r i e s w e r e r u l e d b y lesser h e a d s o f g o v e r n m e n t s a n d ministers; a n d , as only a small m i n o r i t y would be so daring as to c h a l l e n g e t h e g e n e r a l thesis o f t h e l a r g e p a r t p l a y e d b y ' u n d e r l y i n g forces', for which there is indeed a great weight of admittedly partial evidence a n d which is s u p p o r t e d by a large b o d y of theoretical
24
literature, analyses h a v e p r o c e e d e d without a real c o n f r o n t a t i o n h a v i n g fully t a k e n p l a c e . M o r e o v e r , the relatively peaceful coexistence between t h e t w o interpretations can be r e g a r d e d as being m a i n t a i n e d at least in p a r t by theoretical a r g u m e n t , a n d especially by W e b e r ' s tripartite m o d e l of authority. By distinguishing sharply between two types of situations where traditional or b u r e a u c r a t i c rulers prevail and a third, where the pers^HT^zedaiiihority of charismatic leaders obtains, W e b e r j o e s a long way t o w a r d s justifying t h e view t h a t t h e t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be simultaneously a d o p t e d . For in W e b e r ' s analysis, only leaders endowed with charisma have the o p p o r t u n i t y to m a k e a truly large personal m a r k on the political a n d social system; but this m a r k is very l a r g e i n d e e d (see C h a p t e r 2 ) . I n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s , t h e s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e s o c i e t y , b e t h e y p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f all three, are the real elements sustaining the system. A l t h o u g h W e b e r himself notes the part played by leaders outside the charismatic c o n t e x t , h e c e r t a i n l y a l l o w s s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s t o view societies i n w h i c h traditional or bureaucratic authority prevails as being controlled primarily by the ' u n d e r l y i n g forces', while stressing t h a t this c a n n o t be the case w h e n charismatic rule o b t a i n s . W e b e r d o e s h e l p t o give a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s t o t h e s h a r p d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n t w o types of leadership since he describes t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h c h a r i s m a m a y o c c u r . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e effectively summarized in one broad characteristic: the break-up of the s t r u c t u r e s t h a t u s e d t o tie t o g e t h e r t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n t i a l n e e d for t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n e w set o f social a n d g; p o l i t i c a l r e l a t i o n s . T h u s , t h e i d e a of a d i c h o t o m y b e c o m e s g r o u n d e d in a general m o d e l of the relationship between leadership a n d social a n d p o l i t i c a l life: w h e n t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e ' n o r m a l ' , o r d i n a r y ( i . e . , n o t personalized) l e a d e r s h i p o b t a i n s , but w h e n t h e r e is a social c h a s m , t h e w e a v i n g t o g e t h e r o f t h e society a g a i n d e p e n d s o n p e r s o n a l i z e d leaders. S t r o n g leadership can therefore h a v e a place without it being u n t e n a b l e t o a d o p t t h e view t h a t , i n n o r m a l s i t u a t i o n s , l e a d e r s m a y m a t t e r little. T h u s , the distinction between 'heroes' and ' o r d i n a r y ' leaders is not merely t h e result of an oversimplification: it runs deep in the traditions of social science and of political science in particular. It is p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e it r u n s so d e e p t h a t it h a s p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t in m a k i n g a m o r e empirically based a n d m o r e systematic analysis of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s h i p difficult t o u n d e r t a k e . W h a t h a s t o b e d o n e t h e r e f o r e is to t u r n away from the very idea of a d i c h o t o m y a n d , b y r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e reality i s v a s t l y m o r e c o m p l e x , slowly t o e l a b o r a t e m o d e l s a n d d e v e l o p m e t h o d o l o g i c a l t e c h n i q u e s t h a t will m a k e i t p o s s i b l e t o g r a s p m o r e realistically t h e c o n t o u r s o f l e a d e r s h i p .
25
The need to study variations in leadership on the basis of dimensions Political leadership consists of actions designed to m o d i f y the e n v i r o n m e n t . Its specific c h a r a c t e r d e p e n d s , a s I n o t e d i n t h e Introduction, on the c o m b i n a t i o n of three aspects: the personal characteristics of the leaders, t h e instruments they have at their d i s p o s a l , a n d t h e s i t u a t i o n s t h e y f a c e . I t i s m a n i f e s t t h a t all t h r e e aspects have to be defined broadly. T h e personal characteristics of leaders include not merely the 'personality' of these leaders, but the sum of the elements that 'describe' the leaders at a particular m o m e n t . They include 'personality' elements, to be sure, and in particular energy, drive a n d the ability to grasp p r o b l e m s quickly; but they include also other aspects, which m a y usually be defined as 'sociol o g i c a l ' : s t u d i e s o f v o t e r s , for i n s t a n c e , i n c l u d e b o t h ' s o c i o l o g i c a l ' and 'psychological' characteristics. Thus the examination of the social b a c k g r o u n d a n d o f t h e c a r e e r s o f l e a d e r s i s a n i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of the 'personal' elements of leadership. T h e instruments that leaders use must also be defined broadly. They i n c l u d e g r o u p s , p a r t i e s , t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , c o u r t s a n d l e g i s l a t u r e s , all of which m a y help or hinder the actions of leaders; also the media, w h i c h m a y e n a b l e l e a d e r s t o h a v e a m o r e o r less d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e p o p u l a t i o n . T h e level o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ( t h a t i s t o s a y , the extent to which institutions are truly 'alive'), the degree of centralization or decentralization of the system and the loyalty of the members of these bodies are a m o n g the characteristics that are essential if o n e is to differentiate realistically a m o n g the m e a n s t h a t are at the disposal of leaders. Instruments are part of the environment; they are to a large extent 'givens'. But they can also be organized by the leaders or m o u l d e d by t h e m . T h e y c a n a t least b e u s e d i n a m a n n e r t h a t l e a d e r s m a y t h i n k m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e i r a i m s . I n t h e strict s e n s e , t h e r e f o r e , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t c o v e r s t h e set o f p r o b l e m s w i t h w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e c o n f r o n t e d a n d w h i c h t h e y w i s h t o solve (or a t least b e g i n to solve). T h e s e p r o b l e m s m a y be vast or limited; they m a y be c o n c e r n e d with the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e society or m a y relate to the i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e w e l f a r e o f a s m a l l s e c t i o n ; t h e y m a y affect t h e very existence of the n a t i o n ; equally i m p o r t a n t l y , they m a y relate to ' o b j e c t i v e ' c o n d i t i o n s o r t o t h e ' m o o d ' o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n for i n s t a n c e , if t h e r e is a h i g h d e g r e e of d i s c o n t e n t or if t h e level of integration is low. T h u s , the leader is c o n f r o n t e d with a state of affairs t h a t m a y b e ' c a l m ' o r , w h e n t h e r e i s a c r i s i s , w i t h a crisis t h a t m a y v a r y in intensity or immediacy. T h e types of cases are t h u s very n u m e r o u s and cover an extremely wide range. Even a rapid presentation of personal characteristics, instruments
26
a n d situations t h u s suggests t h a t t h e n a t u r e of political l e a d e r s h i p is n o t only complex, but c a n n o t realistically be grasped on t h e basis of s i m p l e d i s t i n c t i o n s a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r o n t h e basis o f d i c h o t o m i e s o r trichotomies. There are manifestly m a n y types p e r h a p s an infinite n u m b e r of types of personal characteristics, instruments a n d s i t u a t i o n s . It f o l l o w s t h a t a r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s of l e a d e r s h i p e n t a i l s a recognition that dimensions h a v e to be discovered on the basis of w h i c h i t will b e p o s s i b l e t o d r a w c o m p a r i s o n s t h a t will give a n a c c u r a t e picture of the reality. Political behaviour rarely, if ever, has a d i c h o t o m o u s c h a r a c t e r . In m a n y cases a n a p p r o a c h b a s e d o n a d i c h o t o m y , after h a v i n g h a d a h e u r i s t i c v a l u e for a p e r i o d o f t i m e , h a s t h e effect o f s t u l t i f y i n g o r s t r a i t j a c k e t i n g t h e a n a l y s i s . T h i s h a s b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n t h e field of political leadership, not merely because personality types a n d b a c k g r o u n d patterns are obviously n u m e r o u s even if no s a t i s f a c t o r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n h a s s o far b e e n a c h i e v e d i n t h i s a r e a b u t p e r h a p s even m o r e because the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the diversity of the effects o f l e a d e r s h i p d e p e n d s o n a c o m p a r a t i v e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e situations with which leaders have to cope. In order to k n o w what r u l e r s r e a l l y a c h i e v e w h e t h e r t h e y a r e effective o r m e r e l y ' f l o a t ' a b o v e t h e s u r f a c e o f e v e n t s w e n e e d t o k n o w w h a t v a l u e t o give t o the ' d e n o m i n a t o r ' of the equation, that is to say, to the type of situation with which the leaders are grappling. By describing the s i t u a t i o n s i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e m a n n e r , a n d specifically b y a n a l y s i n g t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f a n u m b e r o f d i m e n s i o n s , i t will b e possible to enrich the understanding of leadership and to obtain a subtler appreciation of the contributions of leaders.
Towards a general classification of political leadership

H o w , t h e n , c a n w e s t a r t t o classify p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p , a n d w h a t aspects of leadership should we primarily take into consideration in the e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e classification? Past studies offer limited g u i d a n c e . T h e s c h e m e o f a n a l y s i s m u s t b e g e n e r a l i n o r d e r t o c o v e r all types of political leadership, but it must also be detailed in order to provide a basis for precise distinctions a m o n g political leaders. W h a t c r i t e r i a c a n b e f o u n d t h a t will m a k e i t p o s s i b l e t o d i s c o v e r d i m e n s i o n s that are universally applicable? The impact of leaders as the principal ground for classification A preliminary step has to be taken before these dimensions are d i s c o v e r e d . O n e c a n n o t m e r e l y classify p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s a c c o r d i n g t o o n e , t w o o r m o r e d i m e n s i o n s unless o n e k n o w s t h e ' p r o b l e m s ' o f leadership that these dimensions are expected to cover. These ' p r o b l e m s ' a r e m a n y ; h e r e I shall give o n l y t h r e e e x a m p l e s . J .
What
27
McGregor Burns opposes 'transformational' leadership to 'transactional' leadership. This is only a d i c h o t o m y , but it corresponds to an i m p o r t a n t distinction, namely, that between leaders w h o d o ' g r e a t t h i n g s ' a n d t h o s e w h o effect c o m p r o m i s e s a m o n g groups and achieve results by combination rather than by new leaps. T h i s i s a d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t r e f e r s t h e r e f o r e t o t h e g o a l s a n d policies o f l e a d e r s . J . D . B a r b e r , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , classifies l e a d e r s f r o m a different s t a n d p o i n t : he divides t h e m into 'active positive', 'active n e g a t i v e ' , ' p a s s i v e p o s i t i v e ' a n d ' p a s s i v e n e g a t i v e ' on t h e basis o f t h e i r ' c h a r a c t e r ' ; t h e a i m i s t o d i s c o v e r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s , n o t i n t h e p o l i c i e s o r t h e i m p a c t ( B a r b e r , 1977). T h e r e is, of c o u r s e , a r e l a t i o n s h i p between ' c h a r a c t e r ' a n d g o a l s , b u t the two p r o b l e m s are different. Meanwhile, R . H . J a c k s o n a n d C . G . R o s b e r g , in t h e i r s t u d y of Personal Rule in Black Africa ( 1 9 8 1 ) , classify l e a d e r s i n t o f o u r t y p e s w h i c h a r e d e s i g n a t e d a s ' p r i n c e s ' , 'autocrats', ' p r o p h e t s ' a n d 'tyrants': the aim here is neither to d e s c r i b e ' c h a r a c t e r ' n o r t o d i s t i n g u i s h a m o n g policies o r g o a l s , b u t rather to present a n u m b e r of ' r e g i m e s ' of a p e r s o n a l type in which a n u m b e r of 'styles' emerge a n d as a result of which leaders control the p o p u l a t i o n a n d m a i n t a i n themselves in office. H e r e t o o , of c o u r s e , there are relationships to be established with other approaches: 'character' plays a part and policy goals are not unconnected with the r e g i m e styles t h a t a r e d e s c r i b e d . B u t t h e specific p u r p o s e o f t h e e n q u i r y is d i f f e r e n t .
8
T h e r e a r e t h e r e f o r e d i f f e r e n t b a s e s for t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a n d c o m p a r i s o n of leaders; yet, at t h e s a m e t i m e , these different bases need to be related to each other by m e a n s of an overall conceptual f r a m e w o r k , w h i c h will a l s o h e l p t o i n c l u d e c e r t a i n t y p e s o f a n a l y s e s a n d e x c l u d e o t h e r s . F o r w e a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g o u t everything a b o u t l e a d e r s ; w e d o n o t w a n t t o k n o w , for i n s t a n c e , a b o u t p a s t i m e s a n d h o b b i e s , u n l e s s t h e y ar.e r e l a t e d t o o r h a v e a n i n f l u e n c e o n l e a d e r s ' political a c t i v i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , w e w i s h t o k n o w a b o u t t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of these leaders, or indeed even a b o u t t h e character of the regime, if w e s e n s e t h a t t h e s e a s p e c t s h a v e a n effect o n t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e a f f a i r s o f t h e s t a t e h a v e b e e n r u n . T h i s i s t o say t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s o f l e a d e r s h i p i s j u s t i f i e d f r o m a p o l i t i c a l p o i n t o f view o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e l e a d e r s h a v e a n effect o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s o f t h e s o c i e t y . W e r e l e a d e r s t o h a v e n o effect w e r e w e t o a c c e p t i n full t h e l e a d e r s - d o - n o t - m a t t e r t h e s i s t h e s t u d y o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p w o u l d h a v e n o j u s t i f i c a t i o n . I t i s o n l y b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e (or a t least a r e p r e s u m e d t o h a v e ) s o m e effect t h a t l e a d e r s d e s e r v e t o b e e x a m i n e d ; a n d , in turn, it is only to the extent that certain aspects of p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p h e l p t o a c c o u n t for t h i s effect t h a t t h e y d e s e r v e t o b e e x a m i n e d , a t least i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a p o l i t i c a l e n q u i r y .
28
A general classification of political leadership m u s t t h u s start from t h e effect t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e ( o r m a y h a v e ) o n t h e i r s o c i e t y . T h i s i s t h e c o r n e r s t o n e o f t h e e n q u i r y . O f c o u r s e , t h e a i m i s t o see w h e t h e r t h i s impact is d u e to s o m e characteristics of leaders personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , for i n s t a n c e o r t o c e r t a i n p o w e r s , n o r m a l l y i n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h a t t h e y h o l d . W e w a n t t o k n o w t h e sources o f t h e i r i m p a c t . But it is the i m p a c t , as a d e p e n d e n t variable, that justifies o u r examination of the independent variables that personality and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s c o n s t i t u t e . T h u s , i t i s fair t o s t a t e t h a t t h e generjuMraniej^^ t h e analysis the analysis of the impact of leaders on society. This is w h y w e m u s t first e x a m i n e w h a t t h e i m p a c t m a y b e ; t h i s i s w h y , i n t h i s b o o k , after h a v i n g a s s e s s e d i n b r o a d t e r m s t h e r o l e o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s a n d t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h i s r o l e , I shall d e v o t e C h a p t e r 3 to the elaboration of a general classification designed to determine, and if possible to measure, the impact of leaders.
The role of personal elements and of institutional structure in the analysis of political leadership T h e o t h e r a s p e c t s o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p will b e i n v e s t i g a t e d t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y affect o r m a y affect t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s o n society. On t h e surface, it seems t h a t these aspects constitute a discrete a n d a l m o s t i n f i n i t e n u m b e r . I n his 1972 w o r k , G . D . P a i g e lists s e v e r a l elements w h e n he defines political leadership as consisting 'in the interaction of personality, role, organisation, task, values, and s e t t i n g . . . ' ( P a i g e 1972: 6 9 ) . T h e list i s a l r e a d y l o n g ; i t c o u l d e v e n b e longer; a n d there is no m e a n s of knowing whether it is exhaustive. If o n e examines these aspects, however, o n e finds t h a t they c o m e u n d e r two b r o a d categories, personal attributes a n d 'regime' attributes, with t h e e n v i r o n m e n t c o n s t i t u t i n g a t h i r d , b u t d i f f e r e n t l y r e l a t e d , set o f v a r i a b l e s . It is a l s o c l e a r t h a t t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e to political l e a d e r s h i p i n t h a t t h e y h e l p t o a c c o u n t for t h e ' d e p e n d e n t ' v a r i a b l e , t h a t i s t o s a y , t h e i m p a c t t h a t l e a d e r s m a k e . P e r s o n a l i t y , for i n s t a n c e , i s a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r ; b u t this f a c t o r a c q u i r e s s i g n i f i c a n c e a n d m e a n i n g o n l y b e c a u s e t h e l e a d e r s ' g o a l s a n d p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s a r e felt t o m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e . T h u s , t h e s t u d y o f p e r s o n a l i t y i s i m p o r t a n t for the political analysis of leadership, not because personality is i m p o r t a n t i n itself for s u c h a n a n a l y s i s , b u t b e c a u s e p e r s o n a l i t y a p p e a r s to h a v e (or is c o m m o n l y believed to h a v e ) an impact on t h e goals a n d t h e policy initiatives of leaders. We a r e n o t , at any rate as p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , i n t e r e s t e d p e r se in t h e q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r a g i v e n leader is ' a c t i v e - p o s i t i v e ' , to use B a r b e r ' s t e r m i n o l o g y : we are i n t e r e s t e d in w h e t h e r t h e fact t h a t a l e a d e r is ' a c t i v e - p o s i t i v e '
29
a c c o u n t s i n p a r t f o r t h e fact t h a t t h i s l e a d e r will e n g a g e i n c e r t a i n policies a n d will p u r s u e t h e m w i t h g r e a t e r o r less z e a l . W h a t has just been r e m a r k e d a b o u t personality also applies to other a s p e c t s o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p . P a i g e , for i n s t a n c e , r e f e r s t o ' r o l e ' a n d ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' as relevant elements in a c o m p r e h e n s i v e definition of leadership; indeed, b o t h h a v e traditionally been regarded as essential. In political analysis, ' r o l e ' a n d ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' are usually described in t e r m s o f ' r e g i m e s ' , w h i c h b o t h ' o r g a n i z e ' t h e l e a d e r s h i p a n d specify the 'roles' to be played by the leaders. T h u s , a parliamentary or cabinet system e n d o w s t h e p r i m e minister with different powers a n d introduces different c o n s t r a i n t s from t h o s e with which a president is e n d o w e d in a s e p a r a t i o n - o f - p o w e r s system. Leaders in absolutist s y s t e m s h a v e yet d i f f e r e n t p o w e r s a n d o p e r a t e u n d e r d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r a i n t s ; a s J a c k s o n a n d R o s b e r g ( 1 9 8 1 : 7 7 ff.) p o i n t o u t , o n e c a n distinguish a n u m b e r of sub-categories a m o n g absolutist systems. H e r e t o o , however, t h e reason w h y these different regimes are w o r t h s t u d y i n g f r o m a p o l i t i c a l p o i n t o f view i s b e c a u s e w e b e l i e v e ( a n d t h e r e i s a p p a r e n t s u p p o r t for t h i s belief) t h a t c o n s e q u e n c e s will f o l l o w for t h e g o a l s a n d p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s p u r s u e d b y l e a d e r s . F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e ' r e g i m e ' will set u p i n s t i t u t i o n a l o r p r o c e d u r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s w h i c h will o r g a n i z e a c c e s s i o n t o p o w e r a n d d u r a t i o n i n office in such a way that leaders e n d o w e d with certain types of goals a r e m o r e likely t o e m e r g e t h a n l e a d e r s w i t h o t h e r g o a l s , o r t h a t i t will b e e a s i e r o r m o r e difficult t o c a r r y o u t c e r t a i n p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s ; m o r e o v e r , t h e o p p o s i t i o n will b e m o r e o r less c o n s t r a i n e d i n its m e a n s o f p r e v e n t i n g t h e l e a d e r f r o m c a r r y i n g o u t his o r h e r w i s h e s . W e r e i t n o t for t h e fact t h a t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s h a v e s o m e i m p a c t o n g o a l s a n d p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s , t h e y w o u l d n o t b e s t u d i e d , since t h e y w o u l d n o t b e felt t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t . I n d e e d , i t w a s b e c a u s e , i n t h e 1960s a n d 1970s, m a n y p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s believed t h a t t h e effect o f i n s t i t u t i o n s w a s r a t h e r l i m i t e d t h a t t h e s e t e n d e d t o b e less s t u d i e d . T h i s view w a s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y m i s t a k e n , i n t h a t i t w a s a t least e x a g g e r a t e d ; but, mistaken or not, it indicated that the institutional framework, like t h e p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , is w o r t h y of i n v e s t i g a t i o n o n l y if it is related to the impact of leaders. The special position of the environment T h e e n v i r o n m e n t h a s a d i f f e r e n t i m p a c t . Its effect i s n o t s o m u c h t o a c c o u n t for p o l i c i e s , a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e ; i t i s m o r e t o introduce constraints and provide opportunities. It prevents some leaders from p r o m o t i n g policies t h a t they might h a v e wished to p r o m o t e a n d which others may be able to p r o m o t e elsewhere: the p r e s i d e n t o f t h e Swiss F e d e r a l C o u n c i l i s u n l i k e l y t o b e a b l e t o e m b a r k on a vast o p e r a t i o n of foreign policy; t h e president of a p o o r T h i r d
30
W o r l d country is unlikely to be able to carry out large p r o g r a m m e s of industrial development. There are thus structural constraints which s t e m , for i n s t a n c e , f r o m t h e p h y s i c a l size o r t h e e c o n o m i c b a s e o f t h e c o u n t r y ; there are also t e m p o r a r y constraints which result from the specific c o n d i t i o n s in w h i c h a n a t i o n finds itself at a p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t . T h e pessimistic m o o d of t h e p o p u l a t i o n , or t h e climate of crisis t h a t m a y p r e v a i l a s a r e s u l t o f i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , a l s o c o n s t i t u t e c o n s t r a i n t s o n s c o p e o f activities o f l e a d e r s : t h e s e a r e obliged to act in a particular direction a n d to concentrate on certain problems which m a y be m o r e t e m p o r a r y in character t h a n those they originally wanted to p r o m o t e . Conversely, the environment provides opportunities that are also structural or t e m p o r a r y . L e a d e r s m a y be given a c h a n c e including t h a t r e s u l t i n g f r o m a crisis a n d t h e y m a y b e a b l e t o l a u n c h initiatives a n d to push f o r w a r d s o m e goals that might not be acceptable in other situations or when structural conditions are different. S o m e leaders are better able t h a n others to m a k e use of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t gives t h e m ; b u t t h e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s vary and enable s o m e leaders to p u r s u e policies t h a t w o u l d n o t ' n o r m a l l y ' b e felt ' r e a l i s t i c ' . T h u s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t is n o t an 'aspect' of the study of political leadership as are personalities a n d institutional arrangements (though these are also part of the environment and thus p a r t a k e , to some extent at least, of the same characteristics as the e n v i r o n m e n t ) . While p e r s o n a l i t y a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s affect t h e c h a r a c t e r o f l e a d e r s h i p itself, t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i s t h e s u b s t a n c e , t h e r a w m a t e r i a l , a n d a l s o t h e f r a m e w o r k for t h e g o a l s a n d p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s ; i t is, t o u s e another image, the chessboard on which leaders play and have to play. Policy initiatives constitute the central basis for t h e classification of political leadership; but they are s h a p e d , coloured a n d developed as a result of the type of e n v i r o n m e n t , p e r m a n e n t or t e m p o r a r y , that c o n f r o n t s t h e leaders. T h u s , while a classification of leadership should be essentially based on the categorization of these leaders' actions, a second a n d necessary step has to be the examination of the ways in which the environment modifies the dynamics of the actions o f l e a d e r s a n d i n d e e d sets t h e b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n w h a t i s p o s s i b l e a n d what is precluded.
Leadership and imposition

O n e p r o b l e m r e m a i n s , however: leadership is often viewed as the o p p o s i t e of c o e r c i o n ; it is conceived as an ability to induce, rather t h a n as a f o r c e c o m p e l l i n g o t h e r s to act in a c e r t a i n w a y . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n is a n a l y t i c a l l y v a l i d , b u t t h e reality i s m o r e c o m p l e x : i n f a c t , t h e r e a r e s u b t l e g r a d a t i o n s b e t w e e n gentle p r e s s u r e a n d full i m p o s i t i o n . I n t h i s
What
31
book we shall be concerned with leadership, rather than imposition. But it is worth remembering that leaders cannot be divided into those who rule through coercion and those who rule by consent: there is an infinity of steps between the two poles. On the one hand, there is imposition in every regime: some citizens disagree with some policies; some even disagree with the principles on which the policy is based. On the other hand, amounts of imposition vary markedly even among authoritarian states. It is difficult to be precise about these, however, as the measurement of coercion is imprecise, partly because it usually has to be done indirectly, since leaders of repressive regimes typically are not anxious to allow their citizens to express their views openly. One has therefore to rely on unsatisfactory indicators, and in particular on activities that are either the instruments or the consequences of coercion, rather than on the root cause: namely, the distance between the citizens and the leaders. One thus examines how far opposition is tolerated or harassed, how many political prisoners exist, whether citizens are allowed to travel abroad, and the extent to which demonstrations, riots and other disturbances occur in the country. Not only do these indicators not provide a direct measure of imposition, but they give a partial, even distorted, view of the phenomenon. Open disturbances may be a sign not of great coercion, but of relative tolerance. In any case, proportions of opponents are difficult to gauge in authoritarian regimes, especially since passivity is usually more widespread than outright dissent. Thus, imposition is manifestly a badly known, and an even more badly measured, characteristic. What is clear is that it is both commonplace and rarely as massive as is often believed. What does need to be explored are the conditions that makeimpQsition-n C ssar.y.t aTwell as the point J >eyond which it becomes ineffective. Without attempting here to examine these conditions in general, a number of broad trends can be outlined.
Why
and
how
imposition
De
achieved J
There is, of course, little n e e d T o n m p o s i t i b n if the actions of leaders coincide with the desires of the population. Conversely, imposition is required if the actions of the leaders are at great variance from what the citizens want. A society in which there is much demand or need for change will be ruled by a conservative only with the help of substantial coercion; coercion will also have to be harsh if substantial change is pressed by a leader on a society in which there is basic contentment with the status quo. In between, when leaders' actions aim at a moderate extent of change, there will probably generally be less need for substantial coercion. Thus, the potential for strong imposition
32
corresponds only to s o m e types of situations; they are mainly those when leaders and p o p u l a t i o n are at variance over m a j o r policy initiatives w h i c h l e a d e r s w a n t t o p r e s s for a n d t o i m p l e m e n t r a p i d l y . T h e n e e d for i m p o s i t i o n d o e s v a r y m a r k e d l y , h o w e v e r , a s a r e s u l t o f three types of characteristics of society as a whole. First, coercion m a y r e m a i n light a s l o n g a s t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s u n c l e a r a b o u t w h a t t h e leaders are a t t e m p t i n g to achieve. T h i s often h a p p e n s , as the policies p r o p o s e d by the leaders m a y n o t be clearly perceived by the citizens. I n d e e d , t h e less c l e a r t h e i d e a s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a r e a b o u t p u b l i c p o l i c i e s , t h e less will l e a d e r s h a v e t o r e s o r t t o i m p o s i t i o n . Consequently, an ill-educated p o p u l a t i o n , in a c o u n t r y where c o m m u n i c a t i o n s m e d i a a r e r u d i m e n t a r y , i s less likely t o h a v e t o b e coerced into obeying. T h e second reason why imposition m a y not need to be strong results from the isolation of the nation. Discontent tends to increase as a result o f c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n life styles i n t h e h o m e c o u n t r y a n d life styles a b r o a d . W h e r e t h e r e i s little k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t t a k e s p l a c e o u t s i d e , p r e s s u r e o n t h e l e a d e r s h i p will c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y b e w e a k e r ; t h u s , r u l e r s w h o wish t o p u r s u e p o l i c i e s t h a t a r e a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h o s e t h a t m i g h t ' n a t u r a l l y ' b e a c c e p t e d b y t h e p o p u l a t i o n will t e n d t o prevent their citizens from being subjected to outside influences which might increase the discontent. This is true of conservative leaders, w h o might sense that the p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d be even m o r e anxious to see c h a n g e o c c u r r i n g i n t h e c o u n t r y i f t h e b o r d e r s w e r e o p e n , a n d o f p r o g r e s s i v e l e a d e r s , w h o fear t h a t t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t s m a y n o t a p p e a r successful o r e v e n v a l u a b l e i f t h e c i t i z e n s c o u l d c o m p a r e r e s u l t s w i t h those of different policies p u r s u e d a b r o a d . So long as leaders can c r e d i b l y a d o p t a n a t i o n a l i s t i c line i n c l o s i n g t h e i r b o r d e r s , a n d i n d e e d in branding foreigners as potential enemies, isolation can be achieved w i t h o u t n e e d for s t r o n g i m p o s i t i o n ; b u t even i f feelings o f n a t i o n a l i s m d i m i n i s h , l e a d e r s c a n s t e m t h e t i d e a t least f o r a p e r i o d b y k e e p i n g their c o u n t r y as closed as possible. T h i r d , w h a t i s r e q u i r e d o f citizens i s v e r y r a r e l y t h e a c t i v e s u p p o r t o f t h e p o l i c i e s o f l e a d e r s : civil s e r v a n t s a r e o b l i g e d t o d i s p l a y s u p p o r t , b u t m o s t o f t h e rest o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s n o r m a l l y a s k e d o n l y t o c a r r y o u t its n o r m a l a c t i v i t i e s a n d m e r e l y t o r e f r a i n f r o m g o i n g b e y o n d w h a t is 'their o w n business'. Harsh imposition can thus be concentrated on t h o s e w h o h a v e t o i m p l e m e n t t h e policies a n d t h e s e p e o p l e c a n b e either t h r e a t e n e d or lured into obeying. It is t r u e that, the m o r e m o d e r n a c o u n t r y is economically, the greater is the p r o p o r t i o n of citizens w h o will b e e n g a g e d i n activities t h a t s t e m d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e l e a d e r s ' a c t i o n s ; b u t i t i s also t r u e t h a t , a t t h e e n d o f t h e line o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a c t i v e s u p p o r t o f policies a n d o r d i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s b e c o m e s very b l u r r e d . T h u s , m a n y l e a d e r s c a n
What is politicai leadership?
33
press o n t h e n a t i o n c e r t a i n g o a l s w i t h o u t s t r o n g c o e r c i v e m e a s u r e s affecting m o r e t h a n a relatively small p r o p o r t i o n of t h e p o p u l a t i o n . The difficulties of imposition T h e a m o u n t o f i m p o s i t i o n t h a t i s n e c e s s a r y for a l e a d e r t o r e m a i n i n power a n d to p u r s u e policies to which the p o p u l a t i o n m a y not agree c a n t h u s b e r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d : t h e l e a d e r s ' p o s i t i o n will n o t b e d i r e c t l y t h r e a t e n e d , a t least i n m a n y c a s e s . I n f a c t , w h a t m a k e s i t difficult for leaders to persist in p u r s u i n g their policies results m o r e often from the constraints s t e m m i n g from the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of their policies t h a n from the opposition of the p o p u l a t i o n . P r o b a b l y t h e single m o s t i m p o r t a n t factor is the physical inability o f t h e l e a d e r t o a c h i e v e t h e p o l i c i e s t h a t h e h a d set h i m s e l f t o p u r s u e . T h i s i s i n d e e d w h e r e r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s t y p i c a l l y face a m o r e difficult t a s k t h a n c o n s e r v a t i v e s ; for r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w a n t t o c h a n g e the society, but they c a n n o t do so by p r o n o u n c e m e n t s alone: they need e c o n o m i c results a n d socioeconomic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Both are difficult t o r e a l i z e , a n d b o t h h a v e t h e effect o f e n c r o a c h i n g i n t o t h e activities of citizens in such a way t h a t the n a t u r a l 'passivity' of t h e p o p u l a t i o n , on which m u c h imposition rests, comes to be shaken by the leaders' policies. E c o n o m i c c h a n g e c a n n o t be obtained without m a j o r a n d costly undertakings: t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in agriculture, i n d u s t r y a n d t h e social services r e q u i r e h u g e e x p e n d i t u r e s . T h e y a l s o r e q u i r e skilled m a n p o w e r , w h i c h c a n n o t b e t r a i n e d w i t h o u t f u r t h e r costs a n d over long periods. A m a j o r change in the economic a n d social b a s i s o f a n a t i o n t e n d s t o b e b e y o n d t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e c o u n t r y : t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e g o a l s , a s m u c h a s i m p o s i t i o n p e r s e , i s likely to force leaders to a b a n d o n their aims a n d to cause discontent. S o m e effects will a l s o b e felt b e c a u s e l e a d e r s m a y a l s o w a n t t o change the values of the population in order to create a 'new m a n ' , or b e c a u s e e c o n o m i c a c h i e v e m e n t s a r e felt t o d e p e n d o n t h e d e g r e e o f ' m o b i l i z a t i o n ' o f w o r k e r s . L e a d e r s t h e n c a n n o l o n g e r rely o n a passive lack of a n t a g o n i s m : they need active s u p p o r t , which m a y not b e easily f o r t h c o m i n g . T h e d i l e m m a o f r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s e m e r g e s a t t h i s p o i n t : so long as they can p u r s u e their goals without m a r k e d l y affecting the population, they can carry t h e m o u t ; but as they g r a d u a l l y r e a l i z e t h a t t h e y n e e d a m o b i l i z e d c i t i z e n r y o r else face f a i l u r e , t h e y e n t e r a cycle of a c t i v i t i e s t h a t is likely to i n c r e a s e o p p o s i t i o n rapidly a n d force t h r o u g h even harsher m e a s u r e s , which in turn further increase that opposition. M e a n w h i l e , i t m a y n o t b e p o s s i b l e for l e a d e r s t o k e e p t h e c o u n t r y isolated. Outside pressures m a y occur because foreigners object to the g o a l s , e c o n o m i c , social o r c u l t u r a l , t h a t a r e b e i n g p u r s u e d ; t h e y m a y also occur because leaders need financial and m a n p o w e r assistance to
34
a c h i e v e t h e g o a l s t h a t t h e y a r e p u r s u i n g . A t this p o i n t , t o o , l e a d e r s a r e faced with a d i l e m m a : t h e d e s i r e t o k e e p t h e c o u n t r y c l o s e d m a y m a k e i t m o r e difficult t o realize t h e p o l i c i e s t h a t a r e s o u g h t , b u t t h e n e e d t o o b t a i n o v e r s e a s a i d will b r i n g in its t r a i l a series of c o n s e q u e n c e s w h i c h will result i n a n i n c r e a s e o f d i s c o n t e n t a r i s i n g f r o m m o r e c o m p a r i s o n s being d r a w n with the outside w o r l d . N o t surprisingly, r e v o l u t i o n a r y leaders zigzag between the t w o tactics, but s o m e o p e n i n g up of the p o l i t y i s u n a v o i d a b l e : t h e r e g i m e t h e n faces g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t i e s . T h u s , l e a d e r s find i t difficult t o i m p o s e t h e i r policies for v e r y l o n g periods, not so m u c h because of a direct opposition of the p o p u l a t i o n , but because of the consequences of their o w n policies. This is m o r e likely t o o c c u r for r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s t h a n for c o n s e r v a t i v e s , a s t h e l a t t e r m a y not need as m u c h active s u p p o r t in the p o p u l a t i o n ; but they, t o o , face p r o b l e m s : i f t h e p o p u l a t i o n w a n t s c h a n g e s t o o c c u r , c o s t s h a v e t o be incurred to m a i n t a i n the status q u o , a n d these foster discontent, unless an exceptional b o n a n z a , such as that provided by oil, enables leaders to bypass the citizens' purses altogether. T h e isolation of the c o u n t r y i s a l s o t y p i c a l l y difficult t o m a i n t a i n . But t h e r e a r e e n o u g h e x a m p l e s of r e l a t i v e l y l o n g s t a n d i n g i n d e e d , v e r y l o n g s t a n d i n g l e a d e r s w h o h a v e o p p o s e d c h a n g e a n d r e m a i n e d i n office w i t h t h e h e l p of considerable imposition (Stroessner of P a r a g u a y being perhaps the m o s t o b v i o u s a m o n g a s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r ) for i t t o b e u n r e a l i s t i c t o claim that imposition inevitably leads to the collapse of coercive regimes.
Conclusion
L e a d e r s h i p is a c o m p l e x concept which a t t e m p t s to cover a c o m p l e x reality: that of citizens p r e p a r e d , to an extent at least, to follow a ruler in the direction s/he chooses. Not surprisingly, attempts have been m a d e to simplify this concept, a n d in particular to distinguish sharply b e t w e e n c a s e s i n w h i c h ' t r u e ' l e a d e r s h i p i s e x e r c i s e d a n d cases i n w h i c h it is n o t e x e r c i s e d at all either b e c a u s e t h e r u l e r is t o o w e a k a n d is t h e r e f o r e fully d e p e n d e n t o n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , o r b e c a u s e h e o r s h e i s so s t r o n g t h a t followers are entirely coerced i n t o achieving w h a t they are o r d e r e d to d o . T h e reality is different, b e c a u s e it is c o m p l e x . T h e r e are m a n y types and 'grades' of leadership, which need to be analysed i n d e t a i l i f o n e i s t o assess t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t l e a d e r s m a k e t o t h e society. A precise classification of leadership has to be u n d e r t a k e n , principally on the basis of the leaders' actions a n d the e n v i r o n m e n t ' s r e s p o n s e , a s i t i s o n t h e results o f t h e s e a c t i o n s a n d r e a c t i o n s t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e t o b e j u d g e d ; a l t h o u g h i t i s o f c o u r s e essential t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w the personalities of rulers a n d the institutional a r r a n g e m e n t s f r o m w h i c h these r u l e r s b e n e f i t affect t h e o v e r a l l
What
is political
leadership?
35
outcome. We need therefore to turn to the examination of the actions o f l e a d e r s ; b u t i n o r d e r t o d o s o , w e m u s t first e x a m i n e w h a t p a r t political leaders a i m at playing, a n d are expected to be playing, in society. This means that we must analyse the role of political l e a d e r s h i p a s well a s t h e c h a n g e s t h a t h a v e a f f e c t e d t h i s r o l e .
Notes
1. The expression 'transforming leadership' is of Burns (1978: 141-254). 2. Lycurgus is often referred to as the prototype of the ideal statesman by the classical theorists. This is for instance the case with Montesquieu (Spirit of Laws, Book 4, Ch. 6) and Rousseau (Social Contract, Book 2, Ch. 7). 3. The position of President Mitterrand since the French election of 1986 has of course been markedly diminished, though it has remained stronger than under previous French republics. 4. But it is essential that a group should exist: leadership takes place within a group, however informal and even transient this group might be. 5. The views of leaders about leadership thus give leadership its character in a particular country or situation; hence the importance of the scope of leadership, to which we shall return at length in Chapter 3. 6. In his study Leadership, Burns (1978) opposes revolutionary leadership, which he considers to be transforming (pp. 201 - 4 0 ) to party leadership, which he considers to be transactional (pp. 3 0 8 - 4 3 ) . 7. See Chapter 2 for a fuller discussion of Weber's ideal-types of leadership. 8. See above for a discussion of the two types of leadership that Burns opposes.
The role of political leadership past and present

Leadership is a recurrent topic of conversation a m o n g political o b s e r v e r s . I t i s t h e s u b j e c t o f c o u n t l e s s articles i n n e w s p a p e r s a n d magazines; biographies and autobiographies of past and even current leaders appear to fascinate the public. But it does not, apparently, raise great interest a m o n g political scientists. A survey of over 2,500 a r t i c l e s t h a t a p p e a r e d in t h e American Political Science Review b e t w e e n 1906 a n d 1 9 6 3 , c o n d u c t e d b y G . D . P a i g e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , s h o w e d t h a t t h e w o r d s ' l e a d e r ' a n d ' l e a d e r s h i p ' ' a p p e a r e d i n t h e titles o n l y s e v e n t e e n t i m e s ' ( p . 11). T h e r e h a s b e e n s o m e c h a n g e i n r e c e n t y e a r s , triggered a m o n g o t h e r s b y G . D . P a i g e himself, b u t leadership r e m a i n s a Cinderella in political science. We k n o w the b a c k g r o u n d a n d views of electorates indeed, of segments of electorates. We have n o w amassed this i n f o r m a t i o n over time; we can thus analyse changes in a t t i t u d e s a n d v o t i n g p a t t e r n s i n g r e a t d e t a i l , a n d for m a n y c o u n t r i e s . But we do not k n o w , in any systematic m a n n e r , w h o leaders are, w h e r e t h e y c o m e f r o m o r w h a t t h e y feel a b o u t a v a r i e t y o f p r o b l e m s ; n o r , i n d e e d , d o political scientists seem t o w a n t t o k n o w these characteristics: they do not a p p e a r to be m a r k e d l y concerned with a rigorous examination of leaders' achievements. T h i s is c l e a r l y a s t r a n g e s t a t e of a f f a i r s , so s t r a n g e t h a t it d e s e r v e s e x a m i n a t i o n i n its o w n r i g h t . W h y i s i t t h a t , w h i l e l e a d e r s s e e m s o p o w e r f u l , o r a t least s o p e r v a s i v e , p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s h a v e n e i t h e r collected i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e m on a b r o a d front n o r decided to engage in theorizing a b o u t the subject? Is this a new development, resulting from a particular a p p r o a c h characterizing m o d e r n political s c i e n c e , o r h a s i t a l w a y s b e e n t h e c a s e ? T o b e s u r e , a t least o n e f a m o u s classical p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t , M a c h i a v e l l i , w a s f a s c i n a t e d b y l e a d e r s h i p : but was he alone, or almost alone? On the surface, if one judges by the titles o f t h e g r e a t w o r k s o f t h e ' c l a s s i c s ' , l e a d e r s h i p d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n t h e m a i n f o c u s of s t u d y . The Republic, The Politics, The Leviathan, The Treatise on Civil Government, The Spirit of Laws, The Social Contract t h e s e a r e t h e key w o r d s : o n l y Leviathan c o m e s close to referring to leadership, a l t h o u g h , of c o u r s e , the b o o k is not a b o u t l e a d e r s , o r a t least n o t p r i m a r i l y a b o u t t h e m . To a very large extent, the problem has to do with the changing role o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p . T h e classical t h e o r i s t s w e r e u n e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t l e a d e r s h i p o n t h e w h o l e b e c a u s e t h e y felt t h a t m o s t r u l e r s a c t e d i m p r o p e r l y a n d e n c r o a c h e d unduly on the affairs of citizens, t h o u g h it t e n d e d to be recognized that leaders were often essential at t h e
The role of political leadership
37
m o m e n t o f t h e s e t t i n g - u p o f a p o l i t y . G r a d u a l l y , h o w e v e r , t h i s view began to c h a n g e . On the o n e h a n d , it b e c a m e increasingly realized that l e a d e r s m i g h t h a v e a c r u c i a l p a r t t o p l a y w h e n a m a j o r crisis a f f e c t e d s o c i e t y : t h i s w a s i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e view o f M a x W e b e r , w h o s e contribution was, as a result, both considerable a n d somewhat limited. But it also b e c a m e m o r e widely recognized t h a t leaders were e s s e n t i a l n o t m e r e l y d u r i n g c r i s e s , b u t a t all t i m e s , i n o r d e r t o h e l p ' d e v e l o p m e n t ' a n d to preside over t h e progress of society, especially in the second half of t h e twentieth c e n t u r y , w h e n the activities of t h e s t a t e m a r k e d l y i n c r e a s e d a n d i n d e e d d o m i n a t e d social a n d e c o n o m i c life i n m a n y c o u n t r i e s . T h u s p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e m a y h a v e i n h e r i t e d a tradition of a limited role devoted to leadership, b u t , following the d e v e l o p m e n t s of the c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d , this t r a d i t i o n is being gradually superseded by a m o r e positive a p p r o a c h .
The traditionally limited scope given to leadership in political science

S o f a r , t h e r e h a v e b e e n r e l a t i v e l y few s t u d i e s o f l e a d e r s h i p i n p o l i t i c a l science. T h e only aspect on which there is a large literature is the institutional study of n a t i o n a l executives, a n d in p a r t i c u l a r of chief e x e c u t i v e s . S t u d i e s o f t h e U S p r e s i d e n c y , o f t h e British c a b i n e t a n d , t o a lesser e x t e n t , o f s i m i l a r o r g a n s i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s a r e n u m e r o u s . Yet t h e s e s t u d i e s h a v e t w o t y p e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s : t h e y a r e n o r m a l l y c o u n t r y - s p e c i f i c o r , a t m o s t , c o m p a r e t w o o r a few c o u n t r i e s ; a n d a t least t h e t r a d i t i o n a l w o r k s i n t h e field f o c u s o n l y t o a l i m i t e d e x t e n t o n leaders and leadership as such, instead emphasizing the characteristics surrounding l e a d e r s h i p . T h e r e i s m u c h d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t p o w e r s , including limitations on these powers, and a b o u t relationships between the president, the prime minister a n d bodies such as legislatures or bureaucracies. But the aim is not to relate these institutions to the general p h e n o m e n o n of leadership: it is to describe and at most c o m p a r e these institutions. T h e emphasis was originally legalistic o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l : t h e a d v a n c e c o n s i s t s o n l y i n c o n s i d e r i n g m o r e 'behaviourally' how the institutions work in practice.
1
L e a d e r s h i p h a s also b e e n i n d i r e c t l y o r o b l i q u e l y s t u d i e d i n s o m e other ways, a n d principally in three. T w o of these a p p r o a c h e s derive f r o m s o c i o l o g y . F i r s t , elite s t u d i e s h a v e h a d a b e a r i n g o n l e a d e r s h i p , the characteristics of which have consequently c o m e to be better k n o w n , a l t h o u g h t h e field i s still r e l a t i v e l y u n d e r d e v e l o p e d . S i n c e l e a d e r s ( a n d p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s ) b e l o n g t o elite g r o u p s , t h e s t u d y o f t h e b a c k g r o u n d , c a r e e r s a n d views o f m e m b e r s o f s u c h g r o u p s a n d e s p e c i a l l y o f p o l i t i c a l elites, h a s h e l p e d t o c i r c u m s c r i b e t h e m i l i e u from which leaders of various countries tend to be d r a w n . But t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e still n o t sufficiently g e n e r a l t o p r o v i d e a c l e a r p i c t u r e :
2
38
w e d o n o t k n o w , for i n s t a n c e , t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f p a r l i a m e n t s a c r o s s the world in a systematic m a n n e r . In any case, the focus is on p e r i p h e r a l a s p e c t s o f l e a d e r s h i p , n o t o n t h e p h e n o m e n o n itself. T h e s t u d i e s m a y p o i n t t o s o m e (likely) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s s t e m m i n g from their origins; they do n o t help us to u n d e r s t a n d the activities of leaders, the m o v e s t h a t they m a k e or the results t h a t they achieve. Sociology has contributed to the development of leadership studies in a n o t h e r way: it has helped to raise general questions a b o u t the n a t u r e of relationships at the t o p . O n e such question admittedly, only indirectly related to leadership is that of the 'inevitable' character of oligarchical structures within political parties. T h e late nineteenth- a n d early twentieth-century studies of O s t r o g o r s k i , M o s c a a n d Michels h a d an echo in m o r e recent analyses of decisionm a k i n g within political parties, in particular in that of R . T . McKenzie (1955) on British Political Parties. B u t t h e m a i n c o n t r i b u t i o n of sociology to the analysis of leadership has been that of M a x W e b e r , whose typology of authority and concept of charisma have been found to be particularly valuable for the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of leadership a n d i n d e e d o f p o l i t i c a l life i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d . ( T h e specific~ c o n t r i b u t i o n of the analysis of c h a r i s m a is e x a m i n e d later in this c h a p t e r . ) S o m e p o l i t i c a l scientists h a v e b e e n n o t a b l y i n f l u e n c e d b y a n o t h e r discipline: psychology. O n e t h u s finds a n u m b e r of biographies probing into the b a c k g r o u n d a n d youth of leaders in o r d e r t o a c c o u n t for w h y t h e y s u c c e e d e d o r failed i n t h e i r a c t i o n s once they achieved national office. T h e b e s t - k n o w n a n d p r o b a b l y m o s t s u c c e s s f u l w o r k i n t h i s vein i s t h e s t u d y o f A . L . a n d J . L . G e o r g e on W o o d r o w Wilson, published in 1956. But the psychological approach had been pioneered before the second world war by H . D . L a s s w e l l , w h o s e Psychopathology and Politics w a s t r i g g e r e d by t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m o d e r n d i c t a t o r s h i p s ( L a s s w e l l , 1960). Y e t , w h i l e t h e field s e e m e d p r o m i s i n g w h e n L a s s w e l l o p e n e d i t u p , a n d w h i l e t h e w o r k of t h e G e o r g e s was hailed as a m o d e l a n d a p a t h b r e a k e r , followers h a v e been few. Only a small n u m b e r have a t t e m p t e d to relate p s y c h o l o g y to politics in the leadership a r e a despite the plea m a d e b y F . I . G r e e n s t e i n (1969). J . D . B a r b e r i s p r o b a b l y t h e o n l y p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t w h o c a n b e said t o h a v e a t t e m p t e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t o h a v e a v i e w of t h e Presidential Character ( B a r b e r , 1977). H o w e v e r promising the approach may have seemed to be, the achievements continue to be modest and the b a n d w a g o n never arrived. T h u s , t h e field o f l e a d e r s h i p h a s b e e n little s t u d i e d ; s i n c e t h e 1970s, however, a c h a n g e seems to have taken place a n d interest in leadership has begun to g r o w . Perhaps the greater realism in institutional a n a l y s i s , a s s h o w n f o r i n s t a n c e b y R . N e u s t a d t ' s (1960) s t u d y o f t h e US presidency, contributed to a growing emphasis on leadership as
39
s u c h . A l t h o u g h N e u s t a d t f o u n d i t difficult t o g o b e y o n d r a t h e r general remarks on the characteristics of presidential leadership, J. M c G r e g o r B u r n s f o c u s e d m o r e specifically o n t h e t o p i c s o m e y e a r s later n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , s i n c e h e w a s t o b e o n e o f t h o s e w h o , i n t h e 1970s a n d e a r l y 1980s, p u b l i s h e d t h e m o s t s u b s t a n t i a l w o r k s s o far o n t h e s u b j e c t ( B u r n s 1973). T h e g e n e r a l s t u d i e s o f G . D . P a i g e ( 1 9 7 2 , 1977), t h e e s s a y o f R . C . T u c k e r (1981) a n d t h e e f f o r t s a t s y s t e m a t i c analysis of B. Kellerman (1984a) are p e r h a p s the m o s t i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e s o f t h e n e w i n t e r e s t i n t h e field. T h e y m a r k a c o n s c i o u s d e s i r e to look at leadership in a systematic m a n n e r , at a t i m e when m o r e n u m e r o u s s t u d i e s o n c h a r i s m a a r e fuelled b y t h e d e s i r e t o g r a s p b e t t e r t h e n a t u r e o f p o l i t i c a l life i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d . A detour: the study of leadership outside political science D e s p i t e t h i s r e c e n t a n d still r a t h e r l i m i t e d u p s u r g e , t h e s t u d y o f leadership is a m i n o r i t y p a s t i m e a m o n g political scientists; indeed, as we saw, m u c h of the development seems to have been triggered by the impact of other disciplines, notably sociology a n d psychology. Curiously, p e r h a p s , the influence of history has been relatively small, d e s p i t e t h e fact t h a t p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s c o n t i n u o u s l y r a i d h i s t o r y s i n c e they often have no other sources to d r a w their information from. But the p h e n o m e n o n of leadership has played a rather peculiar part in h i s t o r i c a l s t u d i e s . A t o n e level, h i s t o r y i s o r r a t h e r , t r a d i t i o n a l l y , w a s t h e s t u d y o f g r e a t m e n ; a s B . M a z l i c h ( 1 9 8 4 : 2 ) p u t s it, 'Traditionally history . . . frequently " e x p l a i n e d " a whole period or a m a j o r event in terms of s o m e leading personality.' But this type of approach has in part been a b a n d o n e d , and individual achievements have come to be gradually underplayed. More importantly, perhaps, the historians w h o concentrated on leaders have not on the whole been concerned systematically with leadership as a p h e n o m e n o n . Great figures h a v e b e e n s t u d i e d i n d i v i d u a l l y ; t h e y h a v e b e e n s e e n a s representing m o m e n t s in history a n d therefore as r o o t e d in a particular situation. As Mazlich notes, 'Leadership in Tsarist Russia c u m Soviet U n i o n is obviously different from leadership in a representative d e m o c r a c y such as A m e r i c a ' (1984: 3). S o m e historians have attempted to generalize, admittedly, but those w h o have d o n e so have been attracted by the study of social m o v e m e n t s , leaving the study of individual leaders, either great or n o t so great, to the large m a s s of b i o g r a p h e r s w h o , on the c o n t r a r y , by v i r t u e o f t h e i r o w n i n c l i n a t i o n s , w e r e likely t o f o c u s o n t h e specific characteristics of the men and w o m e n w h o m they studied. T h u s , in the m a i n , h i s t o r y p r o v i d e d a legacy o f a l a r g e a m o u n t o f d e s c r i p t i v e material on masses of leaders and t o p politicians, but of material so g e a r e d to t h e u n i q u e n e s s of t h o s e c a s e s t h a t it is difficult to u s e it as a
40
b a s i s for a s t u d y of l e a d e r s h i p as s u c h . While history provided the material, but not the conceptual f r a m e w o r k , for t h e s t u d y o f l e a d e r s h i p , t h e c o n v e r s e h a s b e e n t r u e o f s o c i o l o g y . B u t t h e s e c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k s h a v e t e n d e d t o give a limited place to leadership. It is with Weber and P a r e t o that the concept occupies a central position. M o s t other sociologists, Marxist a n d non-Marxist alike, h a v e given greater emphasis to structures. Moreover, as P a r e t o ' s analysis r e m a i n e d very abstract a n d W e b e r ' s classification t o o general to result in a precise categorization of types of leadership in various kinds of societies, the overall part played by sociology has been m u c h greater in developing structural analyses t h a n in helping to analyse the role of leadership. A discipline t h a t h a d p r o v i d e d political science with an a p p r o a c h , a c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k a n d even a t y p o l o g y s e e m e d m o r e r e c e n t l y t o t u r n its b a c k o n t h e subject, as the survey of developments on leadership in the International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences i n d i c a t e s (Sills, 1968). T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f social a n t h r o p o l o g y h a s p e r h a p s b e e n s o m e w h a t larger in recent years: the detailed descriptions of forms a n d p o w e r s o f l e a d e r s i n A f r i c a a n d A m e r i c a give a c o m p l e x p i c t u r e i n which leadership variations in primitive societies a r e substantial from one ethnic g r o u p to another. Anthropological studies h a v e also p r o v i d e d a basis for a d y n a m i c study of leadership o u t of which e m e r g e d g e n e r a l m o d e l s o f t h e likely r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t y p e o f leadership and type of society.
1
Y e t i t i s i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l field t h a t t h e s t u d y o f l e a d e r s h i p h a s been conducted with the greatest rigour a n d determination, although even there progress h a s been limited, largely because p r o b l e m s of classification h a v e n o t been o v e r c o m e . A d m i t t e d l y , as the brilliant s u r v e y o f t h e field u n d e r t a k e n b y C . A . G i b b i n t h e International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences s h o w s (Sills, 1968: 9 1 - 1 0 1 ) , p s y c h o l o g i s t s h a v e u n d e r t a k e n m a n y e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s . A s w e shall see in C h a p t e r 5, t h e w o r k s of G i b b himself, a n d also of F . E . Fiedler, C P . H o l l a n d e r , R . M . Stogdill, B . M . Bass a n d M . G . H e r m a n n , h a v e helped our understanding of some of the key problems of leadership, a n d in particular the relationship between leaders a n d their e n v i r o n m e n t ; t h e y h a v e also b e g u n t o p r o v i d e s o m e e l e m e n t s o f m e a s u r e m e n t of types of leadership. T h e r e i s still n e e d f o r f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s i n t h e field, l a r g e l y b e c a u s e distinctions tend to be m a d e a m o n g two or three types of leadership only. M o r e o v e r , psychological studies c o n c e n t r a t e on leadership in small groups not unnaturally perhaps, partly because e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n is practicable only in this t y p e of context, a n d partly i n view o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s o f p s y c h o l o g y . C o n s e q u e n t l y ,
41
t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e n o t a l w a y s v e r y h e l p f u l for t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e b i g , longstanding and also non-associational groups which are most p r o m i n e n t i n p o l i t i c a l life. T h e r e e v e n a p p e a r s t o b e s o m e w a r i n e s s a b o u t f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s , a s G i b b i n d i c a t e s i n his s u r v e y w h e n h e w o n d e r s ' w h e t h e r a m o r e c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r o l e will n o t supersede particular concern with leadership', despite the continuous flow o f p u b l i c a t i o n s o n t h e s u b j e c t (in Sills, 1968: 9 4 ) . W h a t e v e r its l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e s t r o n g o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d s s t u d i e s o f leadership in psychology is in sharp contrast with the m o r e recent neglect of the subject in sociology a n d the lack of conceptualization of the p r o b l e m s p o s e d by leadership in history; it is in even sharper contrast with the traditional 'peripherality' of the concept in political science. Political scientists even seem to display c o m p l e t e despair, as is indicated by the r e m a r k m a d e by R . A . D a h l in an article on ' P o w e r ' p u b l i s h e d in W i l d a v s k y ' s w o r k , The Presidency: ' [ P o l i t i c a l skill] is generally t h o u g h t to be of critical i m p o r t a n c e in explaining differences in the p o w e r of different leaders... H o w e v e r , despite m a n y a t t e m p t s at analysis, from Machiavelli to the present d a y , political skill h a s r e m a i n e d a m o n g t h e m o r e e l u s i v e a s p e c t s o f p o w e r ' ( W i l d a v s k y , 1969: 157) n o t a v e r y p r o m i s i n g n o t e , g i v e n t h a t , despite the efforts of m a n y a n d of R . A . D a h l in particular, the c o n c e p t o f p o w e r h a s r e m a i n e d elusive a n d its o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n impossible. Is it the case, however, that the attempts at analysis have been ' m a n y ' a m o n g political scientists, whether before Machiavelli or after h i m ? The relatively limited interest in and the unease about leadership in classical political theory T h e p a r t played by leadership in classical political t h e o r y is peculiar a n d p a r a d o x i c a l . O f c o u r s e , all p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s m e n t i o n l e a d e r s , give m a n y examples of rulers in history, a n d analyse t h e w a y in which this rule h a s t a k e n place in a variety of societies, in order to build a b a s i s for t h e b l u e p r i n t t h e y w i s h t o p r o p o s e . B u t l e a d e r s h i p i s r a r e l y c e n t r a l t o t h e w o r k ; i n d e e d , i t s e e m s a s i f i t i s n e v e r itself t h e o b j e c t o f s t u d y , e x c e p t for M a c h i a v e l l i t h o u g h e v e n h e , p a r t i c u l a r l y in The Prince b u t a l s o in T h e Discourses, c o n d u c t e d his a n a l y s i s at t h e n o r m a t i v e level o f w h a t a l e a d e r s h o u l d t r y t o a c h i e v e r a t h e r t h a n a t t h e a n a l y t i c a l a n d e m p i r i c a l levels o f t h e p a r t p l a y e d b y l e a d e r s i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f society. M e a n w h i l e , for P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e , H o b b e s , L o c k e , M o n t e s q u i e u a n d R o u s s e a u , for i n s t a n c e , t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n i s t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e g o o d s o c i e t y ( o r a t least, for a p e s s i m i s t s u c h a s H o b b e s , o f t h e ' l e a s t b a d ' society). T h e examination of t h e defects, injustices a n d sheer failures of past a n d present societies is obviously o n e of t h e t w o
42
reference points, the other being the presentation of the characteristics t h a t the ideal society s h o u l d h a v e , if necessary t h r o u g h a n d indeed, in most cases, on t h e basis of an e x a m i n a t i o n of h u m a n n a t u r e , o f its l i m i t a t i o n s , a n d its a u t o m a t i c p r o p e n s i t i e s w h e n i t i s n o t g u i d e d b y r e a s o n o r p r i n c i p l e . I n o r d e r t o r e d r e s s ills, ' u p l i f t c u r t a i n s ' or bring a b o u t at least s o m e f o r m of order, t h e solution p r o p o s e d c o n s i s t s i n e l a b o r a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l m e c h a n i s m s w h i c h will e n s u r e societal i m p r o v e m e n t . T h e a i m is practical: the m e a n s a r e the structures. In this context, leadership as such plays a limited p a r t ; a n d , even if the part is occasionally expected to be large, attempts are not m a d e t o classify t y p e s o f i n f l u e n c e a n d t y p e s o f l e a d e r s a p p r o p r i a t e t o various conditions. Leaders and leadership are discussed in three main ways. First, past leaders are referred t o , but usually in a negative m a n n e r . Often, in o r d e r t o b u i l d a c a s e for n e w i n s t i t u t i o n s , classical p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s s t r e s s t h e p o t e n t i a l for d e s p o t i s m u n l e s s c o r r e c t i v e m e c h a n i s m s a r e i n t r o d u c e d . S e c o n d , o n e t y p e o f l e a d e r i s e x a l t e d : t h i s i s t h e wise m a n , the just, w h o rescues t h e c o u n t r y by giving it the g u i d a n c e c o n s t i t u t i o n , l a w s t h r o u g h w h i c h a g o o d s o c i e t y will e m e r g e . S u c h a l e a d e r i s a l s o t e m p o r a r y , r e t u r n i n g t o t h e p r i v a c y o f o r d i n a r y life o n c e h e h a s a c c o m p l i s h e d t h e t a s k h e set for h i m s e l f a n d w h i c h s o c i e t y n e e d e d . T h e a r c h e t y p e of this kind of leader is R o u s s e a u ' s 'Legislator', w h o plays a crucial part in the process by which the polity c o m e s t o see w h e r e i t s h o u l d b e g o i n g . H e h a s a v i s i o n o f w h a t s o c i e t y needs indeed, a better vision t h a n the other m e m b e r s of t h e polity: such was Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of A t h e n s . So also were the leaders w h o , as the 'dictators' of ancient R o m e , took power t e m p o r a r i l y t o s o l v e a m a j o r crisis. B u t t h e c l a s s i c a l t h e o r i s t s like t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t such m e n , their task a c c o m p l i s h e d , leave the g o v e r n m e n t . T h e best leaders p e r h a p s the only g o o d ones are t h u s t h o s e w h o view t h e i r t a s k a s t h a t o f a m o m e n t , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s a m a j o r m o m e n t , in their c o u n t r y ' s history. T h i r d , with respect to the future, the classical theorists discuss rules rather t h a n rulers a n d leadership. Typically, they wish to reorganize political institutions. Of course, leaders are expected to play a part in t h i s c o n t e x t , b u t r e m a r k a b l y little i s s a i d a b o u t h o w t h e y s h o u l d behave in o r d e r to affect the development of t h e polity, Machiavelli being the o u t s t a n d i n g exception. By a n d large, discussions are of p o w e r s , n o t of t h e t y p e of rule to be exercised. T h e w o r k s of Locke a n d M o n t e s q u i e u a r e specifically d e d i c a t e d t o t h i s p u r p o s e . R o u s s e a u displays m o r e interest in the behavioural aspects of leadership, but only in a context that he does not support: t h a t of the large nations w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o h i m , fall i n e v i t a b l y u n d e r m o n a r c h i c a l r u l e (Social Contract, B o o k 3 , C h . 1). P e r h a p s for t h i s r e a s o n , h e d o e s n o t
43
discuss various types of leadership a m o n g the m o n a r c h s of these larger n a t i o n s , merely pointing to the u n f o r t u n a t e consequences in terms of large bureaucracies. N o r does H o b b e s develop any model of t y p e s o f l e a d e r s h i p s u r p r i s i n g l y , p e r h a p s , since h i s i d e a l ( o r least bad) blueprint is monarchical rule. Given that the m o n a r c h should rule, he offers only s o m e advice in ways n o t altogether different from those of Machiavelli to suggest t h a t rulers s h o u l d n o t land themselves in situations in which the citizens m i g h t be d r a w n into rebellion, w h e n p u s h e d to this extremity by the sheer necessity of p r e s e r v i n g t h e i r life {Leviathan, P a r t 11, C h s 2 1 , 3 0 ) . A t first s i g h t , a d m i t t e d l y , P l a t o s e e m s t o h a v e a m o r e e l a b o r a t e n o t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p , a t least i n a s m u c h a s h e really believes t h a t a n y real-world society can be ruled by philosopher-kings. Yet even he does not expound a theory or present a model of types of ' g o o d ' leaders. He stresses t h e n e e d for e d u c a t i o n i n d e e d , a l e n g t h y e d u c a t i o n for potential or w o u l d - b e leaders. But he does not state h o w philosopherk i n g s will b e h a v e , e x c e p t t h a t t h e y will b e p e r f e c t b e c a u s e t h e y will f o l l o w j u s t i c e ; a n d he views l e a d e r s h i p as a p o s i t i o n or a s t a t e in w h i c h , a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n e d u c a t e d t o see t h e l i g h t , r u l e r s will b e a b l e t o d e c i d e , t o a f f i r m , w i t h o u t a n y fear o f s e n s i b l e c o n t r a d i c t i o n r a t h e r l i k e t h e P o p e w h e n h e d e c l a r e s d o g m a s w h a t lines o f c o n d u c t citizens s h o u l d follow. P r e s u m a b l y t h e citizens, h a v i n g also been e d u c a t e d d u r i n g t h e s a m e p e r i o d a n d w i t h t h e s a m e g u i d e l i n e s , will f o l l o w t h e p r e c e p t s (Republic, e s p . B o o k 5 on J u s t i c e ) . T h u s , t h e b u l k o f t h e b e s t - k n o w n classical p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s d o n o t have a m o d e l of leadership; at best, leaders are advised to show ' w i s d o m ' in t h e i r a c t i o n s . M a c h i a v e l l i a l o n e , in b o t h The Prince a n d The Discourses, d e v o t e d t h e c o r e o f h i s a n a l y s i s t o t h e s t u d y o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h r u l e r s s h o u l d b e h a v e . Y e t , p r e c i s e l y for t h e r e a s o n t h a t l e a d e r s a n d l e a d e r s h i p a r e t h e s u b j e c t o f his w o r k , t h e a n a l y s i s i s c o n d u c t e d a t a level t h a t p r e c l u d e s a n y e x a m i n a t i o n o f w h a t l e a d e r s are fundamentally about, that is to say, of the relationship between l e a d e r s a n d s o c i e t y . I t i s a s if, b y g o i n g t o t h e o p p o s i t e e x t r e m e , Machiavelli could n o t ask w h a t leaders are for. T h e analysis is d e v o t e d to the elaboration of technical and tactical moves designed to ensure t h e s u c c e s s o f r u l e r s a n d , i n t h e first i n s t a n c e , t h e i r m a i n t e n a n c e i n office. Leaders are not really viewed as c o n t r i b u t i n g to the d e v e l o p m e n t o f society i n a p a r t i c u l a r w a y . T h e o b j e c t o f t h e s t u d y i s almost the converse: namely, an analysis of the contribution of society to leaders. The environment is to be shaped by leaders, and Machiavelli suggests h o w this s h o u l d be d o n e . N o t t h a t rulers are v i e w e d a s a b l e t o f a s h i o n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a t will: t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h they c a n c h a n g e different e n v i r o n m e n t s does n o t interest Machiavelli as a general topic of enquiry. T h e question that is asked concerns the
44
survival, or increased power, for a given leader w h o h a p p e n s to be in o f f i c e . T o all i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s , M a c h i a v e l l i acts a s a n a d v i s e r o f l e a d e r s , n o t a s a d e t a c h e d o b s e r v e r o f society. P e r h a p s h i s justification is t h a t , at the t i m e , t h e o n l y sensible course was to try to a c h i e v e t h e best p o s s i b l e r e s u l t s w i t h t h e l e a d e r s w h o e x i s t e d : b u t t h i s is not conducive to a general analysis of leadership, as we are not guided towards an understanding of what leadership truly is a n d of t h e forms a n d types of leadership t h a t a r e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e to a given task. W h y did political theorists, with the possible exception of M a c h i a v e l l i , h a v e s u c h a l i m i t e d c o n c e r n f o r a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of political leadership as a topic of e n q u i r y , and why did their presentation of 'ideal' leadership, as in Plato or Hobbes, remain so simplified, so ' u t o p i a n ' , p e r h a p s ? If they h a d been truly c o n c e r n e d , t h e y w o u l d h a v e a t t e m p t e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t o assess h o w , w h e n a n d u n d e r w h a t c o n d i t i o n s l e a d e r s a r e likely t o b e ' g o o d ' o r ' b a d ' ; t h e y would have developed a model of right a n d wrong leadership, based on a t h o r o u g h examination of the past, and such an examination would have no d o u b t resulted in the discovery of degrees and variations. This discovery did not occur; it did not occur because the classical t h e o r i s t s c a m e t o t h e s u b j e c t w i t h a d i f f e r e n t f r a m e o f m i n d . T h e o v e r r i d i n g f a c t o r i s t h e p e s s i m i s t i c view t h a t , w i t h o u t s a f e g u a r d s , l e a d e r s w o u l d b e little c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e g o o d o f m a n k i n d : tyrants w o u l d proliferate, as the history of m a n k i n d seems t o s h o w . T h i s p e s s i m i s m w a s r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e fact t h a t m a n y o f t h e theorists h a d unsuccessfully tried to influence leaders. Machiavelli's p o l i t i c a l a m b i t i o n s w e r e f r u s t r a t e d ; his p e r s o n a l l i b e r t y c a m e t o b e a t s t a k e . P l a t o felt b e t r a y e d b y t h e r u l e r o f S y r a c u s e i n w h o m h e h a d p l a c e d h i g h h o p e s . R o u s s e a u ' s w o r k , t o o , r e f l e c t s t h e fact t h a t h i s d r e a m s h a d p r o v e d u n r e a l i s t i c , b o t h i n F r a n c e a n d i n his n a t i v e Geneva. This frustration was p e r h a p s best s u m m a r i z e d by Voltaire's bitter complaint against the King of Prussia w h o , having pressed the ' j u i c e ' , felt n o w o r r i e s a t d r o p p i n g t h e ' o r a n g e ' . T h e r e has t h e r e f o r e been recurrent u n e a s e , a m o n g political theorists, a b o u t leaders: this unease has extended to leadership. Hence the desire to reduce the powers and the zones of influence of leaders, which only H o b b e s does not share, because of his universal pessimism a b o u t h u m a n n a t u r e : f o r h i m , t h e b e s t p o l i c y i s t o rely o n t h e g o o d sense of l e a d e r s a n d on their fear of G o d to o b t a i n a r e s u l t t h a t i s less u n s a t i s f a c t o r y t h a n m i g h t o t h e r w i s e h a v e b e e n . H e n c e t h e e m p h a s i s o n r e l i g i o n i n t h e Leviathan, i n w h i c h i t p l a y s a p a r t n o t unlike that of e d u c a t i o n in Plato, creating within the leader himself the limitations to his or her innate malevolence or incompetence (Leviathan, P a r t 2 , C h . 3 1 ) . O t h e r classical t h e o r i s t s rely o n m o r e
45
m u n d a n e c o n s t r a i n t s , g e n e r a l l y p r o v i d e d b y sets o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , p r o c e d u r e s a n d a r r a n g e m e n t s t h a t will s i m p l y m a k e i t i m p o s s i b l e (at least i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e t h e o r i s t s ) for r u l e r s t o o v e r s t e p t h e boundaries of the reasonable. This is the message of Locke, of M o n t e s q u i e u a n d o f R o u s s e a u ( t h o u g h e d u c a t i o n a l s o p l a y s a p a r t for h i m ) , a s i t h a d b e e n t h a t o f A r i s t o t l e . A n d M a c h i a v e l l i himself, t h e m o s t p e s s i m i s t i c o f all p e r h a p s , sees t h e a d v i c e h e gives t o r u l e r s i n t e r m s of their o w n self-interest as also inducing these rulers to act a little b e t t e r v i s - a - v i s t h e i r s u b j e c t s . F o r t h e classical t h e o r i s t s , therefore, the o n e m a i n question to be solved is the discovery of a realistic m e a n s o f l i m i t i n g t h e s c o p e o f r u l e r s ' a c t i o n s ; i t i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o e x a m i n e t h e p o t e n t i a l r o l e a n d effects o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f l e a d e r s h i p . O n e c a n n o t rely o n v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o solve the p r o b l e m , a n y m o r e t h a n it w o u l d seem r e a s o n a b l e to explore whether various m a n i a c s would be better suited to drive a m o t o r car or pilot an a e r o p l a n e . T h u s , logically p e r h a p s in this context, s o m e theorists went even f u r t h e r a n d e x p l o r e d a t least t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f o r g a n i z i n g p o l i t i c s w i t h o u t rulers. T h e s e theorists a r e few, a d m i t t e d l y , as the pessimism a n d 'realism' of m o s t political theorists extends to the whole of t h e citizens a n d i s n o t c o n f i n e d t o r u l e r s , e i t h e r b e c a u s e m e n ' s lives a r e felt t o b e i n n a t e l y ' n a s t y , b r u t i s h , a n d s h o r t ' o r b e c a u s e , a s i n R o u s s e a u ' s c a s e , o n l y v e r y s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s w o u l d ever b e a b l e t o a p p r o x i m a t e t h e i d e a l s i t u a t i o n o f a w o r l d o f a n g e l s i n w h i c h all c o u l d g o v e r n . T h u s , t h e U t o p i a o f a w h o l l y d e m o c r a t i c , t o t a l l y selfg o v e r n i n g , p o l i t y h a s b e e n d i s m i s s e d b y n e a r l y all p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s a s being, indeed, a Utopia, with M a r x perhaps the only o n e of the ' g r e a t s ' to h a v e c o m e to believe t h a t , if there were ' p l e n t y ' , g o v e r n m e n t could wither away. T h e U t o p i a of a polity without leaders a n d g o v e r n m e n t i s o n e t h a t r e m a i n s e m b e d d e d i n t h e feelings o f m a n y . ' I f o n l y i t w e r e p o s s i b l e ' i s a view t h a t m a n y classical p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s s h a r e d . T h u s , far f r o m b e i n g a c a t e g o r y o f m e n w h o m t h e y w i s h e d t o s t u d y o r i m p r o v e , far f r o m b e i n g a g r o u p t h a t t h e y felt w a s e s s e n t i a l t o m a n k i n d ' s d e v e l o p m e n t , l e a d e r s w e r e v i e w e d b y classical p o l i t i c a l theorists as the object of a policy of ' c o n t a i n m e n t ' a n d , ideally, of 'rolling b a c k ' . T h e unease about leaders is thus truly at the centre of classical p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y ; i t h a d n a t u r a l l y c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e o n m o d e r n political science.
The legacy concerning the unease about leadership in contemporary political science T h e effect o f t h e classical t h e o r i s t s ' a p p r o a c h t o l e a d e r s h i p w a s w i d e l y felt t h r o u g h o u t t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . I t i s m a n i f e s t i n t h e p r e v a i l i n g idea that a 'government of laws, n o t of m e n ' would be a g o v e r n m e n t
46
w h o s e m e m b e r s w o u l d h a v e less s c o p e t o i n f l u e n c e e v e n t s ; b u t , a s s u c h a result could be obtained only by 'vigilance', it seemed logical to e m b a r k on the study of institutions a n d procedures rather t h a n on the analysis of leaders. T h e events in A m e r i c a a n d France at the end of the eighteenth century seemed both to confirm the need and to show that t h e i d e a w a s , i n p a r t a t l e a s t , r e a l i s t i c i n p a r t o n l y , since t h e c o m i n g to power of N a p o l e o n d e m o n s t r a t e d that ruthless leaders were able to break the constraints that institutions attempted to introduce. But nineteenth-century developments further seemed to indicate that it was indeed possible to c o n t a i n leaders, by a patient effort a n d at t h e cost of m a n y setbacks. Political science therefore e m b a r k e d on a course in which the aim was to improve gradually the techniques by which limitations on rulers could be i n t r o d u c e d , with the help a n d t h r o u g h t h e device, especially, of constitutional law. Political institutions w o u l d be the bodies t h a t w o u l d realize these restraints, a n d the precise d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the p o w e r s of these bodies would be the m e c h a n i s m by which a tight grip would be kept on the Leviathan in general and on rulers in particular. This tradition has lingered to the present day a n d has spread, of c o u r s e , b e y o n d political science t o the b r o a d e r p u b l i c . T h e e m e r g e n c e of other political institutions beyond a n d a r o u n d the constitutional arena political parties in particular, a n d , to the extent that they engage in politics, interest g r o u p s , especially v o l u n t a r y g r o u p s created s o m e p r o b l e m s for a while for t h o s e w h o held rigidly to a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a p p r o a c h , b u t a b r o a d e r view o f t h e p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m came to prevail. T h e result was that these 'informal' bodies came to be incorporated into a less narrowly constitutional, but yet f u n d a m e n t a l l y i n s t i t u t i o n a l , m o d e l o f p o l i t i c a l life. T h i s m o d e l , t o o , m a d e it possible for leaders to be limited, even controlled, a n d at any rate s o m e w h a t a c c o u n t a b l e to the b r o a d e r public. A l t h o u g h political s c i e n c e w e n t t h r o u g h a b e h a v i o u r a l p h a s e i n t h e 1960s, a n d a l t h o u g h , as a result, t h e activities of political a c t o r s , including t h e p e o p l e , c a m e to be m o r e closely m o n i t o r e d and were held to be essential to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of politics, institutions have r e m a i n e d the stage on w h i c h , o r t h e f r a m e w o r k w i t h i n w h i c h , p o l i t i c a l life i s e x a m i n e d . Witness in particular t h e i m p o r t a n c e given to t h e institutionalization process in the analysis of developing countries. P a r t of the role of t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n s i s t s , i n t h e eyes o f p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , i n c o n s t r a i n i n g l e a d e r s a n d e n s u r i n g t h a t , c o n s e q u e n t l y , social life i s m o r e civilized a n d less a r b i t r a r y . T h e unease a b o u t leadership thus continued to prevail within political science; it was indeed reinforced periodically, in the course of the twentieth century, by the occurrence of events that seemed to prove, b e y o n d a n y s h a d o w of doubt, that despotism and tyranny were
47
always a r o u n d the corner and could be avoided or limited only by continued vigilance. No sooner h a d the democracies w o n their victory i n 1918 t h a n n e w f o r m s o f d i c t a t o r s h i p , b a s e d o n a r e p r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l r u l e , c a m e t o b e i n s t a l l e d . B y t h e l a t e 1930s i t s e e m e d t h a t t h e p r o g r e s s t h a t h a d s l o w l y b e e n m a d e i n t h e p r e v i o u s 150 y e a r s w a s c o m p l e t e l y wiped o u t , t h e single m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d m o s t o b v i o u s factor being the overwhelming power of leaders. M e a n w h i l e , in t h e course of the previous several decades, a n d i n d e e d since t h e e a r l y p a r t o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e g r o w t h o f t h e o t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n c e s h a d led t o a q u e s t i o n i n g o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a d e r s . B y g r a d u a l s t e p s , e c o n o m i c s a n d s o c i o l o g y , f o l l o w i n g views that were fashionable a m o n g philosophers a n d in particular a m o n g p h i l o s o p h e r s of history, h a d b e g u n to stress the role of ' b r o a d forces' w h i c h s h a p e d t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o c i e t y i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e will o f leaders. At the macro-level, the history of the world had come to be e x p l a i n e d m o r e a n d m o r e i n t e r m s o f successive s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t ; a t a l o w e r level, t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n f a c t o r s o f p r o d u c t i o n h a d h e l p e d t o a c c o u n t for r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t leaders a n d their governments could not control and, indeed, were merely ' e m b o d y i n g ' . T h u s Hegel, R i c a r d o , C o m t e a n d later M a r x , a m o n g m a n y o t h e r s , h a d a t t e m p t e d t o divest political leaders o f their real decision-making capabilities a n d t u r n t h e m increasingly into m e r e m o u t h p i e c e s for t h e d e e p e r d e v e l o p m e n t s t h a t w e r e t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e social a n d e c o n o m i c fabric of t h e n a t i o n s of the w o r l d . W h a t e v e r ' r o m a n t i c ' views s o m e literary figures m a y h a v e h a d a b o u t the role of N a p o l e o n or other great ' h e r o e s ' , the 'scientific' analysis of society s e e m e d t o s u g g e s t a n d , i n d e e d , i n t h e eyes o f s o m e s e e m e d t o p r o v e t h a t in reality leaders scarcely m a t t e r e d a n d t h a t they were replaceable or interchangeable: they were symbols of historical trends, not the engines of history. Political science did receive s o m e echoes from these t h e m e s ; b u t t h e e c h o e s w e r e n o t all g i v i n g t h e s a m e m e s s a g e . A s w e s a w , t h e d e m i s e o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p f r o m its t r a d i t i o n a l p e d e s t a l w a s n o t u n i v e r s a l l y a d o p t e d in sociology: on the contrary, the general works of Weber a n d P a r e t o , a s well a s t h e m o r e s p e c i a l i z e d s t u d i e s o f M i c h e l s o r M o s c a , e m p h a s i z e d , directly or indirectly, the a p p a r e n t l y large role of elites a n d , w i t h i n t h e s e , o f r u l e r s i n b o t h t r a d i t i o n a l a n d m o d e r n societies, t h o u g h they stressed also t h a t the role of leaders was related to t h e n a t u r e of the society a n d therefore could be viewed as constrained, as m a n is within the atmosphere, by the particular 'air' t h a t different leaders breathed. A l t h o u g h t h e o r i e s r e d u c i n g t h e r o l e o f l e a d e r s t o little s i g n i f i c a n c e c o u l d b e v i e w e d a s fitting t h e ' u n e a s e ' t h a t t h e y felt a b o u t l e a d e r s b y enabling t h e m to discard rulers or minimize their significance,
48
political scientists, even the m o s t b e h a v i o u r a l c o n t e m p o r a r y political scientists, never a d o p t e d this a p p r o a c h . P e r h a p s this was in p a r t because the 'leaders-do-not-matter' thesis, which some Marxist a n d n o n - M a r x i s t sociologists h a d a d o p t e d , was extending b e y o n d leaders a n d relating to the whole political arena, thus threatening in a f u n d a m e n t a l sense t h e a u t o n o m y o f p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e . I t w a s essentially because m a n y sociologists considered that e c o n o m i c factors a n d their direct social consequences constituted t h e f r a m e w o r k a n d i n t r o d u c e d d y n a m i c s i n t o society t h a t t h e y 'demystified' the role of leaders: but they also 'demystified' the role of all o t h e r p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s a n d o f p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , w h i c h t h e y j u d g e d to be superficial elements, m e r e e p i p h e n o m e n a , which could n o t p r o v i d e ' r e a l ' e x p l a n a t i o n s . H a d p o l i t i c a l scientists a d o p t e d t h i s s t a n d p o i n t , they would have been negating the p r o f o u n d significance of their o w n discipline. But the resistance they offered to the 'leadersd o - n o t - m a t t e r ' view w a s n o t s o l e l y , o r e v e n p r i m a r i l y , d u e t o t h e n e e d to preserve t h e discipline or to a deep-seated t e n d e n c y to give a m a j o r role to political p h e n o m e n a . It was also, a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e c o n s e q u e n c e of the realistic e x a m i n a t i o n of the world a r o u n d t h e m ; it simply did n o t seem true to suggest t h a t leaders did n o t m a t t e r in a context d o m i n a t e d by the deeds of Stalin or Hitler or, indeed, by t h e actions of Roosevelt or Churchill. L e a d e r s did seem to c o u n t , even i f b r o a d s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t s a c c o u n t e d i n l a r g e p a r t for the emergence of these leaders. Po^t-^econd-world-war developments seemed to confirm, indeed generalize, this characteristic, as 'personalized' leaders emerged in almost every new state, while in some of the older ones, both communist and non-communist, the } p h e n o m e n o n of leadership was glaring. As a matter of fact, these developments were the continuation and t h e e x p a n s i o n o f a m o v e m e n t b y w h i c h l e a d e r s h i p h a d t r a n s f o r m e d its c h a r a c t e r , s l o w l y a t first, a n d g r a d u a l l y m o r e r a p i d l y , i n t h e c o u r s e o f the nineteenth a n d twentieth centuries. T w o p h e n o m e n a became i n c r e a s i n g l y a p p a r e n t . O n e w a s t h a t l e a d e r s h i p w a s , o r a t least c o u l d b e , a c e n t r a l e l e m e n t i n t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f s o c i e t i e s , a n d especially c o u l d p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s for t h e e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l u p l i f t i n g t h a t newly i n d e p e n d e n t states required; this m e a n t t h a t it was impossible not to look at leaders if o n e was concerned with development. T h e other p h e n o m e n o n was that of 'personalization' or of 'charismatic' leadership, which seemed to play such a p a r t in b o t h the i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d p o s t - i n d e p e n d e n c e periods. Political scientists h a d to b e c o m e concerned with b o t h these developments, which were indeed so i n t e r t w i n e d a s t o a p p e a r t o b e p a r t o f a single p r o b l e m . F o r t u n a t e l y , a t least t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r s h i p h a d b e e n a n a l y s e d b y Max Weber, a n d it is Weber to whom we therefore need to turn before
49
considering the extent to which, in the late twentieth century, l e a d e r s h i p h a s m a r k e d l y c h a n g e d its c h a r a c t e r a n d a c q u i r e d a n e w role.
Leaders and the crises of society: Weber's conception of charismatic authority and its limits
I f a n e x a m p l e w a s n e e d e d t o s h o w t h e s p r e a d o f a social s c i e n c e concept a m o n g wide segments of the population, n o n e could perhaps p r o v i d e b e t t e r e v i d e n c e t h a n c h a r i s m a . K n o w n a l m o s t exclusively t o r e l i g i o u s circles f o r n e a r l y t w o t h o u s a n d y e a r s b e c a u s e o f r e f e r e n c e s m a d e in Saint P a u l ' s writings, the word has c o m e to be ordinary currency a m o n g journalists, politicians and the public at large: it has indeed been a d o p t e d b e y o n d the confines of public affairs in b u s i n e s s o r t h e m e d i a , for i n s t a n c e t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t a d i c t i o n a r y states that it is 'often roughly equated with "sex a p p e a l " a n d " g l a m o u r " '.
4
T h e o r i g i n o f t h i s m a s s i v e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e u s a g e o f ' c h a r i s m a ' is, o f course, Max Weber. C o n t e m p o r a r y political scientists a n d sociologists, D. Apter and S.P. H u n t i n g t o n a m o n g m a n y others, have played a part in applying the concept widely to Third W o r l d countries, b u t t h e y d i d s o o n t h e b a s i s of, a n d b y a n e x t r a p o l a t i o n f r o m , t h e w r i t i n g s o f t h e G e r m a n s o c i o l o g i s t ( S h i l s , 1968: 3 8 7 ) . T h u s , w h a t e v e r l i m i t a t i o n s a n d difficulties m a y b e f o u n d i n W e b e r ' s t y p o l o g y , a n d whatever controversies m a y have arisen about the value or otherwise of extending the m e a n i n g given to ' c h a r i s m a ' , the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the G e r m a n s o c i o l o g i s t h a s b e e n a m a j o r o n e : for i t i s h e w h o first t o o k t h e w o r d out of the realm of religion a n d magic a n d placed it in the p o l i t i c a l field. T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n m i s g u i d e d , a s C . J . F r i e d r i c h (1961) seems to suggest; but, misguided or n o t , the m o v e did occur, a n d it h a d t h e effect o f o p e n i n g u p a n a p p r o a c h t o p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p , a n d o f i n t r o d u c i n g a social science c o n c e p t w h i c h i s c l e a r l y h e r e t o s t a y . Granted that Weber's contribution has therefore been important historically, the p r o b l e m t o d a y consists in assessing h o w far it is valuable to use not just the term 'charisma', but Weber's notion of the concept a n d t h e general classification of leadership of which c h a r i s m a forms a p a r t . In the words of a sympathetic c o m m e n t a t o r , R . C . T u c k e r , t h e q u e s t i o n i s ' t o see i f o n e c a n d e v e l o p a t h e o r y o f c h a r i s m a into a m o r e workable tool of understanding and research' (Tucker, 1968: 7 3 5 ) . I n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e t h i s g o a l , o n e m i g h t a d d , o n e n e e d s t o see w h e t h e r W e b e r ' s s c h e m e t r u l y c o m p r e h e n d s t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s a n d aspects of leadership that need to be covered if a systematic analysis of the p h e n o m e n o n is to be u n d e r t a k e n on the basis of this m o d e l .
50 Weber's
Political leadership three types of authority
M a x W e b e r ' s m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the analysis of leadership relates to the discovery and elaboration of the concept of charisma. But the r o l e o f t h i s c o n c e p t i n his s c h e m e c a n n o t b e a s s e s s e d fully u n l e s s w e e x a m i n e first t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h , a n d t h e p u r p o s e for w h i c h , i t w a s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e social s c i e n c e v o c a b u l a r y . T h e c o n t e x t i s o n e o f a tripartite classification in which c h a r i s m a is o n e of three ideal-types, the other two being traditional and rational-legalistic rule: this, as we saw in the previous chapter, confirmed a tendency, widespread a m o n g social scientists, to divide leadership i n t o a small n u m b e r of types rather t h a n on the basis of d i m e n s i o n s . M o r e o v e r , the p u r p o s e of W e b e r ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s n o t specifically t o d e s c r i b e a n d a c c o u n t for leadership: it is to determine the types of authority or legitimate rule t h a t c a n exist i n d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s . M a n y o f t h e p r o b l e m s p o s e d b y t h e u s e o f t h e W e b e r i a n s c h e m e a s a f r a m e w o r k for t h e a n a l y s i s o f leadership stem from the constraints within which the concept of charisma has been developed. An analysis of legitimate rule, not of leadership Since W e b e r ' s p u r p o s e is to examine a u t h o r i t y , a n d , in particular, the basis of a u t h o r i t y , the characteristics of leadership a n d the behaviour of leaders are m e n t i o n e d only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the emergence a n d development of legitimate authority. It is therefore not surprising that an all-embracing theory of leadership does not come out of Weber's work. To begin with, W e b e r ' s analysis is concerned with legitimate rule only, not with just any kind of rule. For whatever reason, which need not be discussed h e r e , coercion does not b e l o n g to his s c h e m e . In the second place, even within the context of legitimate rule or authority, W e b e r is n o t c o n c e r n e d with the whole of the p r o b l e m s posed by l e a d e r s h i p . I n h i s e l a b o r a t i o n o f a c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k for leadership, which was mentioned in the previous chapter, G . D . Paige lists six d i s t i n c t c o m p o n e n t s t h a t n e e d t o b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i n analysing political leadership: these are personality, role^ o r g a n i z a t i o n , t a s k , v a l u e s a n d s e t t i n g ( P a i g e , 1972: 6 9 ) , W e b e r ' s t y p o l o g y a d d r e s s e s itself p r i n c i p a l l y t o t h e l a s t o f t h e s e m a t t e r s , t h o u g h it also covers indirectly, to s o m e extent at least, the questions o f r o l e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n , albeit i n a v e r y g e n e r a l m a n n e r . H i s i s a n effort to discuss t h e societal conditions u n d e r which various types of legitimate rule tend 'naturally' to occur an i m p o r t a n t question, to be sure, but o n e that can be expected to cover only a part of the phenomenon of leadership. T h e c o n s e q u e n c e is t h a t Weber is n o t m u c h concerned with the deeds of leaders a n d the impact of these d e e d s : he does n o t discuss
51
whether, or u n d e r w h a t circumstances, this impact m a y be large or s m a l l ; a n d h i s m o d e l h a s little o r n o t h i n g t o s a y a b o u t s u c h a n i m p a c t . N o r i s W e b e r m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e specific w a y i n w h i c h l e a d e r s a c h i e v e p o w e r , h o w l o n g t h e y r u l e o r h o w t h e y fall. O n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t d u r a t i o n a n d fall m a y a f f e c t t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e w h o l e s y s t e m are these p r o b l e m s e x a m i n e d that is to say, in practice, only in the context of charismatic authority. His focus is on the b o n d between c i t i z e n s a n d t h e i r r u l e r s : w h e r e h e believes t h a t t h i s b o n d i s d u e essentially to societal characteristics a n d n o t to the rulers themselves, t h e r e i s little o r n o r e a s o n for h i m t o e x a m i n e t h e o r i g i n s , characteristics or role of leaders. T h u s ^ ^ ^ ' e b e r ' s is a s t u d y _of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o f Readership. C o n s e q u e n t l y , h i s a n a l y s i s c o r r e c t or n o t c a n c o v e r o n l y a fraction o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f l e a d e r s h i p . Specifically, o n t h e question of whether leaders ' m a k e a difference', W e b e r ' s analysis can g i v e o n l y p a r t o f t h e a n s w e r , s i n c e t h e f o c u s i s exclusively o n t h e origins of authority: there is no indication of the way in which leaders m a y m o d i f y this a u t h o r i t y , except in the special context of c h a r i s m a t i c rule. This makes the study of charismatic rule, in the Weberian s c h e m e , particularly i m p o r t a n t for t h o s e w h o are concerned with the s t u d y o f l e a d e r s h i p ; i t i s t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t i a l t o e x a m i n e closely t h e n a t u r e of the special circumstances in which charismatic rule occurs. Three ideal-types, two dimensions, or even 'one-and-a-half dimensions? W e b e r ' s m a i n effort is to d e t e r m i n e a relationship between types of social s t r u c t u r e , in the b r o a d sense, a n d types of 'leadership r u l e ' . T h e answer is an ostensibly tripartite distinction which, also ostensibly, h a s the d r a w b a c k of being based on clear-cut divisions a n d n o t lending itself t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n s . T h e r u l e c a n b e t r a d i t i o n a l , rational-legalistic or c h a r i s m a t i c . But this d r a w b a c k is p e r h a p s m o r e apparent t h a n real, as these 'ideal-types' might be converted into the polar ends of different continua: the scheme is not f u n d a m e n t a l l y a l t e r e d if, i n s t e a d o f r e f e r r i n g t o t r a d i t i o n a l o r r a t i o n a l l e g a l i s t i c s i t u a t i o n s , o n e w e r e t o refer t o s o c i e t i e s t h a t included both traditional and rational-legalistic components in varying p r o p o r t i o n s . The same would seem to be true, again o s t e n s i b l y , for d e g r e e s o f c h a r i s m a t i c r u l e : i t c o u l d b e t h a t a l e a d e r f o u n d himself d r a w i n g his a u t h o r i t y f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l forces a n d f r o m his o w n c h a r i s m a . Indeed, it does n o t seem inconceivable t h a t a leader might p a r t a k e from the three elements at the same time. T h u s W e b e r ' s scheme could be viewed as being based on a n u m b e r of analytical components which, in the manner of the atoms that form a m o l e c u l e , might be c o m b i n e d in varying degrees in concrete
52
situations. T h e m o d e l seems m o r e realistic as a result: m a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y forms of rule have been characterized by a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t w o o f t h e e l e m e n t s a n d , i n d e e d , i n s o m e c a s e s o f all three. S o m e Western leaders a p p e a r to h a v e h a d some charismatic pull while drawing m u c h of their a u t h o r i t y from 'rational-legalistic' structures; this h a s manifestly b e e n t h e case of m a n y c o m m u n i s t rulers a s well. T r a d i t i o n a l r u l e r s h a v e o f t e n h a d s o m e r a t i o n a l - l e g a l i s t i c s u p p o r t , while attempting, with varying degrees of success, to d r a w s o m e charismatic support: the King of M o r o c c o , the King of J o r d a n a n d t h e S h a h o f I r a n a r e e x a m p l e s o f t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f all t h r e e elements. Thus the Weberian scheme could be diagrammatically presented in the form of a triangle, with individual leadership types located at various points within the triangle, depending on their proximity to and distance from each of the poles. A substantial difficulty h a s to be o v e r c o m e , h o w e v e r , if o n e wishes to turn these ideal-types into 'dimensions', as the scheme is asymmetrical. T w o of the elements exclude leaders altogether: they d e t e r m i n e a b o n d between citizens a n d society which is based purely o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e social s t r u c t u r e . I n b o t h t r a d i t i o n a l a n d rational-legalistic rule (to the extent that the rule is purely traditional or rationallegalistic or, following t h e ' r e - e l a b o r a t i o n ' t h a t we just proposed, to the extent that the rule is based on a mix of these two e l e m e n t s o n l y ) , t h e r e i s n o p l a c e for t h e r o l e o f i n d i v i d u a l l e a d e r s . I t i s the institutional b o n d that supports the rule and, consequently, sustains the ability of leaders to claim obedience from the followers. On the other h a n d , in the charismatic context, leaders are the basis i n d e e d , t h e sole b a s i s o f t h e link b e t w e e n t h e c i t i z e n s a n d s o c i e t y . T h u s W e b e r identified t w o poles personal a n d societal, or personal and institutional which help to categorize types of legitimate rule. I n his p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e s e t w o p o l e s a r e ' i d e a l - t y p e s ' ; b u t i t w o u l d s e e m p e r m i s s i b l e , w i t h i n t h e spirit o f W e b e r ' s a n a l y s i s , t o view t h e s e ideal-types as extremes of dimensions a n d to imagine that there are intermediate cases. H o w e v e r , this is permissible only if charismatic a u t h o r i t y i s a m e n a b l e t o b e i n g ' w a t e r e d d o w n ' , i f i t i s n o t s o special o r so self-contained that it has to remain within enclosed boundaries. Let us a s s u m e t h a t there is indeed a d i m e n s i o n ranging from a pure charismatic b o n d to a p u r e institutional b o n d : w h a t is then the nature of the second d i m e n s i o n ? To answer this q u e s t i o n , o n e has to t u r n to the distinction that Weber makes between traditional and r a t i o n a l - l e g a l i s t i c r u l e . In b o t h cases, the basis of s u p p o r t stems from t h e a l l e g i a n c e t h a t t h e citizens h a v e t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u t t h i s basis has a very different character as one moves from o n e ideal-type to the other. I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n citizen
53
a n d society r e s t s o n t h e ' n a t u r a l ' a n d a u t o m a t i c a c c e p t a n c e o f a set o f organizations a n d relationships t h a t have been in existence from time i m m e m o r i a l . T h e citizens accept the system because it exists, because t h e y h a v e k n o w n n o o t h e r , a n d b e c a u s e t h e y ' f e e l ' a p a r t o f it: t h e b o n d has an e m o t i o n a l or affective character. In t h e case of r a t i o n a l - l e g a l i s t i c r u l e , , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e link s t e m s f r o m t h e observation by t h e citizens t h a t there are rules a n d a r r a n g e m e n t s t h a t a r e r e g a r d e d a s b e i n g e f f i c i e n t a n d j u s t . T h e citizens o b e y b e c a u s e t h e system a p p e a r s to t h e m to be correct. This is to say t h a t the distinction p a r a l l e l s t h a t m a d e b y F . T o n n i e s i n t h e 1880s, w h e n h e c o n t r a s t e d t h e ' c o m m u n a l ' basis to t h e 'associationaF basis of g r o u p s in society ( T o n n i e s , 1955). M o r e d e e p l y , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e division between 'affective' or ' e m o t i o n a l ' linkages a n d instrumental or intellectual ties. In e l a b o r a t i n g the t w o ideal-types of traditional a n d rationallegalistic rule, W e b e r t h u s refers t o t w o distinct m o d e s of relationship between followers a n d society, a l t h o u g h , as was p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r , t h e s e t w o m o d e s m a y b e , a n d a r e i n d e e d likely t o b e , m i x e d t o a d i f f e r e n t e x t e n t i n t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h e specific a l l e g i a n c e of given citizens. So far, therefore, we h a v e discovered, on the o n e h a n d , a distinction between a ' p e r s o n a l ' a n d an 'institutional' basis for authority and, on the other, a distinction between an 'emotional' and a n ' i n t e l l e c t u a l ' link b e t w e e n c i t i z e n s a n d s o c i e t y i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e institutional basis of authority. We seem, therefore, on the w a y to transforming what appeared to be three ideal-types into a t w o d i m e n s i o n a l space. F o r this to be achieved, w h a t w o u l d be needed w o u l d be to find, within t h e f r a m e w o r k of t h e personal basis of authority, a distinction between an emotional a n d an intellectual link which would parallel the distinction that we found with respect to authority based on institutions. This is, however, where W e b e r ' s scheme is 'asymmetrical'. No distinction is m a d e that would lead us to believe t h a t the b o n d between citizens a n d leader can vary in character: it is always, so to speak, at the same end of the c o n t i n u u m . T h u s w e s e e m t o h a v e d i s c o v e r e d n o t t w o d i m e n s i o n s , b u t t w o levels o f d i s t i n c t i o n s : t h e first i s t h a t o f t h e d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d the personal b o n d ; the second, which relates to the institutional b o n d o n l y , is b e t w e e n a f o r m of a l l e g i a n c e t h a t is e m o t i o n a l , as in a ' c o m m u n i t y ' , a n d a form of allegiance that is rational, as in an 'association'. The scheme does not lead to the determination of a true two-dimensional space. Such a conclusion is u n c o m f o r t a b l e , however. Before letting the m a t t e r rest, one needs to prod further and ask: is it impossible to construct a two-dimensional m o d e l on the basis of W e b e r ' s idealt y p e s , o r d i d W e b e r n o t wish t o d o s o ( c o n s c i o u s l y o r n o t ) b e c a u s e o f
54
some other characteristic of the scheme that he elaborated? To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , let u s e x a m i n e f u r t h e r t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t h a v e e m e r g e d f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f W e b e r ' s m o d e l . A closer a n a l y s i s quickly suggests that the distinctions b e t w e e n an institutional a n d a personal bond, on the one h a n d , and between a traditional and a r a t i o n a l - l e g a l i s t i c set o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , o n t h e o t h e r , c o r r e s p o n d t o t w o c o m p l e m e n t a r y elements which enter into the definition of the b o n d itself. F o r t h e first o p p o s i t i o n r e l a t e s t o t h e ' o b j e c t ' o f t h e l i n k b e t w e e n citizen a n d s o c i e t y w h i l e t h e s e c o n d r e l a t e s t o t h e f o r m o r c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h i s l i n k t a k e s . I n t h e first d i s t i n c t i o n , w h a t i s a t s t a k e i s w h e t h e r t h e citizen likes a p e r s o n ( t h e c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r ) or a set of a r r a n g e m e n t s (the institutions of the society); in the second, w h a t is at s t a k e i s w h e t h e r t h e citizen a p p r o v e s o f t h e o b j e c t ( t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s ) o n the basis of ' w a r m feelings', that is to say, e m o t i o n s , or on the basis of some 'calculus', that is to say, an intellectual decision. T h u s the distinction between the t w o aspects is a real one indeed, o n e t h a t n e e d s t o b e m a d e , i f o n e i s t o e x p l a i n fully t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b o n d . T h e r e are therefore potentially t w o d i m e n s i o n s ; in point of fact, the l i n k b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l a n d s o c i e t y c a n n o t b e fully a c c o u n t e d for unless an answer is given with respect to b o t h . B u t i f t h i s b o n d h a s t o b e a c c o u n t e d for b y r e f e r e n c e t o t w o d i m e n s i o n s , why t h e n does W e b e r refer to t w o polar opposites with respect to the institutional link b u t n o t with respect to personal allegiance? Citizens w h o relate to society t h r o u g h the i n t e r m e d i a r y of i n s t i t u t i o n s m a y d o s o for e m o t i o n a l o r f o r r a t i o n a l r e a s o n s ; b u t W e b e r d o e s n o t allow for a similar distinction with respect to the a t t a c h m e n t t h a t c i t i z e n s h a v e t o w a r d s l e a d e r s : i n t h i s c a s e , h i s view o f the b o n d is t h a t it can be e m o t i o n a l . Since it is neither theoretically n o r even intuitively o b v i o u s that this should be the case, it m u s t be t h a t it is i m p o r t a n t f o r W e b e r t h a t t h e direct r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c i t i z e n s a n d l e a d e r s b e e m o t i o n a l o n l y . W e t h e r e f o r e n e e d t o t u r n t o a closer examination of the place that Weber ascribes to this personal b o n d and to the nature of charismatic authority. Weber's concept of charisma and its inherent limitations If there is o n e element of certainty a b o u t charismatic authority, it is that it is b a s e d on t h e direct relationship b e t w e e n followers a n d l e a d e r s . ' C h a r i s m a t i c a u t h o r i t y i s l o d g e d n e i t h e r i n office n o r i n s t a t u s but derives f r o m t h e capacity of a particular p e r s o n to a r o u s e and m a i n t a i n belief i n h i m s e l f o r herself a s t h e s o u r c e o f l e g i t i m a c y , ' says A . R . W i l l n e r ( 1 9 8 4 : 4 ) , a c l o s e follower o f M a x W e b e r . U n l i k e t h e t w o o t h e r t y p e s o f a u t h o r i t y , w h i c h , a s w e s a w , d e v e l o p t h r o u g h a link t o institutions, t h e object of charisma is the p e r s o n of t h e leader, directly a n d exclusively.
55
The conceptualizatoin of charisma. Here the certainty ends, however, because the scope a n d , indeed, the very n a t u r e of charismatic authority appears ambiguous and consequently s o m e w h a t vague. R a t h e r t h a n giving a precise definition, W e b e r provides us with impressions that are evocative, to be sure, but also confusing. He states that charisma is 'a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, s u p e r h u m a n , or exceptional forces or qualities ( W e b e r , 1968:214); he s a y s o f c h a r i s m a t i c a u t h o r i t y t h a t i t r e s t s o n ' d e v o t i o n t o t h e specific sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person a n d of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by h i m ' (1968: 215). Neither of these c o m m e n t s helps us m a r k e d l y to be clear as to w h a t p r e c i s e l y c h a r i s m a is.
5
N o r is the m a t t e r clarified if o n e t u r n s to examples given by W e b e r : h e lays m u c h e m p h a s i s o n p r o p h e t s a n d o t h e r r e l i g i o u s l e a d e r s , b u t h e also m e n t i o n s a variety of o t h e r rulers, including s o m e of his contemporaries such as T h e o d o r e Roosevelt or Kurt Eisner, the Bavarian revolutionary leader. N o t surprisingly, C . J . Friedrich c o m m e n t s : ' T h e question m u s t n o w be raised whether this t e r m (charisma) is suitably generalized by b r o a d e n i n g it to include secular a n d n o n - t r a n s c e n d e n t types of callings, m o r e especially inspirational l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e d e m a g o g i c t y p e ' ( F r i e d r i c h , 1 9 6 1 : 15). P e r h a p s t h e question is not so m u c h whether the term should be generalized to c o v e r all t h e s e e x a m p l e s , b u t r a t h e r w h e t h e r W e b e r d o e s n o t , b y d o i n g so, change the emphasis a n d the characteristics of charismatic a u t h o r i t y so m u c h that a definition should have been given which is not so ostensibly loaded t o w a r d s the religious examples. W h y , then, does Weber appear determined to maintain the emphasis on 'callings' and 'supernatural' elements? Is it that the G e r m a n s o c i o l o g i s t w a s g e n u i n e l y u n c e r t a i n a b o u t h o w far h e w i s h e d to d r a w charisma out of the realm of religion? It was he w h o t o o k the first s t e p , a s w e s a w , since b e f o r e h i m c h a r i s m a r e f e r r e d e x c l u s i v e l y t o a 'gift of g r a c e ' in a strictly r e l i g i o u s c o n t e x t . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a n d t r u l y imaginatively, he decided that there were situations in the political r e a l m ( a n d , to begin with, at the frontier between politics a n d religion, as with p r o p h e t s and other politico-religious leaders) in which w h a t m i g h t b e c a l l e d a ' l a y ' gift o f g r a c e w a s ' b e s t o w e d ' o n a n i n d i v i d u a l ; b u t h e n e v e r w i s h e d t o d i v o r c e t h e c o n c e p t c o m p l e t e l y f r o m its o r i g i n s , w i t h t h e c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t his a n a l y s i s a p p e a r s t o b e s o m e w h a t inconsistent or ambiguous and, perhaps m o r e importantly, that the c o n c e p t o f c h a r i s m a suffers f r o m t h e v a g u e n e s s t h a t r e s u l t s f r o m r e a s o n i n g b a s e d on analogy. It is strictly superfluous to m e n t i o n ' s u p e r n a t u r a l ' and ' s u p e r h u m a n ' qualities when it is also stated that
56
these qualities have to be ' e x c e p t i o n a l ' : s o m e o n e viewed as being e n d o w e d w i t h s u p e r n a t u r a l or s u p e r h u m a n q u a l i t i e s is a fortiori viewed as endowed with exceptional qualities. If Weber mentions the ' s u p e r n a t u r a l ' alongside t h e ' e x c e p t i o n a l ' , this m u s t be b e c a u s e he wishes to retain the religious c o n n o t a t i o n as a symbol a n d even as t h e central core of the concept: the extensions that might occur in the nonr e l i g i o u s fields will t h e r e f o r e b e v i e w e d a s cases o f c h a r i s m a o n l y i f t h e y c o m e close t o h a v i n g a t l e a s t o u t w a r d m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f ' c a l l i n g ' a n d ' b e s t o w a l ' . W e b e r ' s view of c h a r i s m a is thus truly restrictive a n d n a r r o w at the core; there m a y be a tail of political c h a r i s m a which could be so large that it might wag the dog: but Weber e n d e a v o u r s to ensure, by repeated mentions of w o r d s stemming from religion, that the impression that prevails is one of an exceptional occurrence. W h y did W e b e r wish to a d o p t such a restricted definition of c h a r i s m a a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r t o k e e p i t s o c l o s e t o its r e l i g i o u s o r i g i n , since i t w a s h e w h o t o o k i t o u t o f t h e r e l i g i o u s c o n t e x t ? C l e a r l y , t h i s i s b e c a u s e h e v i e w e d t h e c o n c e p t , i n its o r i g i n a l r e l i g i o u s s e n s e , a s h a v i n g a special ' f l a v o u r ' a n d a particular force which he was unwilling to t r a d e off in o r d e r to i n c o r p o r a t e in his m o d e l a m u c h larger g r o u p of political situations a n d political leaders. T h e flavour a n d t h e force stem from the basically irrational b o n d which a p p e a r e d to him to result from the total c o m m u n i o n resulting from participation in a f a i t h l a r g e r t h a n t h o s e w h o b e l o n g t o it. H i s c o n c e p t i o n o f c h a r i s m a t i c authority is therefore o n e that is entirely a n d absolutely e m o t i o n a l m o r e e m o t i o n a l , i f p o s s i b l e , t h a n t h e b o n d t h a t exists b e t w e e n followers a n d society in a traditional context. N o t surprisingly, therefore, W e b e r is unwilling to entertain the idea of a ' d i m e n s i o n ' with respect to the link between followers a n d leaders in a charismatic context. T h u s , it is n o t truly the case that the ideal-type of charismatic authority is the extreme pole of a c o n t i n u u m that might include m a n y intermediate positions. While W e b e r does entertain the possibility of some ' m o v e ' from the pure charismatic pole towards the institutional end of the ' c o n t i n u u m ' , as the idea of 'routinization' of charisma suggests, he does not consider as 'possible' a situation in which c h a r i s m a t i c a u t h o r i t y c o u l d cease t o b e ' i r r a t i o n a l ' t o b e c o m e ' i n t e l l e c t u a l ' . H i s t o t a l silence o n t h i s p o i n t m u s t b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s m e a n i n g t h a t no legitimate rule can be b a s e d on a direct ' r a t i o n a l ' linkage between followers and leaders, almost certainly both because h e m u s t h a v e b e l i e v e d t h a t such a b o n d w o u l d n o t b e s t r o n g e n o u g h t o sustain a w h o l e society a n d because he also believed that 'rational' f o l l o w e r s w o u l d ' n a t u r a l l y ' t u r n t o i n s t i t u t i o n s i f t h e y w i s h e d t o find a ' p r o p e r ' basis for t h e organization of society. This state of affairs has a tightrope character, however, because the d e f i n i t i o n m u s t n o t b e s o strict t h a t i t e l i m i n a t e s all p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s .
57
Given the apparently large descriptive and even explanatory potential o f t h e c o n c e p t i n t h e p o l i t i c a l field, i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e r e should have been m a n y controversies a n d criticisms of W e b e r ' s c o n c e p t . These are n o t merely t h e result of t h e efforts of purists wishing t o discover w h a t t h e a u t h o r really m e a n t ; they stem from w h a t h a s to be r e g a r d e d as a g e n u i n e q u a n d a r y which even the m o s t fervent a d m i r e r s , such as A . R . Willner or A. Schweitzer, c a n n o t entirely conceal. Schweitzer in particular attempts to show that there is p e r h a p s n o t m u c h difference between the religious a n d t h e political s i t u a t i o n . H a v i n g p o i n t e d o u t t h a t W e b e r d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y see, a s C . J . F r i e d r i c h w o u l d l i k e h i m t o , ' t h e c e n t r a l c h a r i s m a t i c act i n t h e divine favour granted to a particular person by a supernatural being', b u t t h a t ' t h e c e n t r a l p o i n t lies i n t h e e n d o w m e n t o f t h e s e l e c t e d p e r s o n a n d i n h i s belief t o b e c a l l e d u p o n t o p e r f o r m a g r e a t a n d l i f e - l o n g t a s k ' , S c h w e i t z e r c o n c l u d e s t h a t ' i n political c h a r i s m a , h o w e v e r , t h e belief i n a c a l l i n g c a n t a k e t h e p l a c e o f a b e s t o w a l w h e n e v e r t h e c a l l i n g is n o t of divine origin but attributed to an unspecified destiny or fate' ( S c h w e i t z e r , 1974: 152). F o r s u c h a p o i n t t o b e c o n v i n c i n g , o n e w o u l d need to be told m o r e precisely w h a t exactly such a 'calling' consists of a n d , for i n s t a n c e , w h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s b e t w e e n a ' c a l l i n g ' a n d a m e r e ideological standpoint or an idea in which the leader strongly believes. T h e a d v a n t a g e of t h e r e l i g i o u s ' c a l l i n g ' is t h a t it is a w e l l - d e f i n e d c o n c e p t (at a n y r a t e , for t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e i n t h e f a i t h ) ; a ' l a y c a l l i n g ' , w h i c h a n i n d i v i d u a l receives a n d i s ' a t t r i b u t e d t o f a t e ' , i s n a t u r a l l y s u b j e c t e d t o m u c h g r e a t e r c o n t r o v e r s i e s a b o u t its v e r y e x i s t e n c e . N o r is it m o r e helpful to suggest t h a t t h e followers believe in this lay calling, because, here t o o , there can be vast discrepancies between the types of 'belief. Schweitzer does claim, admittedly, that 'the extraordinary quality of the person becomes identifiable in such a way t h a t t h e f o l l o w e r s c a n sense w h e t h e r h e a c t s o u t o f c o n c e i t o r a n i n n e r o b l i g a t i o n ' ( 1 9 7 4 : 153). B u t s u c h a n ' i d e n t i f i a b l e c h a r a c t e r ' i s d o u b t f u l : j u d g i n g b y t h e fact t h a t t h e r e i s v e r y little a g r e e m e n t a m o n g scholars as to w h o the charismatic leaders have been in the past, it does n o t seem permissible to c o n c l u d e as easily as Schweitzer does t h a t the calling can be recognized by the followers.
The attempt to operationalize charisma T h e d e s i r e t o k e e p t h e n o t i o n o f c h a r i s m a a s c l o s e a s p o s s i b l e t o its religious origins has resulted in an a m b i g u i t y in conceptualization. But difficulties h a v e been even greater w h e n a t t e m p t s h a v e been m a d e to proceed to the operationalization of the concept. By and large, of c o u r s e , t h e w o r d has been used loosely in political science a n d sociology by those who have been concerned primarily to describe p o s t - i n d e p e n d e n c e T h i r d W o r l d d e v e l o p m e n t s . B u t a t least o n e
58
scholar, A . R . Willner, h a s a t t e m p t e d t o r e m a i n close t o W e b e r ' s thinking by retaining a n a r r o w a n d restricted meaning. T h e result has been to indicate further difficulties a n d even to show the potentially very limited scope of the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e n o t i o n . I n t h e e a r l y p a r t o f h e r w o r k o n t h e s u b j e c t , The Spellbinders, Willner is concerned to discover characteristics that would show p r e c i s e l y w h a t c h a r i s m a t i c a u t h o r i t y c o n s i s t s of. S h e g o e s f u r t h e r t h a n a n y o n e else i n t h i s e n d e a v o u r b y l i s t i n g f o u r d i m e n s i o n s o f ' f o l l o w e r r e c o g n i t i o n a n d r e s p o n s e t o t h e l e a d e r . T h e s e a r e (1) t h e l e a d e r - i m a g e d i m e n s i o n , (2) t h e i d e a - a c c e p t a n c e d i m e n s i o n , (3) t h e c o m p l i a n c e d i m e n s i o n , a n d (4) t h e e m o t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n ' ( W i l l n e r , 1984: 5 ) . S h e t h e n proceeds to define these d i m e n s i o n s a n d to suggest t h e ways in w h i c h c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r s h a v e specific c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h r e s p e c t t o e a c h o f t h e m . O n t h e first d i m e n s i o n , s h e c l a i m s , ' f o l l o w e r s b e l i e v e leaders to have s u p e r h u m a n qualities or to possess to an e x t r a o r d i n a r y degree the qualities highly esteemed in their culture' (p. 6); on the second, 'followers believe s t a t e m e n t s m a d e a n d ideas a d v a n c e d b y their leader simply because it is he w h o has m a d e the statement or a d v a n c e d t h e i d e a ' (p. 6); on the t h i r d , followers ' c o m p l y b e c a u s e for t h e m it is sufficient t h a t their leader h a s given the c o m m a n d ' ( p . 7); and on the fourth, 'followers respond to their leader with devotion, a w e , reverence, or blind faith, in short with e m o t i o n s close to religious w o r s h i p ' (p. 7). This e l a b o r a t i o n goes s o m e considerable way t o w a r d s a clearer v i s i o n o f w h a t c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r s h i p i s o r m i g h t b e . All f o u r d i m e n s i o n s a r e , a t least i n p r i n c i p l e , c a p a b l e o f o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , a n d they therefore provide potentially a m o r e precise idea of w h o charismatic leaders m a y be t h a n W e b e r ever suggested. But difficulties r e m a i n . F i r s t , t o a n e x t e n t , a s w i t h W e b e r himself, a n a l o g i e s a r e u s e d a n d t h e r e is a slide f r o m a h i g h e r to a l o w e r level. It is rather v a g u e to describe e m o t i o n s as being 'close to religious w o r s h i p ' ; like W e b e r , W i l l n e r a p p a r e n t l y feels u n a b l e t o c u t t h e umbilical cord linking charisma to religion, with the consequential impression t h a t there is an attempt at giving c h a r i s m a a mystical character while having to recognize that political charisma is not truly religious. Similarly, the idea of ' s u p e r h u m a n ' qualities is again m e n t i o n e d , b u t , failing such qualities, the possession of 'qualities esteemed in the culture' to 'an extraordinary degree' does apparently suffice. A s w i t h W e b e r , t h e d e f i n i t i o n s w o u l d c l e a r l y h a v e g a i n e d b y n o t being e n c u m b e r e d with w h a t are a p p a r e n t , b u t n o t real, alternatives. In the second place, there is no discussion of the reasons why these four dimensions have been chosen rather t h a n others, or of the g r o u n d s f o r c l a i m i n g t h a t these d i m e n s i o n s e m e r g e d i r e c t l y f r o m
59
Weber's concept of charisma: only if these dimensions were shown to b e logically d e d u c e d f r o m W e b e r ' s i d e a o f c h a r i s m a c o u l d i t b e claimed that, by using t h e m , a 'true' operationalization of Weber's scheme can be o b t a i n e d . Of course, these dimensions appear to c o r r e s p o n d b r o a d l y to w h a t W e b e r h a d in m i n d ; b u t t h e religious element is noticeably played down; and the notions of 'grace' ' b e s t o w e d ' on the leaders, a n d even t h e sense of mission which enables the followers to 'see' w h o the charismatic leaders are, are n o t directly mentioned. T h u s , even W i l l n e r ' s a t t e m p t does n o t dispel the theoretical difficulties p o s e d b y t h e W e b e r i a n c o n c e p t o f c h a r i s m a ; a n d t h e f o u r dimensions do n o t a p p e a r particularly helpful in practice in order to provide a clear-cut characterization of w h o the charismatic leaders have been in the twentieth century. A l t h o u g h the e n d e a v o u r is by far the m o s t r i g o r o u s , a n d indeed is a p p a r e n t l y u n i q u e , the results are s o m e w h a t disappointing. First, the dimensions are not used systematically to discover charismatic leaders, although a determined effort is m a d e in this direction: we are not guided as to w h y large n u m b e r s of leaders, w h o might have been thought to have been charismatic, are not mentioned and are presumably discarded. F u r t h e r m o r e , Willner's analysis results in a crop of only seven c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r s s i n c e t h e e n d o f t h e first w o r l d w a r . T h e r e i s a d m i t t e d l y a l s o a list of ' p r o b a b l e s ' , w h i c h i n c l u d e s a f u r t h e r n i n e leaders, a l t h o u g h it is n o t entirely clear w h y these do n o t belong to t h e g r o u p of the 'elect'. Even if they were included, this is a very small n u m b e r by comparison with the n u m b e r of leaders w h o m the world has k n o w n in over half a century. T h e discovery that the g r o u p is so small raises serious questions a b o u t the concept of charisma as it was circumscribed by W e b e r . It is n o t , of course, a matter of indifference to k n o w that only half a dozen to a d o z e n of the leaders of the last half-century or m o r e deserve to be rated as charismatic. But if there is such a small n u m b e r , o n e has to ask w h a t t h e p u r p o s e is of the c o n c e p t , especially if t h e c o n c e p t is viewed n o t as the pole of a c o n t i n u u m , b u t as a self-contained c a t e g o r y w i t h closely g u a r d e d b o u n d a r i e s . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y s o i n view of the fact t h a t there are o t h e r leaders w h o seem ostensibly to h a v e played a m a j o r part in the d e v e l o p m e n t of their n a t i o n s : c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t h e T h i r d W o r l d alone, if C a s t r o a n d S u k a r n o are clear c a n d i d a t e s for a m a j o r l e a d e r s h i p r o l e i n t h e post-1945 w o r l d , i t d o e s n o t s e e m revident t h a t their role has been superior to that of Nasser or N k r u m a h , w h o are described as only 'possiblecharismatic leaders', or t o t h a t o f K h a d d a f i , Nyerere o r K a u n d a , w h o are n o t m e n t i o n e d a t all. Of course, charismatic leadership is not deemed to measure the general impact of leaders, but 'merely' the extent to which these
60
leaders ' s u p p o r t ' the whole system t h r o u g h the 'faith' that followers have in them; but if charismatic leadership does not help to account for l e a d e r s o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s o m e o f t h e b e s t - k n o w n T h i r d W o r l d state or regime ' f o u n d e r s ' , then it seems necessary to i n t r o d u c e further concepts to a c c o u n t for t h e p a r t played by this last g r o u p . It even b e c o m e s questionable as to w h e t h e r the concept of c h a r i s m a t i c leadership, as defined in a 'restricted' m a n n e r , provides a t o o l for the understanding of the nature and characteristics not just of leadership, b u t e v e n o f a u t h o r i t y (see D o w n t o n , 1973). Charismatic leadership and the crisis of society. T h e i m p o r t a n c e of leaders, in terms of their i m p a c t , is n o t the only g r o u n d according to which the role of charismatic authority could be m e a s u r e d . W e b e r is concerned primarily with the analysis of the setting, as we saw, a n d it could therefore be that charismatic leadership would help to describe better the n a t u r e o f s o m e s i t u a t i o n s . H e views charismatic a u t h o r i t y a s e m e r g i n g w h e n t h e r e is a m a j o r crisis in s o c i e t y , a crisis a f f e c t i n g t h e w h o l e s t r u c t u r e , since t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e n o l o n g e r a c c e p t e d a n d recognized by the citizens. F r o m this follows a f u n d a m e n t a l difference between charismatic authority a n d the other t w o forms of rule. Traditional a n d rational-legalistic rule are, so to speak, ' n o r m a l ' ; they occur when the situation is stable. Charismatic a u t h o r i t y can be found only in the exceptional case of a b r e a k d o w n (or w h e n i n s t i t u t i o n s h a v e n o t yet h a d t i m e t o b e s o l i d i f i e d , for i n s t a n c e i n a n e w c o u n t r y ) . W h e t h e r , i n t e r m s o f effective d u r a t i o n , t h e s e e x c e p t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s a r e t r u l y r a r e i s a m a t t e r for e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s e s ; b u t t h e y a r e e x c e p t i o n a l i n t h a t , for W e b e r a s well a s p r o b a b l y for m o s t social scientists, the b r e a k d o w n of institutions is n o t viewed as c a p a b l e of being p r o l o n g e d w i t h o u t e n d a n g e r i n g the very existence of the state as an i n d e p e n d e n t entity. T h u s in a charismatic situation, as Willner p o i n t s o u t , ' t h e leader has generally b e e n seen as the least, if not the last, of the factors explaining c h a r i s m a ' , at any rate in W e b e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( W i l l n e r , 1984: 4 4 ) . But if this is the case, it is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y clear w h a t part charismatic leadership can play in 'explaining' the situation in which crises o c c u r . T h e s e q u e n c e i s i n d e e d t h e o p p o s i t e , e s p e c i a l l y since Weber does n o t suggest that a leader e n d o w e d with charismatic a u t h o r i t y will a l w a y s e m e r g e in a t i m e of c r i s i s . T h e crisis is a necessary, b u t n o t a sufficient, c o n d i t i o n . T h u s , it could n o t even be c l a i m e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f a c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r i s a sign t h a t t h e crisis has r e a c h e d b r e a k i n g point and that the distress of citizens has b e c o m e c o m p l e t e ; t h e r e i s i n fact n o g u i d a n c e a s t o w h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s m i g h t be which m i g h t lead to the emergence of a charismatic leader, except for t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s h a v e t o h a v e r e a c h e d b r e a k i n g p o i n t . L e a d e r s m a y o r m a y n o t e m e r g e w h o will b e ' c h a r i s m a t i c ' a n d a p p e a r
61
to the p o p u l a t i o n to h a v e a sense of mission a n d the capacity to save it from distress. But t h e evidence seems to indicate that cases are so rare that either it has to be c o n c l u d e d that such instances of distress are also so infrequent as n o t to w a r r a n t being treated as a special category, or else t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n crisis a n d t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f c h a r i s m a t i c leadership is very small indeed. M e a n w h i l e , there a p p e a r to be m a n y i n s t a n c e s o f crises t h a t m a y n o t p e r h a p s l e a d t o a t o t a l c o l l a p s e o f institutions b u t yet a r e o f m a j o r m o m e n t t o the p o p u l a t i o n s c o n c e r n e d , while t h e r e are m a n y cases of leaders w h o m a y n o t qualify for 'full c h a r i s m a t i c s t a t u s ' b u t a p p e a r n o n e t h e less t o p l a y a l a r g e part in the d e v e l o p m e n t of their countries. T h u s the balance of evidence leads to the conclusion that c h a r i s m a t i c a u t h o r i t y , a s a c o n c e p t closely r e l a t e d t o ' d i v i n e ' p o w e r s or to ' s u p e r h u m a n ' qualities, is not a manageable a n d practical tool w i t h w h i c h t o d e s c r i b e a n d a c c o u n t for p o l i t i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s , e v e n i n p o l i t i e s t h a t a r e u n d e r g o i n g a crisis. Y e t , i t i s a b u n d a n t l y a p p a r e n t t h a t p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e p l a y s a p a r t , e v o k i n g p o p u l a r i t y i f n o t , strictly s p e a k i n g , c h a r i s m a , i n i n d u c i n g c i t i z e n s t o follow l e a d e r s i n l a r g e n u m b e r s of situations. It is because the role of leaders, in W e b e r ' s a n a l y s i s o f c h a r i s m a , i s e x c l u s i v e l y r e l a t e d t o crises t h a t i t i s b a s e d o n such exceptional, s u p e r h u m a n qualities. But this m a k e s the f r a m e w o r k t o o rigid a n d t o o n a r r o w . B e i n g c o n c e r n e d n o t a t all w i t h the general p h e n o m e n o n of personalization, but concentrating entirely on t h e exceptional qualities ' r e q u i r e d ' in times of crisis, W e b e r p r o v i d e s n o g u i d a n c e t o w h e r e t h e l i n k i s less s t r o n g a n d i n particular to where it is intellectual or rational rather t h a n e m o t i o n a l . A l t h o u g h h e d o e s a l l o w for a d e c a y o f t h i s p e r s o n a l l i n k , g r a d u a l l y , i f c h a r i s m a b e c o m e s routinized, he does n o t offer m u c h help as to w h a t m i x e d f o r m s o f a u t h o r i t y m i g h t b e ; n o r c a n h e l p b e o f f e r e d , since what is being studied is the role that leaders play in handling e x c e p t i o n a l p e r i o d s i n t h e life o f s o c i e t i e s . T h e idea of charismatic a u t h o r i t y is very i m p o r t a n t : it helps to focus o n t h e fact t h a t r e g i m e s , a n d i n d e e d s o c i e t i e s , c a n m a r k e d l y d e p e n d o n the direct link between followers a n d leaders a l t h o u g h there is only a slim p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a s y s t e m will d e p e n d e n t i r e l y o n t h i s f o l l o w e r l e a d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . B u t t h i s i s a n effect o f l e a d e r s h i p t h a t i s distinct from another role of leaders, which Weber does n o t consider, a n d yet w h i c h i s m o r e w i d e s p r e a d i n d e e d , p r o b a b l y p l a y s a p a r t i n almost every c o u n t r y at almost every point in time a n d is related to a b r o a d e r policy-making role which Weber does not analyse, any m o r e t h a n t h e classical t h e o r i s t s d i d . W e b e r c o n c e n t r a t e s o n c r i s e s , a n d c o n s i d e r s t h e p e r s o n a l r o l e o f l e a d e r s i n crises o n l y . T h i s i s , i n t h e l a s t r e s o r t , w h y his s c h e m e , w h i c h i s i n m a n y w a y s s o fruitful a n d w h i c h d i d a d v a n c e t h e a n a l y s i s o f l e a d e r s h i p well b e y o n d t h a t o f t h e
62
classical t h e o r i s t s h a s a f u n d a m e n t a l l i m i t a t i o n . S i n c e W e b e r w a s a d a m a n t i n c o n f i n i n g t h e r o l e o f l e a d e r s t o crisis s i t u a t i o n s , h e r e f u s e d t o e x t e n d t h e n o t i o n o f c h a r i s m a t o i n c l u d e m a n y k i n d s a n d levels o f p o p u l a r i t y . T h o s e w h o f o l l o w e d h i m d i d s o : t h i s a c c o u n t s for t h e w i d e extension given to ' c h a r i s m a ' in t h e subsequent literature. W h a t t h e importance of the popularity of rulers in general shows is that the role o f l e a d e r s h i p , w h i l e m a n i f e s t l y e s s e n t i a l i n crisis s i t u a t i o n s , e x t e n d s well b e y o n d t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s . I t i s t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s g e n e r a l role that we n o w turn.
What are leaders for foreign affairs, internal order or socioeconomic policy-making?
O n e extremely i m p o r t a n t change has taken place gradually over the last t w o o r three centuries a n d h a s affected m a r k e d l y t h e n a t u r e o f leadership: this is the increasing i m p o r t a n c e of social a n d e c o n o m i c policy-making. By a n d large, in the past, leadership was exercised, a n d w a s r e g a r d e d a s h a v i n g t o b e e x e r c i s e d , e s s e n t i a l l y i n t h e fields o f foreign affairs a n d defence; internally, the only p r o p e r area of intervention was law a n d order. This is obviously no longer the case. Social a n d e c o n o m i c m a t t e r s h a v e gained a high priority, while, almost everywhere a n d m o s t of the time, foreign affairs have c o m e to be viewed by the public as being of secondary importance a n d concern for l a w a n d o r d e r a t h o m e h a s b e c o m e o n l y s p a s m o d i c . A d m i t t e d l y , especially in t h e 1980s, leaders occasionally h a v e retreated f r o m t h e view t h a t s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s s h o u l d b e a t t h e t o p o f a g e n d a , yet t h e s e p r o b l e m s r e m a i n e s s e n t i a l : t h e r e h a s t o b e a m a j o r pressure by the leader to discourage the intervention of the state in these areas. T h i s shift t o s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c p r e o c c u p a t i o n s h a s p r o f o u n d l y affected the c h a r a c t e r of leadership. Social a n d e c o n o m i c policymaking entails a considerable involvement by large n u m b e r s of citizens, especially w h e n it takes t h e f o r m of ' d e v e l o p m e n t ' . Mobilization is required, as in wartime; but war is not normally regarded as p a r t of the daily routine of citizens: it h a s a beginning a n d an end. Social a n d e c o n o m i c development, on the c o n t r a r y , is a daily affair, a n d o n e that h a s no end. M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h a leader w h o e n g a g e s t h e n a t i o n i n l a r g e - s c a l e w a r faces m a n y d a n g e r s i f v i c t o r i e s a r e n o t f o r t h c o m i n g a n d even m o r e d a n g e r s i f h e s u f f e r s d e f e a t , a short w a r e n d i n g in victory can bring h i m or her considerable praise. T h u s t h e r e m a y b e m a j o r r e w a r d s a s well a s m a j o r l o s s e s , b u t i n all situations t h e r e a r e clear criteria by which the l e a d e r ' s actions can be a s s e s s e d . T h e s i t u a t i o n i s m u c h less d e f i n i t e o n t h e e c o n o m i c a n d social f r o n t s : s u c c e s s e s a r e often difficult t o p e r c e i v e , especially because s h o r t - t e r m benefits m a y lead to l o n g - t e r m p r o b l e m s ; a n d
63
successes are often o b t a i n e d at t h e expense of s o m e m e m b e r s of t h e c o m m u n i t y , for i n s t a n c e t h r o u g h r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w e a l t h . T h e c o n t e n t m e n t of s o m e is t h u s offset by the grievances of o t h e r s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t , very o f t e n , t h e i n t e r n a l p o l i c y m a k i n g s h o u l d a p p e a r b u r d e n s o m e . ' L e t ' s d r o p t h e d o m e s t i c stuff a l t o g e t h e r , ' J o h n F. K e n n e d y is r e p o r t e d to h a v e told Sorensen, his speechwriter, w h o was preparing the draft of the inaugural address; ' I t ' s t o o l o n g a n y w a y ' ( S h o g a n , 1982: 6 7 ) . I n s t e a d , K e n n e d y c h o s e t o t a l k a b o u t t h e g a t h e r i n g crises i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d a n d a b o u t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t h e a n d his c o u n t r y m e n w o u l d h a v e t o s h a r e . But can leaders choose to ' d r o p the domestic s t u f f and concentrate o n foreign a f f a i r s a n d vice-versa? I s t h e ruler t h e m a s t e r o f t h e t e r r a i n o n w h i c h h e w i s h e s t o c o n c e n t r a t e a t t e n t i o n ? A n d a r e t h e r e n o limits a n d n o c o s t s i n exercising this d i s c r e t i o n ? W e n e e d t o e x a m i n e b o t h t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p t i o n s a n d m o d e r n c o n d i t i o n s a n d see h o w far c o n t e m p o r a r y rulers h a v e a t t e m p t e d to solve the d i l e m m a s that confront them. Classical political theory and the purpose of leadership I n t h e w o r k s o f t h e classical t h e o r i s t s , b y a n d l a r g e , t h e c o n t o u r s o f t h e c o n c e p t o f l e a d e r s h i p , like t h o s e o f a n e m e r g i n g s c u l p t u r e , a r e n e i t h e r ornate nor delicate: b r o a d categories are used. T h u s , g o o d leaders are described in terms of rather general concepts, such as w i s d o m or j u s t i c e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , p e r h a p s , i t i s n o t v e r y clear w h a t g o a l s a n d p u r p o s e s are assigned to leaders. On occasion, especially with Machiavelli b u t also with H o b b e s , stability a p p e a r s to be the o v e r r i d i n g g o a l ; b u t i t i s n o n e t h e less p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e t w o m a j o r c o l u m n s of the sculpture: foreign affairs a n d internal peace, the latter being stretched sometimes to a vision of internal welfare a n d harmony. Leadership and foreign affairs. F o r e i g n a f f a i r s is t h e field t h a t is t h e m o s t neatly delineated, t h o u g h only s o m e of the classical theorists give it m a j o r e m p h a s i s . W h i l e M a c h i a v e l l i ' s Prince is a l m o s t e n t i r e l y devoted to this goal (to the extent that the reflections of the Florentine do not focus on suggestions relating to the maintenance of the leader in office), neither Plato n o r Aristotle concentrates heavily on this function. This is due in part to the varied circumstances in which these theorists w r o t e ; significantly, the o n l y o t h e r great theorist w h o gave p r o m i n e n c e t o t h e f o r e i g n a f f a i r s f u n c t i o n w a s H o b b e s , w h o , like M a c h i a v e l l i , lived a t a t i m e o f u p h e a v a l i n w h i c h s t a t e s w e r e continuously in danger of collapse from within or without. But c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e o n l y p a r t o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n , since G r e e k c i t i e s , t o o , were periodically if not continuously in a state of war with o n e a n o t h e r . M u c h of the difference in emphasis relates therefore to a
64
d i f f e r e n c e i n a p p r o a c h : w h i l e m o s t o f t h e classical t h e o r i s t s l o o k e d a t t h e p r o b l e m of leadership o r , p e r h a p s m o r e precisely, of rule in the context of building up a case for a general organization of society, M a c h i a v e l l i c o n c e n t r a t e s h i s a t t e n t i o n o n l e a d e r s , a s well a s p o t e n t i a l leaders, a n d considers the w a y s in which they can r e m a i n in office or come to power, particularly in times of turmoil and war both o c c a s i o n s for n e w r u l e r s t o e m e r g e a n d t h e s o u r c e o f d a n g e r s r e s u l t i n g in eventual collapse. T h u s , w h i l e m o s t o t h e r c l a s s i c a l p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s give s o m e s c o p e to p r o b l e m s of foreign affairs in their presentation of w h a t leadership is for, Machiavelli is p r o b a b l y t h e only o n e a m o n g the very great to have discovered the essential value to rulers of exploiting t h e foreign affairs d i m e n s i o n . Given t h a t his a i m is to analyse h o w leaders c a n m a i n t a i n themselves in p o w e r , he n a t u r a l l y directs his a t t e n t i o n primarily to the m e a n s by which this goal can be achieved, with the r e s u l t t h a t t h e s u b s t a n t i v e p u r p o s e o f l e a d e r s h i p i s (or a t a n y r a t e a p p e a r s to be) s u b o r d i n a t e d to the p r o b l e m s of the stability of rulers in o f f i c e . T h e r e i s t h u s a r e v e r s a l o f t h e ' n o r m a l ' a p p r o a c h o f classical p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s for w h o m t h e o b j e c t i s t o a c h i e v e g o o d g o v e r n m e n t while leaders are only a m e a n s ; in Machiavelli's case, the f u n d a m e n t a l object is t h e l e a d e r ' s success, a n d substantive policies or even ' g o o d g o v e r n m e n t ' are the m e a n s to that end. But this reversal of the content o f m e a n s a n d e n d s h a s t h e effect o f e n a b l i n g M a c h i a v e l l i t o d i s c o v e r a n d bring to the fore an extremely i m p o r t a n t element which, as we shall see l a t e r , c o n t i n u e s t o p l a y a m a j o r p a r t i n t h e effective a n d concrete manifestations of w h a t leaders are for. ' T h e r e is n o t h i n g [which] g a i n s a p r i n c e such r e p u t e ' , he states in C h a p t e r 21 of The Prince, ' a s g r e a t e x p l o i t s a n d r a r e trials o f h i m s e l f i n h e r o i c a c t s . ' T h e point is i m p o r t a n t , indeed f u n d a m e n t a l , because it indicates t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n foreign affairs a c t i o n s a n d of course in particular actions in war and heroism and greatness. T h u s , if what is n e e d e d (for i n s t a n c e , in o r d e r to achieve p o w e r or, o n c e in p o w e r , to consolidate the rule) is 'heroic actions', great lightning events which can strike the imagination of the p o p u l a t i o n while probably also helping to get rid of s o m e o p p o n e n t s , t h e n the a r e a t h a t is particularly useful for t h e l e a d e r ' s p u r p o s e i s f o r e i g n a f f a i r s a n d especially w a r . T h u s , t o o , n o t only can a n d does foreign policy b e c o m e subordinated to the 'larger' e n d of enabling the ruler to stay in office, but the focus o f t h e r u l e r will b e o n f o r e i g n affairs r a t h e r t h a n o n o t h e r m a t t e r s . I t i s not so m u c h , as is often suggested, that foreign policy and wars provide a 'diversion' and take citizens' a t t e n t i o n away from the p r o b l e m s o f h o m e a f f a i r s ; i t is, m o r e p o s i t i v e l y , t h a t f o r e i g n p o l i c y a n d w a r c a n c o n s t i t u t e a way of providing legitimacy of achieving charismatic or near-charismatic authority, so to speak and, most
65
i m p o r t a n t l y , o f d o i n g s o q u i c k l y , a l m o s t i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y , a t least i f t h e war is s h o r t . R a t h e r t h a n h a v i n g to e a r n his p o p u l a r i t y in the course of a long career, on the basis of a regular j o b of a leader, o n e might say, the ruler w h o c o n c e n t r a t e s on foreign affairs c a n g a m b l e ; a n d , if fate is on his side, he c a n a m a s s rapidly a large capital of legitimacy. Classical theorists and 'goodgovernment' M o s t classical t h e o r i s t s a r e e i t h e r less c y n i c a l o r less p r a c t i c a l l y c o n c e r n e d with d e t e r m i n i n g h o w a leader c o m e s to p o w e r a n d stays in o f f i c e . T h e i r a i m i s t o find t h e b e s t w a y o f a c h i e v i n g g o o d g o v e r n m e n t , usually by limiting the scope of the rulers' discretion. T h e y are typically rather laconic a b o u t the n a t u r e of leadership; they are correspondingly equally laconic about what the purpose or aims of t h e activities of t h e rulers s h o u l d b e . T h e y seem to wish leaders to be 'wise' in order t h a t the results of g o v e r n m e n t be ' g o o d ' a n d 'just'. L o c k e , for i n s t a n c e , in his Second Treatise on Government, states that the function of g o v e r n m e n t is to rule 'for the c o m m o n g o o d ' (Ch. 9); a n d laws (which of c o u r s e are to be m a d e by legislators, n o t by leaders) ' o u g h t to be designed for no other end ultimately b u t t h e g o o d o f t h e p e o p l e ' ( C h . 11). T h e r o l e o f t h e e x e c u t i v e p o w e r i s ' t o e x e c u t e t h e l a w s ' , w h i l e t h e r o l e o f t h e ' f e d e r a t i v e ' p o w e r , a n office w h i c h , h e points out, is unlikely to be, and indeed should not be, held by a person distinct from the holder of executive p o w e r , is 'the m a n a g e m e n t of the security a n d interest of the public w i t h o u t ' ( C h . 12). M o s t o t h e r p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s a r e n o t v e r y specific a s t o w h a t l e a d e r s h i p i s for i n t h e r e a l m o f h o m e a f f a i r s . H o b b e s i s p e r h a p s t h e t h i n k e r w h o considers the m a t t e r in the greatest detail, specifying o n e m a j o r a n d general role a n d indicating a n u m b e r of m o r e concrete activities. T h e m a j o r role is that of the ' p r o c u r a t i o n of t h e peace of the p e o p l e ' n o t u n n a t u r a l l y , since H o b b e s ' s m a i n p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s t o p r o v i d e t r a n q u i l l i t y , a n d since t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f s u c h a g o a l i s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n of his social c o n t r a c t (Leviathan, P a r t I I , C h . 29). In this, he is perhaps in accord with the great majority, if not all t h e t h e o r i s t s , f r o m A r i s t o t l e t o L o c k e , M o n t e s q u i e u a n d , i n d e e d , R o u s s e a u , w h o i n his Social Contract d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e m u s t be to achieve 'public tranquillity' ( B o o k III, C h . 9). If there is a goal t h a t leaders m u s t achieve within the c o u n t r y , it m u s t be the m a i n t e n a n c e of order, which, indeed, can be linked to the external r o l e b y w h i c h l e a d e r s m u s t e n s u r e t h a t citizens a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m outside intervention. W h e r e H o b b e s i s m o r e explicit t h a n t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a t v a r i a n c e with other political theorists is in the description of t h e
66
t y p e s o f activities t h a t l e a d e r s m u s t b e e n g a g e d i n . H e s t a t e s , for instance, that the sovereign m u s t be involved in l a w - m a k i n g , in m a k i n g a variety of a p p o i n t m e n t s , including those of teachers, a n d in s u p e r v i s i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e (Leviathan, P a r t I I , C h . 3 0 ) . B u t t h i s r a t h e r m o r e explicit e l a b o r a t i o n o f t h e r o l e o r f u n c t i o n s o f t h e 'sovereign' is not a m a r k e d advance on the m o r e general presentation, w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t r u l e r s a r e a s k e d t o b e w i s e o r , a s A q u i n a s p u t s it, ' t o g o v e r n [the] s u b j e c t s r i g h t ' ( d ' E n t r e v e s , 1 9 8 1 : 2 3 ) . I t m u s t b e remembered that the 'sovereign', in Hobbes's interpretation, m a y be a p e r s o n o r a n a s s e m b l y ; a n d , i n t h e c a s e o f his o w n p r e f e r r e d s o l u t i o n o f a m o n a r c h i c a l s o v e r e i g n , h e p r o b a b l y feels o b l i g e d t o e n t e r i n t o greater detail concerning t h e activities of the sovereign in o r d e r to ensure that this sovereign acts rightly: he t h u s states that ' t h e safety of t h e p e o p l e r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r for h i m o r t h e m t h a t h a v e t h e s o v e r e i g n p o w e r t h a t j u s t i c e b e e q u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d t o all d e g r e e s o f p e o p l e ' (Leviathan, P a r t I I , C h . 30). T h u s , the purpose of the 'sovereign', and of the leader if s/he is sovereign, is to ensure that the ' g o o d ' of the people be translated into laws or, if the leader merely executes the laws, to ensure that the laws be, as the US constitution was to state, 'faithfully executed'. It is indeed in relation to the m a k i n g of g o o d laws t h a t several political t h e o r i s t s find s o m e e x a m p l e s f r o m a n t i q u i t y a p p e a l i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y those of L y c u r g u s a n d Solon, a n d especially the former, since, after h a v i n g , a s R o u s s e a u w o u l d h a v e p u t it, ' l e g i s l a t e d ' , L y c u r g u s c h o s e t o retire from public office. T h e i m a g e o f the leader w h o provides his c o u n t r y with the valuable l a w s a n d t h e n d i s a p p e a r s f r o m t h e s c e n e i s n o t o n e t h a t all classical theorists wish to convey as an ideal, h o w e v e r . Machiavelli finds himself s o m e w h a t cross-pressured between the t w o opposite types of heroes, the ' p u r e civilian' type and the ' p u r e military' or 'heroic' type, a n d it is n o t entirely clear which of t h e t w o m o d e l s he prefers; other political t h e o r i s t s , especially H o b b e s a n d L o c k e , project a n i m a g e that is intermediate, with H o b b e s ' s leader being rather m o r e flamboyant, b u t also appreciably m o r e d a n g e r o u s , and Locke's being ' l o w e r - k e y ' a n d a p p e a r i n g c o n t e n t e d w i t h a p o s i t i o n o f less o b v i o u s influence. The static or 'a-temporal' character of internal leadership in classical political theory. W h e t h e r t h e l e a d e r is to be f l a m b o y a n t or s o m e w h a t w i t h d r a w n , w h e t h e r his s c o p e o f a c t i o n i s v a s t o r n a r r o w l y circumscribed, the role that is ascribed to h i m in internal matters is essentially static. It is static because it is viewed as ' a - t e m p o r a l ' . In the field o f f o r e i g n a f f a i r s , activities a n d m o v e m e n t s o c c u r , o f c o u r s e , b u t t h e y a r e i n t h e n a t u r e o f a n e b b a n d flow o f a t t a c k a n d d e f e n c e , o f incursion a n d repulse, n o t of a d e v e l o p m e n t occurring over a long
The
role
of
political
leadership
67
period: Machiavelli's leader h a s to establish himself to force the i n c u m b e n t o u t ; he h a s t h e r e f o r e to ensure t h a t he stays at the pinnacle t h a t h e h a s r e a c h e d . B u t t h e r e i s n o g r a n d d e s i g n ( e x c e p t for w h a t h e v i e w s a s a r a t h e r Utopian h o p e t h a t I t a l y m i g h t b e u n i t e d ) : t h e r e a l i t y of the situation h a s m o r e of the characteristics of a tactic t h a n of a strategy. While there is at least s o m e m o v e m e n t in the Machiavellian scheme o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y , a m o v e m e n t t h a t L o c k e , for i n s t a n c e , w o u l d n o t d e n y since h e sees t h e h o l d e r o f t h e ' f e d e r a t i v e ' p o w e r a s h a v i n g t o c o p e with emergencies, albeit in the m a n n e r of a fireman w h o is always on call, there is no m o v e m e n t in t h e realm of internal policy; indeed, the ideal seems to be the total absence of m o v e m e n t , a s i t u a t i o n t h a t r e s e m b l e s t h e stillness o f a v e r y l u m i n o u s s u m m e r d a y w h e n t h e s u n i s a t t h e z e n i t h . T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y w h y classical p o l i t i c a l theorists are particularly impressed by the image of Lycurgus or other wise ' l e g i s l a t o r s ' . S u c h m e n c o m e t o t h e f o r e , d e t e r m i n e t h e b e s t possible laws for their c o m m u n i t y , a n d t h e n go into retirement w h e n t h e y h a v e a c h i e v e d a t a s k w h i c h i s t o b e e x p e c t e d t o b e v a l i d for all times. This static conception of the law h a s naturally affected the political s y s t e m s w h i c h h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d , a t least i n p a r t , o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e m o d e l s a n d t h e o r i e s o f t h e classical t h e o r i s t s . D i r e c t l y i n t h e W e s t , a n d indirectly in parts of the world that have been m a r k e d l y influenced by ideas e m a n a t i n g from the West, constitutions a n d practices of g o v e r n m e n t h a v e been based, for m a n y decades a n d c o n t i n u i n g even to the present, on a m o d e l stressing the ' e t e r n a l ' , or at a n y rate ' a - t e m p o r a l ' , character of the law. In this context, the p u r p o s e of leadership has typically been viewed in terms of o n e or m o r e of three roles. O n e of these is rather modest: it is that of the L o c k i a n e x e c u t i v e w h o , like a g o o d civil s e r v a n t , e n s u r e s t h a t l a w s a r e 'faithfully executed'. T h e other t w o roles are m o r e exalted: one stems from the involvement in foreign affairs a n d very c o m m o n l y in war; the other consists in determining the 'fundamental laws' which might, occasionally, be so important that they would reshape the character of t h e n a t i o n . But this is so occasional, so unlikely even, that it is p e r h a p s not surprising that the m o r e c o m m o n purpose should have been f o r e i g n a f f a i r s a n d w a r o n l y : l e a d e r s m a y b e f o r g i v e n for w i s h i n g t o win 'repute' and to undertake 'great exploits', as these m a y be the quickest m e a n s of achieving the desired result.
Social and economic policy-making and its effect on leadership The emergence of economic and social development as a governmental function. R u l e r s h a v e a l w a y s h a d t o b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s t a t e o f t h e i r f i n a n c e s , p a r t l y in o r d e r to find m o n e y for their e x p e n d i t u r e s in
68
foreign w a r s , partly in o r d e r to satisfy their needs a n d t h o s e of their entourage. W a r s were, indeed, often occasioned by the desire to acquire some loot expeditions overseas by E u r o p e a n s being particularly motivated by this aim. But in the course of the sixteenth a n d seventeenth centuries, t h e cost of foreign a d v e n t u r e s on the c o n t i n e n t o f E u r o p e e s c a l a t e d ; a n d little f i n a n c i a l r e w a r d a c c r u e d t o the exchequers. T h u s , the need to o b t a i n further revenues b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y p r e s s i n g for s o m e m o n a r c h s , i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r t h e F r e n c h kings, w h o began to u n d e r t a k e a policy of E u r o p e a n d o m i n a t i o n . Because the tax base was insufficient, c o m m e r c e a n d industry gradually c a m e to be viewed as a m e a n s of obtaining revenue, b o t h from nationals and by external trade. This was to be one of the main reasons for t h e e a r l y d e v e l o p m e n t o f m e r c a n t i l i s m u n d e r L o u i s X I V , w h o s e c h i e f m i n i s t e r for t w e n t y y e a r s , C o l b e r t , a t t e m p t e d w i t h s o m e s u c c e s s t o set u p m o d e r n i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s a i m e d a t c o m p e t i n g w i t h t h e m o s t advanced commercial countries of the time, Holland and England. T h e idea was to o v e r c o m e e c o n o m i c b a c k w a r d n e s s as a result of a conscious policy of industrial intervention; in consequence, the F r e n c h ' m a n u f a c t u r e s ' , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e field o f l u x u r y g o o d s , d i d indeed acquire a considerable reputation across the world. C o l b e r t c a n t h u s b e r i g h t l y r e g a r d e d a s o n e o f t h e first i n t h e h i s t o r y of the m o d e r n E u r o p e a n nations w h o a d o p t e d a policy of state-led e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t . But, while t h e F r e n c h state, t h r o u g h h i m , was involved in 'interventionism', the policy was that of the minister, r a t h e r t h a n o f t h e King himself. I n d e e d , C o l b e r t h a d periodically t o r e m i n d L o u i s X I V o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f i n d u s t r i a l v e n t u r e s for t h e purposes of the m o n a r c h , who was able to conduct wars on a larger scale b e c a u s e o f t h e h e a l t h i e r s t a t e o f t h e F r e n c h e c o n o m y . T h e l e a d e r was n o t directly involved; nor did he think t h a t he h a d to be: the F r e n c h k i n g a p p o i n t e d his m i n i s t e r t o h a n d l e t h e e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t i e s that were required. In such a philosophy, leaders are involved in e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s to a very limited extent. Their prestige is n o t at stake. T h e engine of t h e policy is n o t the leader himself. This attitude was gradually to change in the course of the eighteenth c e n t u r y . All o v e r E u r o p e , p u b l i c b u r e a u c r a c i e s b e g a n t o e x p a n d a n d m o r e a n d m o r e ministers were concerned with the economic achievements of their countries; new ideas a b o u t progress became p r e v a l e n t , a s i t b e c a m e c o m m o n t o e m p h a s i z e t h e n e e d for p u b l i c works, agricultural improvements and the development of m a n u f a c t u r e s . O n e o f t h e very first m o n a r c h s w h o a d o p t e d t h e s e v i e w s w a s P e t e r t h e G r e a t , w h o a t t e m p t e d t o t a k e R u s s i a o u t o f its b a c k w a r d n e s s by strongly 'dirigiste' m e a n s . L a t e r in the century, the p h i l o s o p h y w a s a d o p t e d by large n u m b e r s of m o n a r c h s whose 'enlightened d e s p o t i s m ' became a conscious and systematic
69
endeavour, on the part of the leaders themselves, to achieve economic development by voluntaristic m e a n s . Admittedly, in s o m e cases, a n d especially with F r e d e r i c of P r u s s i a , t h e motives were m i x e d : 'imperialistic' h o p e s were an essential element in the drive t o w a r d s e c o n o m i c p r o g r e s s ; b u t o t h e r r u l e r s , like J o s e p h I I o f A u s t r i a , w e r e essentially c o n c e r n e d with e c o n o m i c c h a n g e . T h e m o v e m e n t was t h u s truly the predecessor of the drive towards development in the Third World in the second half of the twentieth century: the aims were b r o a d l y similar in b o t h cases, a n d the involvement of t h e leaders was of the same nature. T h e i d e a w a s f o r g o t t e n for m a n y d e c a d e s , h o w e v e r , a s a r e s u l t o f t h e c o m b i n e d effect o f t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n a n d t h e i n d u s t r i a l revolution in E n g l a n d . T h e F r e n c h Revolution was essentially p o l i t i c a l i n c h a r a c t e r , a t least i n its m a i n m a n i f e s t a t i o n s ; m o r e o v e r , a s i t q u i c k l y l e d t o a full-scale w a r a c r o s s E u r o p e , r u l e r s n a t u r a l l y returned to their traditional preoccupation with foreign policy. T h e English industrial revolution u n d e r m i n e d 'dirigisme' in a different way: the capitalist ideology that was associated with it resulted in the virtual d o m i n a t i o n of the ideas of laissez-faire: progress could be achieved not by governmental intervention, but only if the government was concerned merely with law and order. Admittedly, on the C o n t i n e n t , b o t h during the N a p o l e o n i c wars in F r a n c e a n d later in the century in central E u r o p e , 'dirigiste' ideas lingered on: but the m a r k e d success of the British e c o n o m y suggested that the liberal views were superior; of course, it came to be argued that 'infant industries' needed s o m e help, but this help m o r e often t o o k the negative form of protection against foreign competition t h a n the positive f o r m of direct g o v e r n m e n t a l action. T h e well-being of n a t i o n s a n d citizens seemed to depend on the energy a n d inventiveness of unfettered entrepreneurs. F o r a p e r i o d at least, therefore, state intervention was to c o m e from a n o t h e r p r e o c c u p a t i o n , o n e of a social rather t h a n an e c o n o m i c character. T h e consequences of industrialization on large segments of s o c i e t y led i n c r e a s i n g l y t o d e m a n d s f o r a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t m i s e r y , t h e s e d e m a n d s being triggered in part by altruistic motives a n d in part by the fear t h a t e x a c e r b a t e d t e n s i o n s w o u l d t h r e a t e n t h e s o c i a l o r d e r , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e r a p i d l y e x p a n d i n g l a r g e cities. T h u s , i n E n g l a n d first, and throughout Europe gradually, governments came to be involved i n f o r m s o f social w e l f a r e , e d u c a t i o n b e i n g a l s o v i e w e d a s a m e a n s o f achieving progress and uplifting t h e ' p o o r e r classes'. To begin with, as i n s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y F r a n c e , p o l i c y i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t h i s field w a s undertaken by members of the public bureaucracy or by individual ministers, rather than by the leaders themselves. Gradually, however, s o m e leaders showed a substantial interest: in E n g l a n d , Peel a n d later
70
Disraeli h a d a social policy. T h e s e p r e o c c u p a t i o n s t h e n b e c a m e increasingly c o m m o n . T h u s , in F r a n c e Jules Ferry was associated with a policy of universal e d u c a t i o n , a n d in G e r m a n y Bismarck fostered a c o m p r e h e n s i v e social policy to p r e v e n t political d i s r u p t i o n . By t h e t u r n of the century, the need for social policy-making h a d b e c o m e r e c o g n i z e d all o v e r E u r o p e , w i t h s o c i a l i s t p a r t i e s c o m p e l l i n g t h e r u l i n g conservatives a n d liberals to place these m a t t e r s high on t h e a g e n d a . By then, t o o , the leaders, a n d n o t merely the ministers, were directly i n v o l v e d i n a d v o c a t i n g (or o p p o s i n g ) i d e a s o f social r e f o r m . E c o n o m i c intervention quickly b e c a m e p r o m i n e n t again after the d e s t r u c t i o n s o f e m p i r e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e first w o r l d w a r . I t w a s t o t a k e t w o d i f f e r e n t f o r m s , h o w e v e r . R u s s i a n c o m m u n i s m i n effect revived the old m o d e l of 'enlightened d e s p o t i s m ' , a l t h o u g h the ideology was different a n d it was drastically modernized by the use of state planning and by total control of the economy; in a m o r e diluted m a n n e r , the same model was to be a d o p t e d by large n u m b e r s of Third W o r l d c o u n t r i e s a f t e r 1945 a n d e v e n , t o s o m e e x t e n t , b y s o m e European countries, France in particular. Meanwhile, the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e first w o r l d w a r a n d e v e n m o r e o f t h e G r e a t D e p r e s s i o n r e s u l t e d i n a n o t h e r , less f o r c e f u l , m o r e ' l i b e r a l ' f o r m o f economic interventionism in most countries of the West, by way of Keynesian m a c r o e c o n o m i c techniques. While these were primarily h a n d l e d by experts a n d specialized ministers, t h e manifest i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f c i t i z e n s a n d t h e felt n e e d t o a v o i d a t all c o s t s t h e r e c u r r e n c e o f a m a j o r d e p r e s s i o n o b l i g e d m o s t l e a d e r s t o view themselves as doctors continuously concerned with the economic health of their countries. T h u s , b y t h e 1960s t h e p u r p o s e o f l e a d e r s h i p h a d b e e n t r a n s f o r m e d everywhere to include b o t h e c o n o m i c a n d social policy-making. A 'revolution' in thinking h a d taken place which h a d to some extent dislodged the traditional functions of foreign policy and 'public t r a n q u i l l i t y ' : h i g h priority was given to social welfare a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t , e i t h e r i n its v e r y r o b u s t f o r m o f d i r e c t ' s e c t o r i a l ' intervention or in the m o r e benign posture of economic m a n a g e m e n t . W h a t e v e r m a y be claimed by some rulers anxious to reduce the extent of their involvement in economic a n d social m a t t e r s , the new 'ideology' of leadership has been a d o p t e d so widely t h a t the ' b u r d e n ' cannot be shaken even by the most 'liberal'-minded leaders. Almost certainly, a n d almost everywhere, these rulers are judged by their successes a n d failures in t h e e c o n o m i c a n d social fields. The impact of the ideology of development on the nature of leadership. T h e e m p h a s i s o n social a n d e c o n o m i c p r e o c c u p a t i o n n o t o n l y h a d t h e e f f e c t o f shifting t h e a t t e n t i o n o f l e a d e r s a w a y f r o m foreign policy a n d even law a n d o r d e r : it also t r a n s f o r m e d t h e
71
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f l e a d e r s h i p b e c a u s e o f t h e v e r y n a t u r e o f social a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g . I n t h e first p l a c e , social a n d e c o n o m i c policy-making is inherently dynamic; it has an ongoing character. W h i l e l a w a n d o r d e r p o l i c i e s a n d t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s for g o o d g o v e r n m e n t w e r e s t a t i c a n d a - t e m p o r a l , s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c policies h a v e t o b e e l a b o r a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e level o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c o u n t r y ; p l a n s i n o n e field m u s t b e c o - o r d i n a t e d w i t h p l a n s i n o t h e r fields. T h e s e p o l i c i e s h a v e t o b e b u i l t b r i c k b y b r i c k , s o t o s p e a k . T h u s , 'radical' or 'revolutionary' proposals have to be toned down because of failures in i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ; W e s t e r n countries h a v e h a d to b o r r o w concepts (such as planning) from c o m m u n i s t countries, while c o m m u n i s t n a t i o n s h a v e h a d i n c r e a s i n g l y t o rely o n s u c h ' c a p i t a l i s t ' notions as individual incentives or the profit motive. In the second place, social a n d e c o n o m i c policy-making t r a n s f o r m s the role of the g o v e r n m e n t a n d the relationship between leaders a n d other m e m b e r s of the national executive. Leaders have to w o r k t h r o u g h their ministers in order to prepare plans, elaborate ongoing p r o g r a m m e s a n d see t h e m i m p l e m e n t e d . T h e y d e p e n d t h e r e f o r e m a r k e d l y , s o m e m i g h t say e n t i r e l y , o n t h e s e m i n i s t e r s ( a n d o n civil s e r v a n t s ) for t h e s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e o f t h e i r p o l i c i e s . L e a d e r s h a v e depended on diplomats and on generals in the past; but the n u m b e r of p o l i c y fields i n w h i c h g o v e r n m e n t s a r e n o w i n v o l v e d t r a n s f o r m s t h e nature of the problem of ministerial 'obedience' by multiplying the n u m b e r of subordinates whose actions leaders have to supervise. M o r e o v e r , t h e size o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c i e s o p e r a t i n g u n d e r t h e m i n i s t e r s , a n d t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t e c h n i c a l a n d h u m a n skills r e q u i r e d t o e n s u r e t h a t policies are i m p l e m e n t e d , entail considerable, if n o t t o t a l , r e l i a n c e o n t h e m i n i s t e r s for t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a c t i o n a n d for t h e e n t h u s i a s m o f t h e s u b o r d i n a t e s . S o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g h a s , t o all i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s , c r e a t e d t h e c o n c e p t o f g o v e r n m e n t , while resulting in a reciprocal d e p e n d e n c e between leaders and ministers. Leaders m a y continue to be the most prestigious and popular members of the government, but they are h a m p e r e d b y t h e fact t h a t their p r e s t i g e a n d p o p u l a r i t y a r e a t s t a k e even i f t h e p o l i c i e s a r e largely o u t s i d e t h e i r o w n c o n t r o l : t h e y d e p e n d on the achievements of others w h o m they usually can dismiss but have o f t e n g r e a t difficulty i n d i r e c t i n g . T h i r d , social a n d economic policy-making is a source of conflicts a m o n g t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t l a r g e , e s p e c i a l l y since t h e v e r y i d e a o f s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t c r e a t e s e x p e c t a t i o n s (in p a r t o r e v e n largely fostered by leaders and w o u l d - b e leaders). These conflicts vary in intensity, but they result from b o t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d the absence of new policies. This is in s h a r p c o n t r a s t with past s i t u a t i o n s . F o r e i g n a f f a i r s , a n d t h e c o n d u c t o f w a r s , may l e a d t o i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t
72
if the choice of the occasion is w r o n g or if the conduct of d i p l o m a c y or military action proves ineffective. Social and economic policies, however, almost always result in conflict, as some sections of the c o m m u n i t y will b e d i s a d v a n t a g e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e s e p o l i c i e s , a n d , e v e n i f t h e i r fears t u r n o u t t o b e g r o u n d l e s s , t h e belief t h a t t h e r e will b e d r a w b a c k s a n d losses i s e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t . T h e r e f o r e a s l e a d e r s c o m e to be increasingly involved in social a n d economic development, they find t h a t t h e i r policies c r e a t e d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o m m u n i t y : p a i n s and tensions seem to be the inevitable consequences of efforts designed to 'uplift' society. In the fourth place, these conflicts tend to occur often, a n d indeed principally, in the context of the financial d e m a n d s that are being m a d e of the citizens; the need for tax increases or declines in benefits sharpens a n t a g o n i s m s . But the general p r o b l e m of t h e cost of social a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t has b e c o m e a m a j o r issue. Yet even the partial satisfaction of e d u c a t i o n a l a n d welfare ' n e e d s ' , a n d even a limited involvement in industrial or agricultural d e v e l o p m e n t , entail major a n d recurrent capital outlays which appear always to be smaller t h a n w h a t h a d been p l a n n e d for, while always also being smaller t h a n the expectations of the citizens a n d the h o p e s of the leaders. T h u s , 'wars on p o v e r t y ' entail large expenditures which are b e y o n d the financial capacity of even the richest countries, with t h e dimensions of the p r o b l e m seeming to become larger t h a n preliminary analyses suggested. Leaders are not only confronted with large expenditures for w h i c h t h e y m u s t f i n d r e s o u r c e s ; t h e y live i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e uncertainty a b o u t expenditures is the n o r m and 'activism' appears to bring difficulties a n d n o r e w a r d s . M o r e o v e r , i n t h e fifth p l a c e , l e a d e r s find t h e m s e l v e s w i t h o u t c l e a r g u i d a n c e a s t o w h a t ' p r o p e r ' solutions s h o u l d be. Successes a n d f a i l u r e s a r e h a r d t o d e f i n e a n d assess i n t h e s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c field. T h e r e s e e m t o b e n o l i m i t s t o w h a t m i g h t b e d o n e : m o s t l e a d e r s wish t o achieve m o r e (and are driven by their citizens to achieve m o r e ) t h a n is possible. M e a n w h i l e , t h e m e a n s of achieving success is r e m a r k a b l y obscure: the 'science' of military strategy m a y n o t have been without its f l a w s , b u t t h e ' s c i e n c e ' o f e c o n o m i c a n d social s t r a t e g i e s i s a p p a r e n t l y e v e n less a d v a n c e d . W h a t n e e d s t o b e d o n e t o ' w i n ' a ' w a r on poverty' or to achieve a b u m p e r sugar harvest appears increasingly u n c l e a r . E v e n e c o n o m i c policy g u i d a n c e s e e m s b e y o n d t h e r e a c h o f m o d e r n p o l i c y - m a k e r s : l e a d e r s o f t h e 1930s w e r e a l m o s t e n t i r e l y powerless w h e n c o n f r o n t e d with t h e c a t a c l y s m of the G r e a t Depression; b u t post-second-world-war leaders came quickly to d i s c o v e r t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o clear g u i d e l i n e s t o f o l l o w i n o r d e r t o u p l i f t societies f r o m basic u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t , while even t h e steering of m o r e a d v a n c e d e c o n o m i e s p r o v e d i n t r a c t a b l e . T h e rise a n d fall o f
73
economic advice, in the course of the second half of the twentieth c e n t u r y , h a s left l e a d e r s i n c r e a s i n g l y p o o r l y a r m e d t o c o m b a t t h e difficulties p o s e d b y i n f l a t i o n , l a c k o f g r o w t h a n d s o c i a l i n j u s t i c e s i n t h e r i c h e r c o u n t r i e s , let a l o n e t h e m a j o r o b s t a c l e s t o d e v e l o p m e n t i n the poorer states of t h e Southern H e m i s p h e r e . L e a d e r s a r e t h e r e f o r e r a r e l y o p t i m i s t i c a b o u t social a n d e c o n o m i c policy-making. T h e strategies involved in waging a war are clear-cut a n d well d e f i n e d . L e a d e r s m a y b e i n c o m p e t e n t ; t h e y m a y o v e r s t r e t c h their resources; the results m a y often be s o m e w h a t ' m i r a c u l o u s ' ; but they are, in the main, understandable. O n e m a y be over-cautious or o v e r - s a n g u i n e , h e l p e d o r let d o w n b y f a t e o r t h e g o d s b u t , o n t h e whole, one knows w h a t to expect. There are rules, so to speak, in the g a m e o f f o r e i g n a f f a i r s . B u t t h e r u l e s i n t h e g a m e o f social a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g a r e far f r o m c l e a r , a n d m a y g r o w increasingly obscure as leaders b e c a m e m o r e deeply engaged in the ' b a t t l e ' for d e v e l o p m e n t . Rulers are confronted with pressing new d e m a n d s in the economic a n d social fields a n d y e t a p p e a r i n c r e a s i n g l y u n a b l e t o m e e t t h e s e d e m a n d s . T h i s i s w h y social a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g h a s fundamentally altered both the purpose and the characteristics of political leadership in the w o r l d . Suggestions m a d e by t h e classical theorists a b o u t what leadership should consist of have been superseded by new requirements in the c o n t e m p o r a r y world. It is no surprise t h a t leadership should have c o m e to be conceived differently by citizens a n d by politicians, a n d indeed t h a t the leaders themselves should have acquired a different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of their role. It is n o t surprising either t h a t , c o n f r o n t e d with such difficulties, leaders should h a v e tried to escape from the ' c o r n e r i n g ' in which social a n d economic policy-making has tended to place them. Contemporary leaders and the strategies designed to cope with social and economic problems M o s t c o n t e m p o r a r y l e a d e r s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r r o l e i s t o give h i g h priority to social a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g . But the strategies that they follow differ. T h e m o s t 'activist' a m o n g t h e m e m b a r k on a r o a d of c o m p r e h e n s i v e intervention, but the political costs are high. T h u s s o m e a d o p t , o r a r e g r a d u a l l y o b l i g e d t o a d o p t , a less ' a g g r e s s i v e ' s t r a t e g y b y c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n c e r t a i n fields, for i n s t a n c e . E v e n t h i s m a y a p p e a r t o o conflictual to those w h o are intent on r e m a i n i n g p o p u l a r o r w h o s e views a b o u t c h a n g e a r e less s a n g u i n e ; t h e y m a y therefore try to construct a consensus, which, however, m a y be d i f f i c u l t t o m a i n t a i n o v e r t i m e o r m a y yield few r e s u l t s . T h u s l e a d e r s m a y try to refurbish their strength a n d disentangle themselves from t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s e n g e n d e r e d b y t h e i r e c o n o m i c a n d social a c t i v i t i e s b y
74
practising a partial or even t o t a l 'flight into foreign affairs'. Ignoring social and economic policy-making altogether. Some leaders a t t e m p t to ignore social a n d e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s by literally refusing to engage in d e v e l o p m e n t policies a n d by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on maintaining themselves in office, an aim that is sometimes achieved at considerable h u m a n cost. In their analysis of personal rule in Africa, h o w e v e r , R . J a c k s o n a n d C . R o s b e r g c o u l d find o n l y t w o c l e a r - c u t c a s e s o f this t y p e o f r e g i m e : t h o s e o f A m i n i n U g a n d a a n d M a c i a s i n Equatorial Guinea. Other examples, such as that of Bokassa in the Central African Republic, are m o r e mixed, the truly tyrannical period h a v i n g b e e n o n l y a p h a s e i n t h e r u l e o f t h i s l e a d e r (see J a c k s o n a n d R o s b e r g , 1982: 2 4 4 ) . Purely personal rule is rare because leaders are able to avoid p r e s s u r e for social a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t o n l y i f t h e a s p i r a t i o n s of their citizens are extremely low. T h i s implies a p r e - m o d e r n society w h i c h i s a l s o l a r g e l y i n s u l a t e d f r o m t h e beliefs t h a t p r e v a i l w i d e l y across the world; it also implies that leaders are p r e p a r e d to act r u t h l e s s l y a n d t o see t o i t t h a t a n y m e a n s i s u s e d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e i r power is not u n d e r m i n e d . Indeed, this further implies that the leaders can succeed in preventing the infiltration of foreign ideas into the country and in defeating attempts to topple t h e m from outside. Such a s t a n c e i s r a r e l y s u c c e s s f u l for v e r y l o n g : w h i l e M a c i a s ' s r u l e w a s e n d e d by an internal c o u p , A m i n ' s was destroyed by foreign invasion, as was t h a t o f P o l P o t i n C a m b o d i a . T o all i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s , t h e s t r a t e g y of ignoring social a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g altogether is simply no longer open to the overwhelming majority of contemporary rulers. The 'head-on' strategy of assuming a full role in economic and social policy-making. M u c h m o r e likely, a n d i n d e e d o s t e n s i b l y m o r e n a t u r a l , is t h e converse strategy, which induces leaders to assert e m p h a t i c a l l y t h a t t h e i r r o l e i s t o s o l v e t h e e c o n o m i c a n d social problems of the country and to transform the situation that they inherited. Such a strategy c o r r e s p o n d s closely t o , a n d indeed to an extent anticipates, the d e m a n d s of the p o p u l a t i o n ; it is therefore particularly appealing to leaders w h o have a positive conception of their role a n d w h o view themselves as having a mission to p e r f o r m . M a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y l e a d e r s h a v e a d o p t e d s u c h a s t r a t e g y , for a w h i l e a t l e a s t , i n s o m e cases b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e f o r c e d b y circumstances a n d in others because it seemed to t h e m imperative to d o s o . T h e first c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s s o m e W e s t e r n l e a d e r s , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h o s e w h o c a m e t o p o w e r after a ' w a t e r s h e d ' e l e c t i o n w h i c h f o l l o w e d a long p e r i o d of d i s c o n t e n t . This was the case in the U n i t e d States in 1 9 3 3 , i n B r i t a i n i n 1945 a n d i n F r a n c e i n 1 9 8 1 ; s i m i l a r e x a m p l e s c a n b e f o u n d e l s e w h e r e i n L a t i n A m e r i c a , for i n s t a n c e , i n C h i l e i n 1970. I n t h e T h i r d W o r l d , h o w e v e r , a n d especially i n t h e n e w l y i n d e p e n d e n t
75
countries, the anticipation of d e m a n d s is often m o r e p r o n o u n c e d , as it w a s i n R u s s i a i n 1917 o r C h i n a i n 1949. L e a d e r s w h o h a v e c o m e t o power through a revolution, or military leaders who have espoused radical goals, have thus claimed that they would genuinely transform t h e conditions u n d e r which e c o n o m i c a n d social policy-making w o u l d t a k e p l a c e i n t h e c o u n t r y , s e e m i n g l y b e y o n d t h e d e m a n d s o f all b u t a small segment of their followers. Yet t h e v e r y r a d i c a l m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e social a n d e c o n o m i c conditions are being transformed produces sharp conflicts. P o p u l a r d e d i c a t i o n m u s t b e f o r t h c o m i n g , b u t i t i s o f t e n a b s e n t since o n l y a small p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n originally h a d a n y n o t i o n , even vaguely, of w h a t t h e new social a n d e c o n o m i c order entailed. In Western countries, where the structure a n d culture of the political s y s t e m m a k e c o e r c i o n v e r y difficult t o c o n t e m p l a t e , let a l o n e i m p l e m e n t , a soft-pedalling b e c o m e s inevitable; but in a u t h o r i t a r i a n s t a t e s , t o o , t h e s t r a t e g y o f ' h e a d - o n ' a t t a c k o n t h e social a n d e c o n o m i c s t r u c t u r e b e c o m e s difficult t o p u r s u e after a p e r i o d . I f t h e leader himself does not i n t r o d u c e a ' p a u s e ' , a n d if he is not toppled f r o m office, his n a t u r a l d i s a p p e a r a n c e often provides the occasion for a rethinking which a m o u n t s to a d o p t i n g a new strategy. Lower-key involvement in social and economic policy-making. T h o s e w h o o n c e w a n t e d r a d i c a l c h a n g e a r e t h u s often o b l i g e d t o c h a n g e their s t r a t e g y ; o r a ' l o w e r - k e y ' a p p r o a c h i s o f t e n a d o p t e d f r o m t h e s t a r t , for i n s t a n c e by l e a d e r s w h o s e d e s i r e for c h a n g e is less m a r k e d . T h e y m a y wish t o b r i n g a b o u t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l sector w i t h o u t a t t e m p t i n g t o m o d i f y c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e c o u n t r y s i d e o r vicev e r s a ; t h e y m a y c o n c e n t r a t e o n social m o d e r n i z a t i o n a n d s h o w a s c a n t desire t o a c h i e v e e c o n o m i c c h a n g e . B y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e d o m a i n o f t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n , such leaders c a n h o p e t o r e d u c e t h e level o f conflict g e n e r a t e d b y their policies a n d t h e r e f o r e t o i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f implementation. ' G r a d u a l i s t ' strategies o f this t y p e h a v e b e e n p u r s u e d b y m a n y leaders, both in the West and in the Third World. They have o c c a s i o n a l l y b e e n successful, a s w i t h A t a t u r k o r B o u r g u i b a , for i n s t a n c e , w h o s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o d i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g citizens. Policies o f e c o n o m i c g r o w t h p u r s u e d i n a n u m b e r o f A s i a n s t a t e s , a s well a s i n s o m e Black A f r i c a n c o u n t r i e s , such a s K e n y a , G a b o n o r t h e I v o r y C o a s t , h a v e h a d a m a r k e d i m p a c t o n t h e living s t a n d a r d s o f a t least a s u b s t a n t i a l s e g m e n t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e s e n a t i o n s . B u t difficulties often a r i s e , e v e n i n t h o s e c o u n t r i e s i n w h i c h e c o n o m i c a n d social i n n o v a t i o n s a p p e a r , for a t i m e , t o b e a c c e p t e d without m u c h opposition. Conflicts increase as the implementation of policies results in changes being d e m a n d e d from sectors of the p o p u l a t i o n . T h u s , t h e social m o d e r n i z a t i o n p o l i c i e s o f A t a t u r k o r
76
Bourguiba have encountered opposition, especially in the c o u n t r y s i d e ; this o p p o s i t i o n h a s i n t u r n c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e v i v a l o f ' f u n d a m e n t a l i s t ' views w h i c h w e r e a l s o f o s t e r e d b y t h e i r c o n c o m i t a n t re-emergence in neighbouring countries. It is the dynamic unfolding of t h e policies t h a t is at the r o o t of t h e increased discontent: policies of social m o d e r n i z a t i o n m a y a p p e a r i n t h e first i n s t a n c e t o b e a - t e m p o r a l , in that they ' d e c l a r e ' t h a t the condition of a g r o u p w o m e n for i n s t a n c e will h e n c e f o r t h b e d i f f e r e n t ; b u t t h e s e a-temporal principles are implemented only t h r o u g h a gradual process of psychological changes, which requires continuous 'vigilance' on the part of administrators and therefore demands the dedication of t h e civil s e r v a n t s . C h a n g e s i n e c o n o m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e , m o r e o v e r , largely d e p e n d e n t on international m a r k e t s , while they m a y result in c o n s i d e r a b l e i n d i r e c t c o s t s , for i n s t a n c e i n h o u s i n g a n d e d u c a t i o n , if, as is usual, the policies lead to a rapid u r b a n i z a t i o n process. Over time, therefore, even a ' g r a d u a l i s t ' policy of social a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e will o f t e n r e s u l t i n m a r k e d p r e s s u r e s o n t h e r u l e r a n d o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t , in a consequential increase in the strength of t h e opposition groups, and in rumblings a m o n g the supporters of the leader; the ministerial changes that m a y have to occur as a result m a y in t u r n foster further discontent. Only by careful steering a n d m u c h luck can a ' g r a d u a l i s t ' strategy be i m p l e m e n t e d a n d p u r s u e d w i t h o u t m a j o r p o l i t i c a l a n d social s t r i f e . Attempts at a consensual strategy. Since the m a i n problem e n c o u n t e r e d b y l e a d e r s w i s h i n g t o b r i n g a b o u t social a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e is t h a t of increased conflict, a t t e m p t s h a v e naturally been m a d e to devise a strategy t h a t w o u l d obviate this result by giving h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y t o c o n s e n s u s - b u i l d i n g . T h i s i s a difficult s t r a t e g y t o p u r s u e : c h a n g e requires s o m e degree of redistribution. Yet leaders often h o p e to avoid t h e p r o b l e m by m e a n s of e c o n o m i c g r o w t h , while a w i d e s p r e a d belief i n s o c i a l j u s t i c e o r p a t r i o t i c feelings m a y h e l p t o reduce the objections of some of the o p p o n e n t s . T h u s , ' g r a d u a l i s m ' is often couched in 'consensual' terms. L y n d o n J o h n s o n , for instance, attempted to build a large coalition designed to eradicate poverty while sustaining economic g r o w t h . Nationalist l e a d e r s i n t h e M i d d l e E a s t a n d i n A f r i c a S e n g h o r for e x a m p l e have a t t e m p t e d to associate m a n y groups in society rural and u r b a n , lay a n d religious to their policies in o r d e r to achieve a ( r e l a t i v e l y m o d e s t ) level o f e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . B u t t h e inherent contradictions between a 'consensus' strategy and the r e q u i r e m e n t s of social a n d economic c h a n g e typically become a p p a r e n t after a short period. If 'sacrifices' are limited, the coalition m a y r e m a i n in existence; b u t also, the results a r e likely to be small. C o n s e n s u s p o l i c i e s t h e r e f o r e will t e n d t o r e m a i n i n o p e r a t i o n o n l y if,
77
b y s o m e h a p p y a c c i d e n t , e c o n o m i c g r o w t h b r i n g s a b o u t b e n e f i t s t o all t h e p a r t n e r s n o t a likely o c c u r r e n c e , in either t h e W e s t or t h e T h i r d World. The flight into foreign affairs. T h e difficulties e x p e r i e n c e d by l e a d e r s i n t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o b r i n g a b o u t social a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e often result from the part played by outside forces. Multinational c o m p a n i e s m a y resist t h e p o l i c i e s t h a t a r e p u t f o r w a r d ; c o m m o d i t y p r i c e s m a y m o v e i n d i r e c t i o n s t h a t affect a d v e r s e l y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l s t r a t e g y ; i d e o l o g i c a l a n d s o c i a l m o v e m e n t s a b r o a d m a y exercise c o n s i d e r a b l e influence o n the citizens a n d a r o u s e conflicts; a n d g o v e r n m e n t s of foreign countries m a y exert direct or indirect pressure. Seeing t h a t their policies are affected in this w a y , m a n y leaders, with some justice, blame these outside forces; naturally e n o u g h , t o o , t h e m o r e r a d i c a l a m o n g t h e m will t r y t o m o d i f y t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s e f o r c e s b y m o v i n g i n t o t h e field o f f o r e i g n a f f a i r s . I n d o i n g s o , l e a d e r s o f t e n d i s c o v e r ( o r believe) t h a t t h e y c a n find a solution to their p r o b l e m s . T h e strategy of going into foreign affairs t h u s b e c o m e s p e r h a p s t h e single m o s t c o m m o n answer given b y c o n t e m p o r a r y l e a d e r s t o t h e difficulties t h e y f a c e . A s w e s a w e a r l i e r , i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t h e field o f f o r e i g n a f f a i r s c a n have rapid and high pay-offs. First, by blaming foreigners and e x t e r n a l f o r c e s g e n e r a l l y for t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t t h e y e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e d o m e s t i c field, l e a d e r s c a n h o p e t o b u i l d a c o n s e n s u s for t h e i r p o l i c i e s , a s t h e g r o u n d for s u p p o r t ceases t o b e t h e i n t r i n s i c m e r i t o f t h e c a s e a n d c o m e s t o b e its n a t i o n a l i s t i c s y m b o l i c i m p o r t a n c e . T h u s , N a s s e r ' s revolution in Egypt or that of B o u m e d i e n n e in Algeria becomes a revolution against colonialism. But intervention in foreign affairs can also bring prestige to the leader a n d consequently can result in popularity gains which are attached to the leader's person and t h e r e f o r e m a k e i t p o s s i b l e for h i m o r h e r t o e m b a r k , a t less p o l i t i c a l cost, on social a n d economic policies. M o r e o v e r , as was p o i n t e d o u t earlier, foreign policy intervention m a y sometimes result in a clear-cut success. T h e e n o r m o u s p o p u l a r i t y gains w o n by M r s T h a t c h e r after the F a l k l a n d s war a n d the (somewhat smaller) benefits accruing to P r e s i d e n t R e a g a n after the G r e n a d a intervention are interesting e x a m p l e s , as is that of the King of M o r o c c o , w h o gained g r o u n d internally by intervening in the S a h a r a . A b o v e a l l , t h e 'flight i n t o f o r e i g n a f f a i r s ' a p p e a r s t o h a v e a s o m e w h a t ' c a t h a r t i c ' effect for l e a d e r s : t h e y feel t h a t t h e y c a n e n g a g e in 'high politics' without being e n c u m b e r e d by the daily trivia of e n s u r i n g t h e gradual i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of their e c o n o m i c or social p o l i c i e s ; t h e y d e p e n d m a r k e d l y less o n t h e g o o d w i l l a n d c o m p e t e n c e o f m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t , t h e civil service a n d , i n d e e d , t h e p o p u l a t i o n . T h e y feel t h e y a r e free a g e n t s o p e r a t i n g i n t h e field o f
78
international affairs. T h u s , the t e m p t a t i o n t o m o v e t o foreign affairs i s c o m m o n , a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l , for l e a d e r s o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d , d e s p i t e , b u t a l s o i n p a r t b e c a u s e of, t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y m a k i n g . B u t t h i s ' f l i g h t ' a l s o l e a d s t o p r o b l e m s , since, w h i l e t h e g a i n s m a y be rapid a n d large, t h e losses m a y be vast: miscalculations a b o u t e a s y v i c t o r i e s h a v e r e s u l t e d i n t h e l o s s o f p o p u l a r i t y a n d fall o f m a n y l e a d e r s , f r o m L y n d o n J o h n s o n i n t h e 1960s t o t h e A r g e n t i n i a n m i l i t a r y j u n t a i n t h e e a r l y 1980s; m o r e i n s i d i o u s l y , m i s c a l c u l a t i o n s a b o u t the possible part that leaders m a y play on the international scene h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e decline in popularity of such ' g r a n d ' rulers as De Gaulle, Nasser, N k r u m a h and S u k a r n o . F o r the need to be involved in social a n d e c o n o m i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g does n o t d i s a p p e a r ; the aspirations of t h e p o p u l a t i o n m a y even be exacerbated, after a p e r i o d , b y w h a t a p p e a r s t o b e t h e l i m i t e d c o n c e r n o f t h e l e a d e r s for t h e 'domestic s t u f f . W h a t e v e r their h o p e of avoiding a c o n f r o n t a t i o n with problems that appear insuperable and never-ending, leaders are r e m i n d e d , a n d usually rather rapidly, that they m a y not ignore t h e m with impunity.
Conclusion
T h e role of leadership has thus been markedly modified. It cannot any l o n g e r b e v i e w e d f r o m t h e s a m e s t a n d p o i n t a s t h a t o f t h e classical t h e o r i s t s w h o , b e i n g c o n c e r n e d exclusively w i t h f o r e i g n a f f a i r s a n d a static vision of ' g o o d g o v e r n m e n t ' , could a t t e m p t primarily to restrict t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f l e a d e r s t o h a v e a n e g a t i v e effect o n s o c i e t y . N o r i s it realistic to c o n f i n e t h e role of leaders to o n e exalted function: t h a t of saving the polity. T h e role is p e r m a n e n t , c o n t i n u o u s a n d deep: leaders h a v e t o d e a l w i t h t h e social a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i r countries. This places t o d a y ' s leaders in a serious, a n d , indeed, u n h a p p y p r e d i c a m e n t , m o r e u n h a p p y than that which confronted their predecessors, w h e n social a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e was not the order of the d a y . Yet, because leaders have to deal with social a n d economic m a t t e r s , i t i s o f t e n difficult for t h e m t o ' s u c c e e d ' , a n d e s p e c i a l l y t o a p p e a r q u i c k l y t o s u c c e e d , i n t h e d o m e s t i c field. T h e c o n f l i c t s g e n e r a t e d b y n e w p o l i c i e s a n d t h e cost o f t h e s e p o l i c i e s a r e s u c h t h a t t h e e r o s i o n o f t h e c a p i t a l o f p o p u l a r i t y i s r a p i d a n d l a r g e . Yet o n l y exceptionally do leaders have other m e a n s of regaining s o m e of their lost p o p u l a r i t y : t h e field o f foreign a f f a i r s i s a t t r a c t i v e , b u t i t i s a l s o dangerous a n d m a r k e d l y dependent on good luck. As time passes, it is p r o b a b l y less a n d less likely t o b r i n g a b o u t q u i c k s u c c e s s e s , w h i l e i t i s a l s o p r o b a b l e t h a t c i t i z e n s will b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h r e s u l t s i n t h e d o m e s t i c field. I t i s r a r e l y u p t o t h e l e a d e r s t o leave social
79
a n d e c o n o m i c policies aside: in this m a n n e r , the c o n t e m p o r a r y world has placed on rulers a new a n d vast b u r d e n . A l s o , it is rarely up to these rulers to find a w a y , even a t o r t u o u s a n d c o m p l e x way, of a c h i e v i n g , i n t h e c o m p a r a t i v e l y few y e a r s d u r i n g w h i c h t h e y a r e i n office, the kind of 'success' t h a t w o u l d establish their p o w e r a n d m a k e t h e m feel s e c u r e i n t h e i r a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s .
Notes
1. There is no point in listing here large numbers of texts on this subject. A very valuable comparative work is that of Rose and Suleiman (1980). 2. See in particular Dogan (1975); see also Aberbach, Putnam and Rockman (1981). 3. See for instance Schapera (1956). Two of the great classical theorists in the field are Evans-Pritchard (1940) and Leach (1954). 4. Barnhart Dictionary. London: Longman, 1973. 5. See Willner (1984: 204ff.) for the problems of translation of the text.
3 A conceptual assessment of the impact of political leaders

I n t h i s c h a p t e r , w e shall a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e m e a n s b y w h i c h t o assess c o m p a r a t i v e l y t h e i m p a c t t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e o n t h e s o c i e t i e s t h e y r u l e . A s w e s a w , t h i s i s t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n ; t h e r e i s little p o i n t i n analysing leaders if we do not k n o w h o w great their i m p a c t is or w h e t h e r t h e y h a v e a n y i m p a c t a t a l l . I t i s a difficult q u e s t i o n t o s o l v e , h o w e v e r , a s t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f l e a d e r s i s closely t i e d t o t h e environment in which they operate. In particular, the environment gives d i f f e r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d p l a c e s d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r a i n t s . S o m e l e a d e r s c o m e t o p o w e r a f t e r a crisis t h a t h a s d e s t r o y e d t h e p r e s t i g e o f their predecessors a n d given t h e m a c h a n c e to start afresh; others f o l l o w successful s t a t e s m e n d u r i n g w h o s e r e g i m e t h e e c o n o m y h a s p r o g r e s s e d r a p i d l y a n d social c o n f l i c t h a s b e e n m a r k e d l y r e d u c e d . I t i s a s i f t h e first r e c e i v e d five ' t a l e n t s ' a n d m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d t o a m a s s a n o t h e r five, w h i l e t h e o t h e r s r e c e i v e d o n l y t w o ' t a l e n t s ' a n d c o u l d n o t be reasonably expected to ' m a k e ' m o r e than another t w o . The judgement on the ' w o r t h ' of leaders must therefore take into account the n a t u r e of the problems that have to be solved, and not merely changes that o c c u r r e d in the state of the society between the m o m e n t t h e l e a d e r s t o o k o f f i c e a n d t h e m o m e n t t h e y left. T o d o t h i s , w e h a v e t o e l a b o r a t e a m o d e l t h a t will e n a b l e u s t o assess separately the c o n t r i b u t i o n of leaders a n d t h e state of the society which they rule, a n d then to relate these t w o elements to each other. T h e object of this chapter is to describe the basis of such a model. We shall first e x a m i n e t h e l e a d e r s a n d see w h e t h e r t h e y c a n b e l o c a t e d i n a g e n e r a l s p a c e w h i c h w o u l d h e l p t o assess t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n . W e shall t h e n t u r n t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s o c i e t y and examine whether these, t o o , can be located in a general space.
A general classification of leaders' goals

H o w can the leaders' contributions be assessed? Should we draw up a c o m p r e h e n s i v e list o f t h e i r a c t i o n s ? Q u i t e a p a r t f r o m t h e o b v i o u s e m p i r i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c i n g such a n u n d e r t a k i n g , t h e r e a r e t h e o r e t i c a l p r o b l e m s as well. A c t i o n s of leaders c a n n o t m e r e l y be a d d e d u p : they h a v e first t o b e r a n k e d , a s s o m e a r e o b v i o u s l y m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n others. Yet t h e r e is no o b v i o u s criterion on which to base distinctions of i m p o r t a n c e . T h i s is p e r h a p s only an a c a d e m i c m a t t e r , as ' a c t i o n s ' may not be the crucial variable: leaders' deeds are rarely 'actions' in the physical sense; t h e y are m o r e often decisions, o r d e r s or requests
conceptual assessment
81
which are implemented by others. They are also endeavours to c o n v i n c e a n d i n f l u e n c e , b y c a j o l i n g a n d m a n i p u l a t i o n , a s well a s c o e r c i o n ( t h o u g h t h e c o e r c i v e a c t s a r e p r o b a b l y i n fact e x e r c i s e d b y others). T h u s , statements, speeches and conferences are as m u c h part o f t h e d e e d s o f l e a d e r s a s a r e t h e d e c i s i o n s t h e y m a k e ; if, for i n s t a n c e , leaders are a n x i o u s to bring a b o u t a new ' c l i m a t e ' in social relations, o r i f t h e y w i s h t o ' m o b i l i z e ' t h e p o p u l a t i o n b e h i n d t h e policies t h e y p u r s u e , their ' d e e d s ' m i g h t consist primarily of t o u r s a n d visits, with conversations a n d speeches forming an essential p a r t . In this leaders are rather special: o t h e r m e m b e r s of g o v e r n m e n t s engage in s p e e c h m a k i n g , but it is rarely as essential to their position as it is to the l e a d e r s ' , f o r , i n t h e l a s t a n a l y s i s , m i n i s t e r s rely o n t h e l e a d e r s ' m o b i l i z i n g a b i l i t y for t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e i r a c t i o n s . Indeed, as we have begun to note, the impact of leaders is normally not complete without the intervention of others indeed, of m a n y o t h e r s . By a n d large, leaders give an i m p u l s i o n , while t h e administration, including the members of the government, is c o n c e r n e d w i t h its a p p l i c a t i o n . O f c o u r s e , l e a d e r s h a v e a p a r t t o p l a y in the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n process. T h o s e w h o i n t r o d u c e d new policies m a y h a v e t o set u p n e w a g e n c i e s ; g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , t h e y h a v e t o b e concerned with the loyalty of the administration. But it remains the case that we m u s t distinguish between the contribution of leaders a n d the contributions of their subordinates. T h u s , the actions of leaders seem almost inextricably linked to the environment in which they occur. They are triggered by the problems that society faces; they d e p e n d m a r k e d l y on the goodwill a n d competence of others. The distinction between leaders a n d e n v i r o n m e n t s e e m s t o e l u d e u s ; yet a n a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e i m p a c t o f leaders c a n n o t be m a d e unless that distinction can be operationalized. I f lists o f s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s o f l e a d e r s d o n o t p r o v i d e t h e a n s w e r , because they are too concrete a n d t o o embedded in their context, could the solution be provided by moving to the opposite extreme, namely, to the examination of the broad intentions of leaders? These, t o o , are related to the e n v i r o n m e n t , a d m i t t e d l y , but the link is n o t so close. Intentions are, so to speak, the d r e a m s a b o u t the ideal society w h i c h t h e l e a d e r w i s h e s t o t r a n s f o r m i n t o r e a l i t y . Yet for t h i s v e r y r e a s o n , w h i l e t h e y m a y give a b e t t e r i d e a o f w h a t t h e l e a d e r i s a n d wants, they m a y not be satisfactory: they m a y be t o o vague and i n c h o a t e ; t h e y m a y even b e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s o r e x c u s e s a n d m a y n e v e r b e i m p l e m e n t e d a t all. W e h a v e t h e r e f o r e t o find a n i n t e r m e d i a t e c o n c e p t b e t w e e n i n t e n t i o n s a n d a c t i o n s w h i c h will reflect t h e l e a d e r s ' effective i n p u t s i n p o l i t i c a l life. S u c h a c o n c e p t a p p e a r s to be c o n s t i t u t e d by goals, p r o v i d e d t h a t b y g o a l s w e m e a n a set o f i n t e n t i o n s w h i c h l e a d e r s
82
effectively a t t e m p t t o p u t i n p r a c t i c e , t h a t i s t o s a y , t h a t t h e y s u m m a r i z e t h e general orientation of leaders' actions a n d a r e n o t m e r e expressions of h o p e or desires t h a t r e m a i n unfulfilled. G o a l s m u s t also e n c o m p a s s t h e c a s e s o f l e a d e r s w h o c l a i m t o h a v e '.no' g o a l s , t h a t i s t o s a y , w h o w i s h t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s q u o a n d act o n t h e b a s i s o f p r o b l e m s a s t h e y o c c u r . T h i s will b e t h e b a s i s w e shall u s e t o classify l e a d e r s i n t h e c o u r s e o f this c h a p t e r . The problems posed by the classification of the goals of political leaders E v e n i f g o a l s a r e a d o p t e d a s t h e b a s i s for t h e c l a s s i f i c a t o r y s c h e m e , m a n y difficulties r e m a i n . F i r s t , g o a l s a r e n u m e r o u s , t o o n u m e r o u s t o be h a n d l e d directly in a c o m p a r a t i v e analysis. They have therefore to b e classified u n d e r b r o a d r u b r i c s . S e c o n d , b e c a u s e t h e g o a l s o f l e a d e r s m a y c h a n g e , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t o r y s c h e m e h a s t o a l l o w for m o v e m e n t s . Third, it has to be decided whether normative considerations about the ' w o r t h ' of leaders should be part of the categorization: should ' b a d ' rulers be analysed alongside 'heroes'? The two main fields within which leaders' goals can be organized. L e a d e r s a r e i n v o l v e d i n a v e r y l a r g e n u m b e r o f fields o f a c t i v i t y . F o r e a c h o f t h e s e fields, t h e y h a v e g o a l s . E v e n i f t h e y o s t e n s i b l y d o n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e a g e n e r a l o r i e n t a t i o n , t h e y a r e i n fact f o l l o w i n g a line t h a t of m a i n t a i n i n g t h e status q u o . But since t h e activities of leaders relate to foreign affairs, defence, law a n d order, institutional arrangements, economic development, health, welfare, education a n d cultural affairs, there would seem to be as m a n y goals as there are fields; a n d t h e r e m i g h t i n d e e d b e specific g o a l s for s e v e r a l s u b - f i e l d s w i t h i n e a c h a r e a . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , l e a d e r s a r e likely t o h a v e s o m e w h a t different orientations with respect to each p r o b l e m ; these o r i e n t a t i o n s will p r o b a b l y conflict w i t h o r c o n t r a d i c t e a c h o t h e r o n s o m e p o i n t s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e u n q u e s t i o n a b l y v a l u a b l e , for t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a detailed analysis of t h e o r i e n t a t i o n s of a particular l e a d e r o r a set o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s , t o e x a m i n e t h e g o a l s t h a t a r e p u r s u e d i n e a c h field a n d s u b - f i e l d . B u t , for a first a n d g e n e r a l e x a m i n a t i o n of types of political leadership, it is i m p e r a t i v e that we should be able to elaborate a classificatory scheme that can also determine the b r o a d m a n n e r in which leaders can be c o m p a r e d from the point of view of their general orientations. S o m e of t h e richness of t h e c o n c r e t e d e t a i l s will b e lost i n t h e p r o c e s s ; b u t t h e r e will b e g a i n s i n that we shall be better able to obtain the overall view of the variations in the general o r i e n t a t i o n s of leaders a n d , t h e r e f o r e , of the ways in which these differ in the impact that they m a y m a k e on their respective societies. The n u m b e r of goals characterizing each leader must therefore be
83
r e d u c e d t o a m i n i m u m . I d e a l l y , o n e w o u l d w a n t t o find o n e o v e r a r c h i n g p r i n c i p l e o n w h i c h all o t h e r s w o u l d d e p e n d . T h i s i s n o t a n unrealistic aim: to state t h a t leaders have an overriding goal unifying t h e i r several o r i e n t a t i o n s a m o u n t s t o s a y i n g t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e a n i d e o l o g y . A s a first a p p r o x i m a t i o n a t l e a s t , i t d o e s n o t s e e m w r o n g t o claim that there is an inherent unity in the overall purpose of each leader's actions. T h e ideology does n o t need to be elaborated in detail or highly intellectualized. W h a t is suggested is that leaders' goals can b e classified b y r e f e r e n c e t o c e r t a i n b r o a d a p p r o a c h e s t o s o c i e t a l d e v e l o p m e n t . D o e s t h e l e a d e r w i s h t o c h a n g e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a t all a n d , i f s o , t o w h a t e x t e n t ? L e a d e r s d o n o t all h a v e t o h a v e a n explicit f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e , b u t , i n p r a c t i c e , t h e y m u s t act i n w a y s t h a t s u g g e s t s o m e basic unity in their a p p r o a c h . I n d e e d , even the leader w h o o s t e n s i b l y h a s n o i d e o l o g y h a s i n fact a s t a t u s q u o g o a l . T h e a c t i o n s o f t h i s l e a d e r a r e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f s o c i e t y a s i t is; s u c h a l e a d e r i s t r u l y c o n s e r v a t i v e i n t h e strict sense o f t h e w o r d . I n m o s t c a s e s , h o w e v e r , l e a d e r s h a v e ' g o a l s ' i n t h e sense t h a t t h e y w i s h t o see s o m e d e v e l o p m e n t s o c c u r w h i c h m i g h t m o d i f y t h e s t a t u s q u o t o s o m e extent. This suggests a m o d e s t d e p a r t u r e from a p u r e conservative position a n d also a general orientation organizing the a c t i o n s a n d sets o f a c t i o n s o f t h e l e a d e r . It would therefore seem that we can elaborate a general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e g o a l s or g e n e r a l o r i e n t a t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o b e c o n c e r n e d i n d e t a i l w i t h all t h e fields o f government in which they m a y be involved. W h a t we do need to be c o n c e r n e d w i t h i s t h e k i n d o f ' v i s i o n ' , o r a t least t h e k i n d o f ' v i e w ' , t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e o f t h e i r c o u n t r y , its p a s t , p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e , a n d o f their role in helping to realize this vision. T h e vision m a y be b r o a d or n a r r o w a n d , as in the case of the leader w h o has no goal besides staying in p o w e r , it m a y at t h e limit c o r r e s p o n d to m a i n t a i n i n g t h e status q u o . But it is suggested that there is an underlying unity in the a p p r o a c h of every leader to action a n d that the categorization of leaders can be based on the elements t h a t characterize this a p p r o a c h . T h e different approaches would thus constitute a space within which i n d i v i d u a l l e a d e r s w o u l d b e located : t h e y c o u l d t h e n b e r e l a t e d t o e a c h other by m e a n s of a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e different global visions of society.
1
T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , a limit to this ' u n i f y i n g ' process: this arises n o t f r o m t h e fact t h a t some leaders lack a well-organized a n d c o n s c i o u s i d e o l o g y , b u t f r o m t h e fact t h a t o n e a r e a r e m a i n s d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e o t h e r s : t h e a r e a of foreign affairs a n d defence. This distinction h a s a l o n g history, as we saw in C h a p t e r 2; it c o r r e s p o n d s to different characteristics in the n a t u r e of leadership. T h e rules of the g a m e a n d the dynamics of the process are p r o f o u n d l y at variance in the two
84
cases; whereas, in the internal fields, leaders a t t e m p t to build a ' c o m m u n i t y ' , i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l field t h e y a r e p l a y e r s i n a g a m e o f s e v e r a l a c t o r s , e a c h o f w h i c h (in p r i n c i p l e a t least) i s i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e others. T h e international affairs g a m e resembles p o k e r or at best bridge; the internal political g a m e has the characteristics of a t e a m sport. F o r this reason, one c a n n o t expect m o r e t h a n a casual or episodic l i n k a g e b e t w e e n t h e i d e o l o g y o f t h e l e a d e r i n t h e i n t e r n a l fields a n d t h e ideology on the basis of which he or she interacts with o t h e r s on the international c h e s s b o a r d . It is t r u e t h a t a liberal or progressive leader a t h o m e will b e m o r e likely t o b e a l i b e r a l o r p r o g r e s s i v e l e a d e r i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l field a s w e l l ; b u t i t m a y b e t h a t , p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e a l e a d e r i s l i b e r a l o r p r o g r e s s i v e a t h o m e , h e o r s h e will w i s h t o c r u s h o r a t least r e n d e r i n e f f e c t i v e t h e c o u n t r i e s t h a t a r e p u r s u i n g p o l i c i e s t h a t are neither liberal n o r progressive. I n d e e d , this is n o t the only type of linkage between h o m e and international goals or orientations towards a c t i o n : w e shall h a v e o c c a s i o n t o see o t h e r e x a m p l e s o f t h e s e relationships in this c h a p t e r . But, in principle at least, the p l a n e of foreign affairs a n d the internal plane re m a i n distinct: the overall purpose that characterizes leaders' actions on the h o m e front does not directly help to characterize the s a m e leaders' actions on the international plane. T h e linkage is casual, and m a y also be instrumental a n d related to a particular benefit t h a t is being sought; it does not follow from the substance of the question at stake. W i t h i n each of t h e t w o a r e a s , h o w e v e r , it is permissible a n d realistic to consider the goals of leaders as being broadly united by a f u n d a m e n t a l p u r p o s e . I n t h e i n t e r n a l field, t h e u n i t y o f p u r p o s e s t e m s from an overall vision t h a t leaders h a v e of the kind of society that they w o u l d l i k e t o see i n t h e i r c o u n t r y a v i s i o n t h a t d i f f e r s m o r e o r less f r o m t h e e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n a n d i s m o r e o r less c l e a r : i t i s likely t o b e clearer w h e n it differs widely from t h e existing society. In the international sphere, the unity of purpose stems from the position w h i c h t h e l e a d e r h o l d s i n t h e circle o f w o r l d l e a d e r s a n d w h i c h t h e c o u n t r y h o l d s i n t h e circle o f n a t i o n s . L e a d e r s m a y n e e d o r wish t o change this position to s o m e extent: the vision that they have of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n m a y t h u s differ m o r e o r less f r o m t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f a f f a i r s a n d , i n t h i s respect t o o , m a y b e m o r e o r less c l e a r a n d precise. H o w these t w o visions intersect, reinforce or contradict each other is a m a t t e r of considerable i m p o r t a n c e for the impact of leadership; it is t h e r e f o r e a matter t h a t we shall e n c o u n t e r at various points in the course of the subsequent analysis. Changes of goals over time. W h i l e l e a d e r s h a v e a c e r t a i n view of t h e c o u n t r y ' s n e e d s a n d o f their r o l e i n s a t i s f y i n g t h e s e n e e d s , i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s view i s u n c h a n g i n g . T h e r e a s o n s for
85
changes in the general a p p r o a c h of leaders to goals are n u m e r o u s and do not deserve to be e x a m i n e d here in detail, except to say that they stem in part from modifications in the personality characteristics of l e a d e r s ; b u t w e k n o w little a b o u t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s u c h modifications, a n d w h a t we do k n o w derives partly from alterations in the structure of the regime and partly from transformations in the environment. N o t only do leaders often have to recognize that there are serious obstacles to the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of their goals, not only, c o n v e r s e l y , d o s o m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s e m e r g e t h a t give l e a d e r s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c h i e v i n g g o a l s t h a t t h e y p r e v i o u s l y felt t o b e u n r e a l i s t i c , but the goals themselves c o m e to be altered. For instance, a leader m a y c o m e to p o w e r believing that the c o u n t r y should be rapidly developed e c o n o m i c a l l y a n d s o c i a l l y ; a f t e r a few y e a r s , t h i s l e a d e r m a y n o l o n g e r feel t h a t s u c h a d e v e l o p m e n t i s s o u r g e n t b u t t h a t , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , other goals are m o r e essential, such as the defence of the nation against enemies without or within. An examination, even casual, of the c o n t e m p o r a r y world suggests that such changes in goals are a c o m m o n phenomenon and that it would be absurd not to take them into c o n s i d e r a t i o n in a general classification of political leaders. It t h e r e f o r e follows t h a t such a classification m u s t h a v e a time dimension a n d must be inherently capable of allowing the position of leaders to be m o v e d over time in any space that is being determined. O f c o u r s e , little c h a n g e m a y o c c u r w i t h r e s p e c t t o m a n y l e a d e r s , e i t h e r because these leaders h a v e doggedly kept to the policy initiatives t h a t they pursued on coming to power, or because they simply do not have the time to c h a n g e the f r a m e w o r k of goals they believed in on achieving office. As a very large p r o p o r t i o n of leaders ( a b o u t a third) s t a y a t t h e h e a d o f t h e i r c o u n t r y f o r a y e a r o r e v e n less a n d a s u b s t a n t i a l g r o u p r e m a i n i n office f o r o n l y a b o u t t w o y e a r s , t h e s c o p e for s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e i n g o a l s i s p r o b a b l y v e r y l i m i t e d for t h e m a j o r i t y o f l e a d e r s (see B l o n d e l , 1980: 1 6 3 - 9 2 ) . F o r t h e m , a single l o c a t i o n in a classification of goals is n o t unrealistic. But leaders whose goals change are a m o n g those w h o are the most i m p o r t a n t , s i n c e t h e y a r e likely t o b e d r a w n p r i m a r i l y f r o m t h e relatively small g r o u p w h o stay in office for substantial a n d even very l o n g p e r i o d s . T h e c l a s s i f i c a t o r y s c h e m e m u s t b e s u f f i c i e n t l y flexible t o allow t h e c h a n g e s in goals to be registered; this is essential n o t only to ensure the accuracy of the analysis, but also to provide an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c o v e r t h e p a t t e r n s o f c h a n g e s a n d t h e r e a s o n s for t h e s e p a t t e r n s . W e c o u l d e x a m i n e , for i n s t a n c e , w h e t h e r r u l e r s b e c o m e m o r e c o n s e r v a t i v e a s t i m e p a s s e s a n d t h e y b e c o m e o l d e r , a view t h a t i s o f t e n expressed b u t has never been systematically checked. L e a d e r s m a y also alter their goals as a result of p r e s s u r e from t h e e n v i r o n m e n t : o n e s h o u l d a t t e m p t to discover the extent to which ' c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' result
86
in greater constraints or, alternatively, provide opportunities, a n d the extent to which leaders adjust to these changing situations. T h u s , a d y n a m i c c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f l e a d e r s ' g o a l s i s likely t o p r o v i d e i m p o r t a n t i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e effects o f g o v e r n m e n t a l o f f i c e on the behaviour of leaders. 'Good' and 'bad' leaders. Some leaders are unanimously a p p l a u d e d for t h e i r v i s i o n a n d t h e i r a c t i o n s ; o t h e r s a r e v i e w e d a s t y r a n t s , a l m o s t a s b e a s t s , a n d a r e felt n o t t o d e s e r v e t o b e r e c o r d e d i n the annals of mankind. M a n y rulers, indeed the majority, are between these t w o extremes, with j u d g e m e n t s a b o u t t h e m oscillating at times, for instance as a result of t h e r e a p p r a i s a l s of h i s t o r i a n s . S h o u l d a general classification t a k e into a c c o u n t these n o r m a t i v e s t a n d p o i n t s ? O r s h o u l d it, o n t h e c o n t r a r y , r e m a i n n e u t r a l a n d p l a c e o n t h e s a m e level t h e ' b a d ' a n d t h e ' g o o d ' , t h e t y r a n t s a n d t h e ' r e a l ' h e r o e s ? A l t h o u g h t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h a s still n o t advanced markedly, there have been striking controversies a b o u t the advisability o f including tyrants a m o n g t h e leaders. N o d o u b t this s t a n d p o i n t is d u e in p a r t to the legacy of suspicion a b o u t leaders which m o d e r n p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e h a s i n h e r i t e d f r o m classical t h e o r i s t s ; b u t i t appears to have been strengthened s o m e w h a t as a result of the n u m e r o u s cases o f t y r a n t s w h o h a v e characterized the c o n t e m p o r a r y world. It seems shocking to include Hitler a m o n g the leaders, especially b e c a u s e his influence c a n n o t be realistically described as m i n u t e a n d because, as a result, he should be c o m p a r e d not with o r d i n a r y a n d m o d e r a t e l y effective r u l e r s , b u t w i t h t h e ' g r e a t h e r o e s ' w h o seem to have shaped the history of m a n k i n d . T h u s the dilemma seems to be t h a t either o n e simply does n o t consider as 'real' leaders t h o s e m e n a n d w o m e n w h o s e excesses h a v e m a d e t h e w o r l d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e b a r b a r i c t h a n i t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e h a v e b e e n , o r else o n e is c o n s t r a i n e d to place such tyrants alongside a n d very close to the great leaders w h o , on the contrary, have markedly contributed to the elevation of the h u m a n condition. Whatever distaste o n e m a y have in including such rulers in a general classification, it seems unjustifiable, unrealistic a n d indeed practically impossible not to consider them alongside other leaders. The aim of t h e e n q u i r y i s t o e x a m i n e t h e effect t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s m a y h a v e o n s o c i e t y i n d i f f e r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; i t m a y b e t h a t , u l t i m a t e l y , w e will wish a l s o t o a s s e s s w h e t h e r t h e effect i s ' p o s i t i v e ' o r ' n e g a t i v e ' . B u t s u c h a j u d g e m e n t c a n n o t b e p a s s e d u n l e s s w e h a v e e x a m i n e d all t y p e s of rulers, including tyrants. 'Bad' rulers h a v e therefore to be examined alongside heroes. I t i s a l s o u n r e a l i s t i c t o e x c l u d e ' b a d ' r u l e r s , a s t h e r e a r e n o clear criteria by w h i c h to establish such a distinction. It m a y seem obvious t h a t H i t l e r w a s a w f u l , b u t i t i s less c l e a r w h e t h e r R o b e s p i e r r e o r
87
N a p o l e o n w a s ; n o r is it entirely evident t h a t Stalin or M a o belong to the same g r o u p . If t h e criterion for exclusion has to be the u n a n i m o u s d i s t a s t e o r r e j e c t i o n e x p r e s s e d a b o u t t h e s e t y r a n t s , v e r y few r u l e r s indeed would come to be excluded; and these would be d r a w n mainly from the recent period, as o n e tends to forget the misdeeds of past r u l e r s . It is t h e r e f o r e u n r e a l i s t i c to a t t e m p t t h e d i v i s i o n : if a c a t e g o r y is s o s m a l l t h a t o n l y a few r e c e n t l e a d e r s w o u l d b e p l a c e d w i t h i n it, i t i s better to a b a n d o n it a n d recognize t h a t the a i m of the classification is t o c o m p a r e t h e g o a l s a n d p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s o f all r u l e r s . Indeed, a further difficulty w o u l d h a v e to be faced since, in this as in o t h e r respects, a d i c h o t o m y o p p o s i n g t y r a n t s to ' h e r o e s ' is a manifest oversimplification. S o m e rulers have been awful, while others m a y have been 'saints'; but the large majority should be located s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o e x t r e m e s . T h i s i s w h y i t i s difficult t o state whether Robespierre, N a p o l e o n , Stalin or M a o should be placed in o n e or the other of the categories. They have h a d a 'positive' legacy in terms of institutions or m o d e s of b e h a v i o u r , even t h o u g h they were a l s o d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for h u g e n u m b e r s o f d e a t h s a n d for i m m e n s e sufferings. T h u s , a realistic division into ' g o o d ' a n d ' b a d ' leaders would have to be based on a detailed weighting of achievements ( p r e s u m a b l y d e t e r m i n e d by the value of their actions for s u b s e q u e n t generations) a n d of hideous acts ( p r e s u m a b l y defined essentially in terms of violations of h u m a n rights). Such a weighting would be e x t r e m e l y difficult t o u n d e r t a k e i n view o f t h e l i m i t e d d a t a a t o u r d i s p o s a l (in l a r g e p a r t b e c a u s e t y r a n t s , o r e v e n o r d i n a r y ' b a d ' l e a d e r s , are naturally anxious to conceal the extent of their misdeeds); it w o u l d also be wholly subjective. T h e p u r p o s e of the classification is n o t to a p p o r t i o n b l a m e or exclude leaders from the analysis on the basis of a j u d g e m e n t , however general, passed on their worth: it is to discover h o w far t h e s e h a d a n effect o n s o c i e t y . I t i s s u r e l y o n l y a f t e r t h e m a g n i t u d e o f s u c h a n effect h a s b e g u n t o b e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t will b e c o m e p o s s i b l e t o e x a m i n e h o w far l e a d e r s w h o a c h i e v e m u c h t e n d t o d o s o b y m e a n s t h a t a r e r e p u g n a n t t o civilized m a n k i n d , a s c l a s s i c a l political theorists seem often to h a v e believed.
A two-dimensional framework for the classification of leaders' goals' L e a d e r s s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e classified a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r g o a l s i f t h e i r i m p a c t is to be related to the societal c o n d i t i o n s in which they o p e r a t e . These goals can be brought together, in the internal and international fields r e s p e c t i v e l y , u n d e r t h e u m b r e l l a o f t h e g e n e r a l view o r ' v i s i o n ' that they h a v e of the future of the society which they a t t e m p t to bring a b o u t , s i n c e t h e d e f i n i t i o n w e a d o p t e d for g o a l s i s t h a t o f a n orientation towards action. We can thus now e m b a r k on an
89
w h i c h m a r k e d l y m o d i f i e d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f F r e n c h life. P e r h a p s h e c a n be d e e m e d to be a s a v i o u r in this respect as well, b u t in a different way f r o m t h a t w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e d C h u r c h i l l b e t w e e n 1940 a n d 1 9 4 5 . H e r e w e b e g i n t o see s o m e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t e m e r g e a s a r e s u l t o f t h e distinction between an internal 'vision' and an international 'vision', although we also have to note some interrelationships between the two aspects. Yet i s i s w o r t h w h i l e t o p r o c e e d , a n d t o c o n t r a s t t h o s e w h o m w e h a v e just described as 'saviours' with another g r o u p of leaders: leaders w h o a r e n o r m a l l y c o n s i d e r e d g r e a t , b u t Who p l a y e d a v e r y d i f f e r e n t p a r t . T h e y can p r o b a b l y be labelled ' t r a n s f o r m e r s ' , in the sense t h a t they sharply modify the basis on which society is o r g a n i z e d ; they usually d o s o t h r o u g h a r e v o l u t i o n , since i t s e e m s t h a t o n l y b y a r e v o l u t i o n c a n a 'radical' change in the n o r m s and modes of behaviour be achieved. But, while they are r e v o l u t i o n a r y in t e r m s of the way in which they achieve power, the substantive distinction between transformers and s a v i o u r s lies i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f o r m e r p r o p o s e t o i m p l e m e n t a c o m p l e t e i d e o l o g y , o n e t h a t e x t e n d s t o all facets o f s o c i e t y . P e r h a p s t h e c l e a r e s t e x a m p l e o f s u c h a n ' i d e o l o g y ' i s M a o , since h e w i s h e d , t h r o u g h the Cultural Revolution, to alter in a spectacular m a n n e r the m o d e s of t h o u g h t of the Chinese population. But Lenin a n d Castro clearly also b e l o n g to this g r o u p , as their a p p a r e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to social, economic, cultural and political change has been massive.
2
O n e m a j o r difference between saviours and those w h o might be labelled as revolutionary transformers is t h a t the former a p p e a r to be concerned primarily with preserving while the latter are involved in bringing a b o u t c h a n g e , indeed m a j o r c h a n g e , in society. At this point we seem to c o m e to what appears to be a m a j o r distinction in the posture of leaders. It is manifest that some leaders ' m a i n t a i n ' the p o l i t i c a l a n d social s y s t e m a s i t is, w h i l e o t h e r s w a n t t o a l t e r i t d r a m a t i c a l l y . B u t if c h a n g e is t h e raison d'tre for t h e d i f f e r e n c e , t h e r e i s n o b a s i s for seeing t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n t e r m s o f a d i c h o t o m y : t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s m a y wish t o c h a n g e s o c i e t y ' r a d i c a l l y ' , b u t i t s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e to a s s u m e that other leaders m a y wish to stand half-way, or at some other intermediate position between the saviours w h o do n o t wish to change and those w h o w a n t to create a wholly new society. This a p p e a r s indeed to be the case with m a n y leaders, either because t h e y a r e a n x i o u s to buttress certain aspects of t h e existing ' s y s t e m ' or because they wish to preside over the introduction of some changes in a variety of other aspects. Some kings or other 'paternalistic' leaders fall i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , for e x a m p l e t h e e n l i g h t e n e d d e s p o t s o f t h e l a t e eighteenth century in central E u r o p e , or Bismarck, especially with respect to his i n t r o d u c t i o n of n a t i o n a l suffrage a n d aspects of social security; in the postwar world, the Shah of Iran attempted to m a i n t a i n
88
e n d e a v o u r t o classify t h e s e g e n e r a l ' v i s i o n s ' , o n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g that each leader m a y c h a n g e the vision over time a n d that we are not p r o p o s i n g to state w h e t h e r we believe these visions to be g o o d or b a d . T w o problems need to be o v e r c o m e in the elaboration of such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f g o a l s : first, t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m u s t b e b r o a d e n o u g h t o e n c o m p a s s all t h e t y p e s o f ' v i s i o n s ' t h a t l e a d e r s m a y h a v e ; s e c o n d , i t m u s t b e sufficiently p r e c i s e t o l e a d t o e v e n t u a l o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . This means that we cannot resort to a typology based merely on dichotomies or trichotomies: we have to discover dimensions along which leaders can be located at m a n y indeed, theoretically at an infinity of p o i n t s . It m e a n s , t o o , t h a t the distinguishing criteria w h i c h will s e r v e a s b a s e s f o r t h e d i m e n s i o n s s h o u l d b e c o m p a r a t i v e l y s i m p l e i n o r d e r t o c o r r e s p o n d r e l a t i v e l y easily t o t h e r e a l i t y o f l e a d e r s ' 'visions'. H o w can such criteria be discovered? We k n o w t h a t we shall e v e n t u a l l y b e o b l i g e d t o e l a b o r a t e t w o sets o f s p a c e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g , r e s p e c t i v e l y , t o i n t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s ; b u t , i n t h e first instance, t h e best m o v e is to be guided by the kinds of differences that s e e m i n t u i t i v e l y t o exist a m o n g l e a d e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y ( t o b e g i n w i t h ) a m o n g leaders w h o are c o m m o n l y regarded as being 'great'. As a m a t t e r of fact, these intuitive distinctions a p p e a r as soon as o n e c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e b r o a d g o a l s t h a t t h e s e l e a d e r s h a d for t h e i r c o u n t r i e s . A first g r o u p t o e m e r g e i s t h a t o f t h e ' s a v i o u r s ' , t h a t i s t o say, of t h o s e w h o a p p e a r to be able to solve a m a j o r p r o b l e m facing the nation or the state in m a n y cases, the threat of total annihilation. Before the saviour a p p e a r s , the nation is on the verge of collapse; afterwards, the danger is avoided and peace and calm return to the c o m m u n i t y . It seems that Moses, the archetype often m e n t i o n e d s i n c e W e b e r , falls i n t o t h i s c a t e g o r y ; b u t C h u r c h i l l , a s well as A d e n a u e r a n d arguably de Gaulle, would also seem to belong to this g r o u p , t h o u g h in a s o m e w h a t different m a n n e r in each case. Churchill w a s a s a v i o u r i n t h e face o f o u t s i d e a t t a c k . A d e n a u e r w a s a s a v i o u r i n that he was a b l e to solve contradictions t h a t h a d previously existed within the political system of G e r m a n y : he was able to bring a b o u t a c o n s e n s u s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l life. D e Gaulle was a saviour in b o t h senses. T h e m a i n characteristic of these leaders is that they strengthened a polity or n a t i o n that was collapsing or h a d c o l l a p s e d . T h e y did not so m u c h t r a n s f o r m the polity as b o o s t its r e s o l v e o r e l i m i n a t e difficulties t h a t h a d e m e r g e d i n t h e p a s t a n d h a d m a d e p o l i t i c a l life h e c t i c o r u n m a n a g e a b l e . T h i s i s w h y t h e y c a n legitimately be called 'saviours'. W e a l r e a d y s e e s o m e difficulties a n d i n d e e d d i s t i n c t i o n s a t t h i s p o i n t , s i n c e s o m e o n e like d e G a u l l e , for i n s t a n c e , i s b o t h a s a v i o u r a n d m o r e t h a n a s a v i o u r , in that he b r o u g h t a b o u t a n e w political system
89
w h i c h m a r k e d l y m o d i f i e d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f F r e n c h life. P e r h a p s h e c a n be d e e m e d to be a s a v i o u r in this respect as well, b u t in a different way f r o m t h a t w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e d C h u r c h i l l b e t w e e n 1940 a n d 1 9 4 5 . H e r e w e b e g i n t o see s o m e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t e m e r g e a s a r e s u l t o f t h e distinction between an internal 'vision' and an international 'vision', although we also have to note some interrelationships between the two aspects. Yet i s i s w o r t h w h i l e t o p r o c e e d , a n d t o c o n t r a s t t h o s e w h o m w e h a v e just described as 'saviours' with another g r o u p of leaders: leaders w h o are n o r m a l l y c o n s i d e r e d great, b u t w h o played a very different p a r t . T h e y can p r o b a b l y be labelled ' t r a n s f o r m e r s ' , in the sense t h a t they sharply modify the basis on which society is o r g a n i z e d ; they usually do so t h r o u g h a r e v o l u t i o n , since it seems t h a t only by a revolution can a 'radical' change in the n o r m s a n d modes of behaviour be achieved. But, while they are r e v o l u t i o n a r y in t e r m s of t h e way in which they achieve power, the substantive distinction between transformers and s a v i o u r s lies i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f o r m e r p r o p o s e t o i m p l e m e n t a c o m p l e t e i d e o l o g y , o n e t h a t e x t e n d s t o all facets o f s o c i e t y . P e r h a p s t h e clearest e x a m p l e of such an 'ideology' is M a o , since he wished, t h r o u g h t h e C u l t u r a l R e v o l u t i o n , to alter in a spectacular m a n n e r t h e m o d e s of t h o u g h t of the Chinese population. But Lenin a n d C a s t r o clearly also belong to this g r o u p , as their a p p a r e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to social, e c o n o m i c , cultural a n d political change has been massive.
2
O n e m a j o r difference between saviours a n d those w h o might be labelled as revolutionary t r a n s f o r m e r s is that the former a p p e a r to be concerned primarily with preserving while the latter are involved in bringing a b o u t c h a n g e , indeed m a j o r c h a n g e , in society. At this point we seem to c o m e to what appears to be a major distinction in the posture of leaders. It is manifest that some leaders ' m a i n t a i n ' the p o l i t i c a l a n d social s y s t e m a s i t i s , w h i l e o t h e r s w a n t t o a l t e r i t d r a m a t i c a l l y . B u t if c h a n g e is t h e raison d'etre for t h e d i f f e r e n c e , t h e r e i s n o b a s i s for seeing t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n t e r m s o f a d i c h o t o m y : t h e revolutionaries m a y wish to c h a n g e society 'radically', b u t it seems r e a s o n a b l e to a s s u m e t h a t other leaders m a y wish to s t a n d half-way, or at some other intermediate position between the s a v i c who do n o t wish to c h a n g e a n d those w h o w a n t to create a wholly ' ty.
a
This a p p e a r s indeed to be the case with m a n y leaders, r t h e y a r e a n x i o u s t o b u t t r e s s c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e exist because they wish to preside over t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a variety of other aspects. S o m e kings or other 'pat fall i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , for e x a m p l e t h e e n l i g h t e n e d eighteenth century in central E u r o p e , or Bism? respect to his introduction of n a t i o n a l suffrage security; in the postwar world, the Shah of Irar
90
m a n y aspects of traditional society while dismantling various e l e m e n t s o f t h e social s t r u c t u r e . S i m i l a r l y , t h o u g h f r o m a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d p o i n t , m a n y ' p o p u l i s t ' l e a d e r s o f t h e T h i r d W o r l d fall i n t o t h e same category, as they wish to introduce some changes b u t do not w a n t t o u p s e t t h e w h o l e s o c i e t y , a n d t h e y seek t o a c c o m p l i s h t h i s e n d either by 'integrating', rather than destroying, the tribal u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h e social s t r u c t u r e , o r b y c o m m i t t i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o a 'middle w a y ' in the i n t r o d u c t i o n of socialism. A t a t u r k a n d C a r d e n a s , Nasser a n d m a n y African leaders belong to this g r o u p . It seems therefore realistic to c o n c l u d e t h a t leaders c a n be located at different p o i n t s in practice, at an infinity of different p o i n t s depending on the extent of change which they bring a b o u t in the s o c i e t y . I n d e e d , i t i s m o r e s a t i s f a c t o r y t o view t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h i s m a n n e r , since t h e e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n s a r e u n l i k e l y ever t o b e h e l d even the ' p u r e s t ' of saviours modifies s o m e w h a t the structures of the society in o r d e r to preserve it or to m a k e it function better. A d e n a u e r and de Gaulle introduced substantial institutional changes at the p o l i t i c a l level i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e d e m o c r a t i c s y s t e m o f g o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d o p e r a t e efficiently; Churchill allowed himself t o s u p p o r t a s u b s t a n t i a l r e t h i n k i n g o f a t least s o m e a s p e c t s o f social relations in Britain in order to bring about greater consensus in the country. Conversely, those w h o wish to introduce 'radical' change always stop short of what would be a 'total' transformation of the s o c i e t y , i n p a r t o f c o u r s e b e c a u s e o f r e s i s t a n c e s , w h i c h w e shall h a v e occasion to discuss further. T h u s , by plotting leaders along a d i m e n s i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o b e m o r e r e a l i s t i c a n d t o i n t r o d u c e finer distinctions. W h a t is significant is the relative extent of c h a n g e which they are instrumental in bringing about. C h a n g e h a s to be viewed here in a ' n e u t r a l ' m a n n e r , moreover, a n d to include both movements towards a 'new', hitherto u n k n o w n , type of society a n d m o v e m e n t s that consist of a return to the past. F o r l e a d e r s w h o w a n t t o t a k e society b a c k w a r d s t h e ' r e a c t i o n a r i e s ' are equally concerned with change as those w h o want to achieve 'progress'. Hitler was a 'revolutionary ideologue' in that he wanted G e r m a n y to h a v e the ' p u r e ' characteristics which, he believed, it h a d i n t h e d i s t a n t p a s t . W h i l e s u p p o r t e r s o f A f r i c a n s o c i a l i s m w a n t t o see their society c h a n g e in a 'progressive' direction, Bismarck or the S h a h of Iran introduced changes that manifested b o t h a return to the past a n d a m o v e m e n t t o w a r d s the future. In general, populists a n d paternalists a r e characterized by an a t t e m p t to i n t r o d u c e relatively gradual changes; but sometimes they are concerned simultaneously with bringing a b o u t changes in a 'progressive' direction a n d changes in a ' r e a c t i o n a r y ' d i r e c t i o n . T h u s , a further distinction has to be m a d e between 'right' and 'left',
91
or between ' r e a c t i o n a r i e s ' a n d 'progressives'. But, especially with respect to 'paternalistic' leaders, the mix of reactionary and p r o g r e s s i v e p o l i c i e s i s o f t e n s u c h t h a t i t i s difficult t o d i s e n t a n g l e t h e m from the overall ' p a c k a g e ' . In a preliminary stage of the analysis, therefore, it is m o r e p r u d e n t to view the dimension as o n e ranging from almost no c h a n g e (as characterized by saviours) to very large c h a n g e (as c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y r e v o l u t i o n a r y t r a n s f o r m e r s o f b o t h r i g h t a n d left), w h i l e n o t i n g t h a t t h e ' d i r e c t i o n ' o f t h e c h a n g e , i n i d e o l o g i c a l terms and with respect to each particular state, can be positive or negative. It is at this point that we m u s t begin to introduce the distinction between the internal a n d international planes, a distinction which, as w e shall i n c r e a s i n g l y s e e , p l a y s a c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r t i n t h e determination of the characteristics of leaders. We have contrasted saviours with transformers: this is because these two types of leaders are the best-known a n d also the m o s t 'heroic', t h o u g h we noted that there were m a n y well-known leaders also a m o n g those w h o occupied intermediate positions, such as some of the populists. But, of course, i n a strict s e n s e , t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n s a v i o u r s a n d t r a n s f o r m e r s occurs on t w o different planes: saviours are saviours because they w a n t to preserve their c o u n t r y from e n c r o a c h m e n t s from outside, w h i l e t r a n s f o r m e r s a r e d e t e r m i n e d , i n t h e first i n s t a n c e , t o a l t e r o n l y their o w n c o u n t r y . Yet there are t h o s e w h o w a n t to preserve society a n d direct their attention to internal matters alone, while, on the other h a n d , there are those who want to transform the external order but do not wish to modify the internal o r d e r . T h e preservation of society that a saviour such as Churchill wished to bring a b o u t is very different from t h e preservation of society t h a t a leader such as P i n o c h e t in Chile or Petain in France wanted to achieve. Similarly, the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the world that Alexander the Great or the Emperor Charles V, or indeed Hitler, wished to bring a b o u t is different from the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the society internally with which L e n i n or M a o w a s primarily concerned. T h u s we discover t h a t there are, in effect, t w o different a n d parallel planes, the internal and the international, on which it is possible to locate leaders with respect to the c o n t r a s t between preservation a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Indeed, the discovery of those two different planes helps to solve s o m e of the p r o b l e m s t h a t we e n c o u n t e r e d earlier in classifying s o m e saviours. De G a u l l e m a y h a v e been a saviour, a p r e s e r v e r , a t least i n 1940, b u t h e w a s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n i n t r o d u c i n g m a j o r c h a n g e s i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f p o l i t i c s i n t h e l a t e 1950s: i n t h e first case he operated on the international plane, in the second he operated p r i n c i p a l l y ( a t least for a while) o n t h e n a t i o n a l p l a n e . S o m e l e a d e r s o f c o u r s e a i m at introducing c h a n g e on b o t h planes Hitler for
92
example, though he was m o r e of a revolutionary on the international plane t h a n internally while o t h e r s , following perhaps the precept of Machiavelli that the internal structure of the country should be m o d i f i e d a s little a s p o s s i b l e , w i s h o n l y t o b r i n g a b o u t c h a n g e s o n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l p l a n e a n d h a v e a c o n s e r v a t i v e v i s i o n a s far a s t h e f u t u r e of their o w n society is c o n c e r n e d . W e h a v e s o far c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h o s e l e a d e r s w h o a r e u s u a l l y described as 'great'. It was pointed out in the previous chapters that a m a j o r difficulty a r i s e s f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a s e e m i n g l y unbridgeable gap between them and the 'ordinary' heads of g o v e r n m e n t s . T h e d i c h o t o m y seemed to arise from, a n d possibly to replicate, the distinction between leaders w h o are held to alter society directly and those w h o are ' m e r e ' m a n a g e r s or policy-makers. On the surface, this distinction, while being ostensibly essential, seemed to be the major obstacle towards the building of a general model of leadership. W h a t w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d s o far i n t h i s c h a p t e r h a s s h o w n , h o w e v e r , t h a t , if there is to be a f u n d a m e n t a l distinction, it c a n n o t be between t r a n s f o r m e r s a n d m e r e policy-makers: only in the sense t h a t saviours re-establish or increase t h e strength of t h e structures of a society could they be said to be t r a n s f o r m e r s ; this is manifestly stretching the meaning of the word unduly. In truth, the distinction between the 'great' and ' o r d i n a r y ' leaders cannot be based on the extent of change t h a t they bring a b o u t in their n a t i o n s : t h e difference m u s t be found elsewhere. It begins to emerge w h e n we consider m o r e precisely w h a t we m e a n by policy-making or policy d e v e l o p m e n t , by contrast with the goals of leaders which we have discussed so far. W h a t de Gaulle w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h , i n 1940 o r i n 1 9 5 8 , w a s t h e whole life a n d structure of the nation: he had a 'vision' of France which he was anxious to maintain. W h a t policy-makers are concerned with, on the c o n t r a r y , i s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f sets o f a r r a n g e m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o a n aspect o f t h e life o f t h e c o u n t r y . F o r t h e m , t h e n a t i o n , c o u n t r y or political system is a given: w h a t is of i m p o r t a n c e is, for instance, an educational system, an economic structure, a particular relationship between the centre and the periphery. Of course, if they are leaders, r a t h e r t h a n departmental ministers in charge of a sector of government only, they are potentially concerned (and indeed actually c o n c e r n e d , at least nominally) with o t h e r aspects of t h e 'system'; b u t , first, t h e y t e n d t o c o n c e n t r a t e their activities o n o n e a s p e c t o r a t m o s t a few a s p e c t s o f t h i s s y s t e m ; a n d , s e c o n d , t h e y see t h e w h o l e a s a n u m b e r of discrete sectors, not as an overall p r o b l e m in need of a comprehensive solution. S u c h l e a d e r s a r e o b v i o u s l y different f r o m s a v i o u r s a n d f r o m t h o s e w h o might be called protectors, from revolutionary transformers or
93
even from paternalists or p o p u l i s t s . T h e y seem to be different in stature or ' p r o m i n e n c e ' , to be sure; they m a y indeed be different in that they do not have such a large p o p u l a r following. But these characteristics do n o t relate directly to their i m p a c t on society as such; specifically, t h e y d o n o t r e l a t e t o w h a t t h e y view t h e i r i m p a c t t o b e . W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e m f r o m t h e l e a d e r s w e h a v e d i s c u s s e d s o far i s t h e fact t h a t t h e i r a c t i v i t y , a n d p r o b a b l y a l s o t h e i r field o f i n t e r e s t , i s m o r e limited. T h e y a r e de facto specialized in an area, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e i m p a c t t h e y m a y h a v e , i n t h e first i n s t a n c e a t l e a s t , c a n b e r e l a t e d o n l y t o o n e o r a n u m b e r o f fields. T h e y a r e p o l i c y m a k e r s b e c a u s e i t i s b y t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s i n a specific p o l i c y a r e a t h a t they can m a k e a difference. It is indeed because of this greater specialization that they are u s u a l l y o r i n t u i t i v e l y felt t o h a v e a s m a l l e r i m p a c t . L e a d e r s ( a n d ministers) w h o m a k e their m a r k essentially in o n e d o m a i n are unlikely to be rated as being the 'great leaders' of history. If some of them b e c o m e political ' h e r o e s ' , this seems to be only when they succeed in m o v i n g u p t o a b r o a d e r a r e a o f a c t i v i t y . B u t t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e size o f their impact, so to speak, h a s to be viewed as distinct from the scope of their activity; arguably, they m a y even have a greater impact, because of what they achieve in their sphere, t h a n 'global' leaders w h o do not a c h i e v e m u c h o r w h o fail i n w h a t t h e y ( a n d t h e n a t i o n ) feel t o b e t h e i r mission. This matter can be put aside at present: what is i m p o r t a n t at this point is to notice that the scope of involvement is very wide in the case o f t h e 'great leaders' w h o m w e e x a m i n e d earlier a n d , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , n a r r o w in the case of t h e ' p o l i c y - m a k e r s ' . The fundamental underlying distinction between the policy-makers a n d t h e o t h e r s r e l a t e s t h e r e f o r e t o t h e scope o f t h e a r e a o f intervention, a n d to the range of problems or aspects of the polity that is being covered. But w h e n it is conceived in this way, the distinction c e a s e s t o a p p e a r a s a d i c h o t o m y . I n t h e first i n s t a n c e , o n e i s i n c l i n e d t o c o n t r a s t t h e great leaders, w h o seem to affect the ' w h o l e ' system, with the policy-makers, w h o appear concerned with a limited area only. B u t further e x a m i n a t i o n suggests t h a t only very rarely do great leaders c o n c e r n themselves, in fact, with t h e w h o l e system. F o r the ' s y s t e m ' m a y m e a n the political or institutional sector; it m a y m e a n also the social s t r u c t u r e or the e c o n o m i c a r r a n g e m e n t s ; it m a y even m e a n the overall culture, the n o r m s of the society. S o m e leaders m a y be concerned with the whole system, admittedly; but m a n y , even a m o n g the ' g r e a t ' , are concerned with only s o m e aspects of the system. At the o t h e r e n d o f t h e scale, s o m e p o l i c y - m a k e r s m a y b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h a r a t h e r n a r r o w s e c t o r w i t h i n a p o l i c y field, w h i l e o t h e r s m a y b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h a very b r o a d a r e a , c o v e r i n g for i n s t a n c e all a s p e c t s o f e c o n o m i c p o l i c y o r social w e l f a r e . T h u s t h e s c o p e o f a c t i o n o f l e a d e r s
94
m u s t be described not in the f o r m of a d i c h o t o m y , but in t e r m s of a r a n g e : this action can vary f r o m a very wide to a very limited front. Indeed, it soon appears that there are large n u m b e r s of intermediate cases. M a n y policy-making leaders indeed, perhaps the majority of t h e m a r e i n v o l v e d in a n u m b e r of p o l i c i e s ; or t h e y a r e i n v o l v e d in a n u m b e r o f r e l a t e d m a t t e r s ( m a t t e r s w h i c h a t least t h e y v i e w a s b e i n g related) which they want to solve in a co-ordinated fashion: these m a y concern the economy, or wide aspects of the sphere of intervention of t h e g o v e r n m e n t i n social a f f a i r s , f o r i n s t a n c e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e ' g r e a t ' l e a d e r s w h o a p p e a r a t first s i g h t t o b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e ' w h o l e ' s y s t e m d e a l i n fact w i t h a s e g m e n t o f t h e s y s t e m o n l y : t h e y m a y be concerned with the n o r m s underlying economic relations, but not with political institutions. This h a p p e n e d frequently in the West a f t e r 1945: s o m e l e a d e r s t r i e d t o ' c o m f o r t ' a p o p u l a t i o n w o r r i e d b y the speed of change; without being ' p r o t e c t o r s ' in the strong sense, because the system was not a b o u t to collapse, these leaders were concerned essentially with ' c u r i n g ' , with ' c a l m i n g ' the citizenry. O t h e r s wished to 'redefine' the a g e n d a , for instance in t e r m s of the relationship between the population and the state, in order to ' m a k e people stand on their o w n t w o feet' (Thatcher) or to ' t a k e the government off the backs of the people' (Reagan). This type of a p p r o a c h h a s a g l o b a l e l e m e n t , to be s u r e ; b u t it is n o t fully g l o b a l as it d o e s n o t affect t h e w h o l e s y s t e m . T h u s , b e t w e e n t h o s e w h o m a i n t a i n , reconstruct or otherwise concern themselves with the ' w h o l e ' system a n d w h o s e w h o d e v o t e t h e i r activities t o o n e o r a v e r y l i m i t e d n u m b e r of p o l i c i e s , t h e r e is a l a r g e n u m b e r i n d e e d , an i n f i n i t y of p o s i t i o n s w h i c h l e a d e r s m a y a n d , i n d e e d , d o t a k e . T h e scope o f intervention thus truly constitutes a dimension along which leaders can be, and must be, located. We have thus discussed two dimensions of analysis: o n e distinguishes the 'great' leaders a m o n g themselves, depending on the extent to which they are concerned with m a i n t e n a n c e or change in the society; t h e o t h e r helps to differentiate between ' g r e a t ' leaders a n d policy-makers by assessing the scope a n d range of intervention. But t h e d i m e n s i o n o f c h a n g e a l s o c o n c e r n s p o l i c y - m a k e r s . N o t all l e a d e r s dealing with educational problems, with housing or with agriculture want to bring a b o u t change, and, if they do want to bring about c h a n g e , n o t all o f t h e m wish t o effect t h e s a m e e x t e n t o f c h a n g e . Although the evidence is circumstantial, it seems overwhelming: there are substantial variations between those w h o introduce and i m p l e m e n t m a j o r r e f o r m s and those w h o do n o t . It is therefore clear t h a t o n e c a n n o t l u m p i n t o o n e s i m p l e c a t e g o r y all t h e ' s p e c i a l i s t ' policy-makers; on the contrary, it seems necessary to distinguish sharply b e t w e e n a n u m b e r of types, ranging from t h o s e w h o introduce
95
large changes to those w h o do n o t . At one end of t h e scale are those w h o are c o n c e r n e d with taking the d e c i s i o n s a s t h e y a r i s e a n d w i t h e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e few frictions either in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n or a m o n g the groups in society: at the other e n d are t h o s e w h o initiate a n u m b e r of entirely n e w policies a n d w h o are therefore potentially able t o c h a n g e the n a t u r e o f the social 'landscape' within the area of government with which they are mostly c o n c e r n e d . T h e first t y p e o f l e a d e r s s h o u l d b e d e s c r i b e d a s ' m a n a g e r s ' , while the second consists of ' i n n o v a t o r s ' . W h a t distinguishes t h e m is the extent to which they achieve indeed, intend to achieve an element of change. In between, there are policy-makers w h o m o d i f y the policies they inherit only to a limited extent; at a lower level, these ' a d j u s t e r s ' c o r r e s p o n d to the populists w h o were described when we examined the 'great' leaders. They are agents of m o d e r a t e c h a n g e within the context of a m o r e specialized area. T h e distinction between managers, adjusters and innovators s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e is, a m o n g t h e ' p o l i c y - m a k e r s ' , a p a r a l l e l distinction to the one that was m a d e between protectors and t r a n s f o r m e r s : i n b o t h c a s e s , t h e b a s i s for t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h e a m o u n t of c h a n g e . It therefore follows t h a t , while there is a dimension helping to distinguish between leaders w h o relate to the 'whole' system and those w h o relate to parts of the system or a limited area, there tends to b e a n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n , a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o all l e a d e r s , w h i c h h e l p s t o distinguish between the a m o u n t of c h a n g e that these leaders wish to i n t r o d u c e ( F i g u r e 1). We have thus elaborated two dimensions, and have done so by considering primarily the internal developments within the country; b u t it is quickly a p p a r e n t that the s a m e dimensions are also applicable t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l field. W e n o t i c e d t h e i m p o r t a n t c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n saviours a n d those w h o wish to modify 'completely' the world o r d e r a N a p o l e o n o r a H i t l e r , for e x a m p l e ; b u t t h e r e a r e a l s o m a n y leaders w h o s e involvement in foreign affairs is m o r e limited a n d c o n c e r n s e i t h e r a s m a l l r e g i o n o f t h e g l o b e o r s o m e specific a s p e c t s o f international development. Those w h o were concerned primarily with t h e b u i l d - u p o f a u n i t e d E u r o p e a f t e r t h e s e c o n d w o r l d w a r , for instance, can be deemed to have been 'reformists' on the international p l a n e , while m a n y other leaders h a v e merely been i n n o v a t o r s or even managers. An e x a m i n a t i o n of the goals a n d b r o a d policy initiatives of leaders, therefore, shows that there is appreciably more than the distinction between 'great' and 'ordinary' leaders, or between transformers and ' m e r e ' policy-makers. The nature of the impact can be varied and l e a d e r s c a n b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n a c o m p l e x m a n n e r . T h e r e a r e i n fact
96
t w o dimensions according to w h i c h , theoretically at least, leaders c a n be located and therefore be related to each other. Moreover, it seems t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f a g i v e n l e a d e r c a n , a n d o f t e n will, v a r y o v e r t i m e i n s u c h a t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e : d e G a u l l e ' s p o s i t i o n i n t h e 1940s w a s n o t t h e s a m e a s t h e o n e h e o c c u p i e d i n t h e 1960s. W h e t h e r i t i s a s y e t possible, in practice, to locate precisely large n u m b e r s of leaders in this space, a n d to locate t h e m differently at different points in time, is a matter that needs further investigation; but there does not seem to be any theoretical reason why such an operation could not be conducted. I f i t c a n b e c o n d u c t e d , s o m e s u b s t a n t i a l a d v a n c e will h a v e b e e n m a d e i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f l e a d e r s h i p ; i f i t c a n n o t yet b e u n d e r t a k e n , o r i f i t c a n be u n d e r t a k e n only to a limited extent, there is clearly a need to improve our empirical knowledge of the goals of leaders. But the twod i m e n s i o n a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f g o a l s c a n a t least g u i d e t h e e m p i r i c a l enquiries a n d t h u s help to bring closer the m o m e n t when leaders' goals can be precisely assessed in practice a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , w h e n t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s o n s o c i e t y will b e c o m e b e t t e r k n o w n a n d understood.
The broad framework of environmental influence on leadership

Leaders' goals are obviously related in some m a n n e r to the e n v i r o n m e n t : t h e q u e s t i o n is, h o w close is t h e relationship? F o r s o m e it is viewed as o n e of c o m p l e t e d e p e n d e n c e ; b u t , a s s u m i n g that this is not the case, the role of the environment can be thought to vary m a r k e d l y . O n e can imagine two extreme possibilities: that of rteartotal freedom enjoyed by the leaders, w h o would be able to handle any situation by p u r s u i n g their o w n pre-determined goals, a n d that of near-complete impotence, when leaders m a y not m a k e m o r e t h a n a trivial m a r k o n t h e s o c i e t i e s w h i c h t h e y r u l e . B e t w e e n t h e s e t w o e x t r e m e s , w h a t a r e t h e p o s i t i o n s i n w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e m o s t likely t o b e found? ' In a fully-fledged analysis of this p r o b l e m , o n e should of course be a b l e t o specify e x a c t l y t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h e a c h l e a d e r c a n b e l o c a t e d o n t h i s c o n t i n u u m . B u t t h i s i s clearly a d i s t a n t a i m . I n m o v i n g t o w a r d s a p a r t i a l a n s w e r , h o w e v e r , o n e step a t least c a n b e t a k e n . T h i s c o n s i s t s in distinguishing a m o n g 'classes' of situations with which different l e a d e r s a r e c o n f r o n t e d . N o t every r u l e r c a n s a v e h i s n a t i o n , w h e t h e r o r not he wishes to do so: this is because n o t every n a t i o n ' n e e d s ' to be saved. If it w e r e possible to discover in a similar m a n n e r a n u m b e r of broad types of environmental 'stages' on which leaders have to play, one might be able to begin to circumscribe the b r o a d characteristics of the problem of the impact of leadership. I n all p r o b a b i l i t y , l e a d e r s h a v e s o m e f r e e d o m t o a c t ; i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , t o o , l e a d e r s exercise t h i s f r e e d o m t o a g r e a t e r o r lesser
97
FIGURE 1
A two-dimensional typology of potential leadership impact
DIMENSION I
Maintenance
Moderate change
Large change
DIMENSION II
WIDE SCOPE
SAVIOURS (Moses, Churchill, De Gaulle)
PATERNALISTS/ POPULISTS (Bismarck, Stalin, Shah, many Third World)
IDEOLOGUES (Mao, Lenin, Hitler)
MODERATE SCOPE (aspect of a system)
COMFORTERS (Eisenhower)
'REDEF1NERS' (JFK, Reagan, Thatcher)
REFORMISTS (FDR)
SPECIALIZED SCOPE (policy area)
MANAGERS (ministers who administer dayto-day problems)
ADJUSTERS/ TINKERERS (ministers who modify an aspect of a policy)
INNOVATORS (new policy: i.e. land reform)
Notes: 1. In each category there are those who succeed and those who fail and make no impact, or very little: e.g. someone who maintains by no action because the system is strong or the policy viable is a 'do nothing'. 2. Change may mean 'progressive' or 'regressive' or a combination of both.
98
extent. T h e overall p u r p o s e of the analysis of leadership m u s t be to d e t e r m i n e h o w l a r g e t h e f r e e d o m i s a n d h o w far l e a d e r s u s e it. W h i l e , o n t h e o n e h a n d , this f r e e d o m i s m a n i f e s t e d b y t h e g o a l s t h a t l e a d e r s choose to a d o p t as their orientation towards action, it is also c i r c u m s c r i b e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t m a k e s , s o t o s p e a k , s o m e t y p e s o f g o a l s easier t o i m p l e m e n t t h a n o t h e r s . I t i s less d i f f i c u l t to mobilize a nation against a n o t h e r nation if the population already h a s a g g r e s s i v e s e n t i m e n t s vis-a-vis t h a t n a t i o n ; it is less d i f f i c u l t to b r i n g a b o u t r e f o r m s i n t h e e c o n o m i c o r social field i f m u c h o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n is discontented with the current e c o n o m i c a n d social structure. The purpose of the analysis of environmental conditions is thus to d e t e r m i n e t h e w a y s i n w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e likely t o b e h e l p e d o r h i n d e r e d in the implementation of their goals by the characteristics of the s o c i e t y t h a t t h e y r u l e . T h e p o i n t i s n o t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t l e a d e r s must p u r s u e certain goals because the society c o m m a n d s t h a t these should b e p u r s u e d : o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e o v e r a l l a i m i s t o assess t h e l e e w a y t h a t leaders a p p e a r to h a v e , in t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y world at least, by confronting the goals that are being p u r s u e d with the underlying c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e s o c i e t y . I t i s a l s o t o s e e , c o n s e q u e n t l y , h o w likely leaders are to depart markedly from the underlying conditions of society a n d to assess by w h a t m e a n s such a strategy can be achieved. T h e a i m is, f u r t h e r , t o e x a m i n e t h e s e m a t t e r s a s p r e c i s e l y a s p o s s i b l e , t h a t i s t o s a y , t o d i s c o v e r t h e extent t o w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e a b l e t o d e p a r t from u n d e r l y i n g societal c o n d i t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n merely to suggest that leaders are either 'strong' or 'ineffective'. The distinction between the internal and the external environment In order to proceed, we need to be able to differentiate between various kinds of general situations with which leaders m a y be c o n f r o n t e d . T h i s m e a n s a t t e m p t i n g , a g a i n , a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . T h e first distinction t h a t comes to mind is that between internal a n d external m a t t e r s w h i c h we f o u n d to be essential with respect to leaders' goals. C l e a r l y , l e a d e r s ' g o a l s w i t h r e s p e c t t o f o r e i g n a f f a i r s differ f r o m leaders' goals with respect to internal p r o b l e m s because the subjectm a t t e r , s o t o s p e a k , i s s o vastly d i f f e r e n t . T h u s , i f i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o distinguish b e t w e e n two planes of leaders' goals, external a n d i n t e r n a l , i t i s e q u a l l y essential t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n i n t e r n a l a n d external e n v i r o n m e n t a l pressures. On the o n e h a n d , leaders are faced with forces o u t s i d e the n a t i o n with which they h a v e to cope a n d which m i g h t a t t h e l i m i t t h r e a t e n t h e very e x i s t e n c e o f t h e n a t i o n ; o n t h e other, there are pressures within the polity which, if they are not dealt w i t h , m i g h t l e a d t o s i t u a t i o n s t h a t c a n b e d a n g e r o u s for t h e p e r s i s t e n c e o f t h e r e g i m e ( a n d , o f c o u r s e , for t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e l e a d e r i n
99
office). These pressures are clearly different in origin, t h e r e f o r e , from the pressures that originate from outside the polity. These pressures w o u l d also seem to be different in a n u m b e r of other ways. T h e intensity a n d immediacy of the external threat is sometimes m o r e o b v i o u s : internal pressures m a y result in the ending of a regime, but external pressures m a y go further: they m a y destroy entirely the fabric of t h e n a t i o n , a n d result in an a n n e x a t i o n of the territory a n d s u b j u g a t i o n of the citizens, involving mass destruction a n d m a s s killings. T h e t h r e a t to internal o r d e r m a y , in e x t r e m e cases, e n d u p i n civil w a r , b u t t h e d a n g e r o f e x t e r n a l w a r i s m o r e c o m m o n a n d m o r e widely feared. M o r e o v e r , external p r o b l e m s often a p p e a r t o be m o r e 'contingent', m o r e 'accidental', than internal problems. Not all i n t e r n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e p r e d i c t a b l e , o f c o u r s e , w h i l e m a n y e x t e r n a l s i t u a t i o n s m a y b e f o r e s e e n ; b u t , t o a d e g r e e a t least, a c t i o n s o f f o r e i g n g o v e r n m e n t s seem to confront leaders with surprising m o v e s and pressures which often result from developments within the c o u n t r y of origin over which these other leaders have no or almost no control. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e i s far f r o m neat, however, in many if not most situations: there are m a n y and c o m p l e x i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s i s i n p a r t b e c a u s e p r e s s u r e for a c t i o n on the leader of a c o u n t r y arises b o t h from outside events a n d from i n t e r n a l d e m a n d s for e x t e r n a l a c t i o r t : a f o r e i g n g o v e r n m e n t m a y threaten a country but, conversely, the population of that country m a y p r e s s u r e its g o v e r n m e n t t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e a f f a i r s o f a n o t h e r state. Moreover, external pressures m a y take m a n y forms, ranging from s u d d e n , almost accidental, events, which m a y result from a foreign leader's actions, to diffuse a n d almost s u b t e r r a n e a n i n f l u e n c e s w h i c h m a y affect m a r k e d l y t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e c i t i z e n s . F o r e x a m p l e , US influence on a c o u n t r y results n o t merely from the pressure of US leaders a n d g o v e r n m e n t officials; it also results f r o m t h e fact t h a t t h e A m e r i c a n w a y o f life m a y i n d u c e c i t i z e n s o f o t h e r countries to want to acquire different goals, achieve different results a n d s o f o r t h . S o m e h a v e e v e n c l a i m e d t h a t t h e r e is, a s a r e s u l t , full ' d e p e n d e n c y ' . This is true not only of US influence: a similar impact m a y result from other nations. Of course, large and powerful c o u n t r i e s a r e m o r e likely t o i n f l u e n c e s m a l l e r o n e s ; b u t n e i g h b o u r i n g n a t i o n s exercise pressure on each o t h e r in m a n y w a y s . T h u s , while it is i m p o r t a n t to distinguish between external and internal e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e s o n l e a d e r s , o n e m u s t l o o k specifically a t t h e m a n y w a y s i n w h i c h e x t e r n a l forces exercise p r e s s u r e i n d i r e c t l y o n a n a t i o n , a s well as t h e m a n y ways in which internal d e m a n d s within a nation m a y force action on the external front. F u r t h e r m o r e , the external e n v i r o n m e n t is often used by the leaders of a country to counteract pressures to which they are subjected
100
i n t e r n a l l y . L e a d e r s t a k e i n i t i a t i v e s i n f o r e i g n a f f a i r s for m a n y r e a s o n s : the need to respond to a perceived threat is one of them; but leaders m a y also p r o v o k e external activities because they believe t h a t they might reap some benefits on t h e h o m e front. M a n y wars seem to have b e e n s t a r t e d , a t least i n p a r t , b e c a u s e o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t h i s k i n d . Interventions by national leaders on the external front thus h a v e to be viewed as m e a n s aimed at indirectly influencing the internal situation, a l t h o u g h s u c h i n t e r v e n t i o n s a r e likely i n t u r n t o r e s u l t i n countermoves by foreign g o v e r n m e n t s which m a y have further consequences, unforeseen by the leaders w h o originated the process. T h e framework within which leaders operate is thus a complex web of relationships linking the internal a n d external planes of action. Yet, as internal a n d external activities a r e ostensibly largely a u t o n o m o u s , a n d m a y f o l l o w d i f f e r e n t p a t h s f o r l o n g p e r i o d s , i t i s b e s t first t o examine separately the general conditions under which internal and e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s e m e r g e a n d t o see h o w t h e s e a r e likely t o i n d u c e leaders to a d o p t a given type of goal a n d , indeed, to facilitate the successful i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h i s g o a l . W e will t h e n h a v e t o r e t u r n t o the interrelationship between the t w o planes. The direct pressure of the environment on leaders There are t h u s pressures on leaders relating to international affairs a n d p r e s s u r e s r e l a t i n g t o i n t e r n a l m a t t e r s , w h i c h , for t h e m o m e n t , w e should examine separately. On each of these planes, leaders pursue goals that m a y h a v e a b r o a d e r or m o r e limited scope a n d m a y aim at m a i n t a i n i n g o r c h a n g i n g the policies previously a d o p t e d . W h a t , t h e n , are the pressures by which leaders m a y be ' i n d u c e d ' by environmental forces t o a d o p t a p a r t i c u l a r s t a n c e a t a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n t i m e ? 'Normalcy' and the 'need' for managers. L e t us s t a r t f r o m t h e situation in which these pressures are essentially directed at maintaining t h e status q u o . If there is c o m p l e t e satisfaction within a p o l i t y a b o u t t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f g o o d s a n d services o c c u r s a n d t h e p o l i t i c a l life is c o n d u c t e d ; if, m o r e o v e r , t h e r e is a s t a b l e equilibrium in the relationship between the country and other nations if o t h e r n a t i o n s m a k e no d e m a n d s , a n d if t h e citizens of the c o u n t r y have no aggressive tendencies towards their neighbours then the situation is o n e of total peace at h o m e a n d a b r o a d . This state of affairs i s very r a r e , o f c o u r s e , b u t c o n t e m p o r a r y S w i t z e r l a n d m a y b e felt t o provide a g o o d approximation. M a j o r c o n s e q u e n c e s for t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s h i p f o l l o w from s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , a s l e a d e r s a p p e a r t o b e c o n s t r a i n e d i n t h e i r m o v e m e n t s . I n t e r n a l l y , the ' h a p p i n e s s ' of t h e p o p u l a t i o n results in an intense d e s i r e t o m a i n t a i n t h e s t a t u s q u o ; e x t e r n a l l y , t h e lack o f aggressive i n c l i n a t i o n s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n m a k e s i t v e r y difficult for
101
leaders to h o p e to o b t a i n s u p p o r t , were they to wish to engage in ' a d v e n t u r e s ' . N o r are they triggered to act in response to foreign a c t i o n , since i t i s a s s u m e d t h a t f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s h a v e n o q u a r r e l w i t h the nation. T h u s there are vast pressures on the leaders not to m a k e a n y m o v e s a t all; t h e p o t e n t i a l s c o p e for l e a d e r s ' i n i t i a t i v e s i s g r e a t l y reduced and, at the limit, non-existent. The type of leaders w h o can be e x p e c t e d ' n a t u r a l l y ' t o e m e r g e i n t h i s c a s e will t h e r e f o r e b e m a n a g e r s , since these are m e n a n d w o m e n w h o s e goals consist of t h e discovery, piecemeal, of c o m p r o m i s e s between the various actors in the society. T h e suggestions are p r o m o t e d by those actors, and the function of leaders is primarily processual: they s m o o t h the path of d e m a n d s rather than initiate t h e m . ' N o r m a l c y ' thus 'naturally' results in leaders being m a n a g e r s . Conversely, only when the situation is ' n o r m a l ' is there an e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e for l e a d e r s t o b e m a n a g e r s ; w h e n t h e s o c i e t y i s u n d e r t h r e a t , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e a r e d e m a n d s for ' c o m f o r t e r s ' o r ' p r o t e c t o r s ' . M a n a g e m e n t i s n o t e n o u g h : i f a vessel i s a b o u t t o s i n k , t h e r e is o n l y a l i m i t e d n e e d for a p u r s e r , h o w e v e r effectively he o r g a n i z e s t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s for m e a l s a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t ; t h e p u r s e r will t h e r e f o r e b e c a l l e d u p o n t o p e r f o r m d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s . Similarly, within the state, m a n a g e r i a l leaders are not sufficient. T h u s t h e F r e n c h l e a d e r s o f t h e 1950s w e r e u n a b l e t o c o p e w i t h t h e p r o b l e m s the c o u n t r y faced: indeed, their basic inability to meet the challenges o f t h e t i m e l e d t o t e n s i o n a n d i n c r e a s e d t h e call for a s a v i o u r . B u t m a n a g e r s a r e a l s o i n e f f e c t i v e e v e n w h e n t h e d e m a n d for c h a n g e is limited. M a n a g e m e n t is concerned with the solution of p r o b l e m s as they arise, on the understanding that no innovation or reform is required. W h e n there is dissatisfaction with s o m e of the institutions or s o m e of the policy directions, leaders w h o are ' m e r e ' m a n a g e r s are likely n o t t o p r o v i d e s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n s . D i s c o n t e n t will g r o w . T h u s , l e a d e r s will h a v e t o b e c o m e a d j u s t e r s o r i n n o v a t o r s ; o t h e r w i s e , t h e y a r e likely t o b e r e p l a c e d o r t h e t e n s i o n i n t h e s o c i e t y will i n c r e a s e . Pressures on the internal plane and their potential effect on the goals of leaders. A society in w h i c h d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n is h i g h is o n e in which conflicts are strong. T h e focus of the conflicts m a y be the state, o r m o r e specifically t h e g o v e r n m e n t , w h e n t h e r e i s a l o n g t r a d i t i o n o f centralization and authoritarianism; or it may be c o m m u n a l groups, i n c o u n t r i e s w h e r e d i v i s i o n s o n t r i b a l , e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s o r class lines a r e v e r y p r o n o u n c e d ; o r i t m a y b e a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o . I n all t h e s e c a s e s , l e a d e r s will b e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h d e m a n d s for c h a n g e , f r o m o n e p a r t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t l e a s t ; i n f a c t , t h e y will p r o b a b l y b e confronted with contradictory d e m a n d s on the part of those w h o want t o see c h a n g e t a k e p l a c e a n d t h o s e w h o w i s h t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s q u o . T h i s state of affairs has four types of c o n s e q u e n c e s . First, a n d q u i t e
102
o b v i o u s l y , l e a d e r s w h o w i s h t o b e o r c a n o n l y b e m a n a g e r s will s o o n b e o v e r t a k e n a s w h o l l y i n a d e q u a t e . S e c o n d , existing l e a d e r s will h a v e o f t e n t o m o d i f y t h e i r g o a l s a n d s t e e r a difficult p a t h b e t w e e n preservation and reform or even transformation. Third, as this is i n d e e d a difficult p a t h , a l t e r n a t i v e l e a d e r s will e m e r g e , w h o will c l a i m t o e m b o d y b e t t e r t h e d e m a n d s o f a t least a f r a c t i o n o f t h e e l e c t o r a t e . F o u r t h , i f s u c h a s i t u a t i o n p e r s i s t s , t e n s i o n m a y well i n c r e a s e , t h e d e m a n d s o f b o t h sides m a y e s c a l a t e , a n d calls for t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u s q u o m a y b e m a t c h e d w i t h e q u a l l y s t r o n g calls f o r revolutionary transformation. H e n c e a n u m b e r o f s c e n a r i o s , w h i c h m a y all c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t r y a t d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n t i m e . A t first, t h e r e c o u l d b e d e m a n d s for c h a n g e i n a l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f fields, s u c h a s e d u c a t i o n , h o u s i n g o r an, a s p e c t o f t h e e c o n o m y ; a l t e r n a t i v e l y , these d e m a n d s m a y relate to the procedures of the administration or result from conflicts between policies r a t h e r t h a n from the policies themselves. T h e level o f d i s c o n t e n t m a y b e h i g h e r , h o w e v e r , i f f o r i n s t a n c e specific d e m a n d s h a v e n o t b e e n m e t d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g p e r i o d . L e a d e r s m a y t h e n b e p r e s s e d for m o r e g l o b a l a l t e r a t i o n s ; t h e y m a y h a v e to engage in a 'redefinition' of the political a g e n d a , or present a p r o g r a m m e for r e f o r m . I f t h e y d o n o t , a l t e r n a t i v e l e a d e r s m a y c o m e to the fore a n d declare themselves able to provide the solutions that current rulers are unable to bring a b o u t . Sometimes, however, leaders w h o a r e i n o f f i c e s e n s e t h e n e e d for c h a n g e a n d i n t r o d u c e r e f o r m s t h e m s e l v e s . T h u s , t h e d e c i s i o n t o p r e s s for l a n d r e f o r m w a s i n i t i a t e d b y t h e S h a h o f I r a n i n t h e e a r l y 1960s i n o r d e r t o r e g a i n t h e p o l i t i c a l i n i t i a t i v e ; B i s m a r c k ' s s o c i a l s e c u r i t y p r o p o s a l s i n t h e 1880s a r e a n e v e n clearer case of a m o v e t o w a r d s a s o m e w h a t paternalistic form of populism designed to counter the increase in discontent from which socialism m i g h t otherwise have benefited m a r k e d l y . M a n y longserving leaders of t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d h a v e altered their goals in a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n : F r a n c o d i d s o i n t h e 1950s a n d 1960s; a n d T h i r d W o r l d f o u n d e r s of states have h a d to do t h e s a m e after s o m e years in power, B o u r g u i b a of Tunisia being an o u t s t a n d i n g example. In practice, however, the situation m a y be even m o r e complex, as t h e r e will b e p r e s s u r e s i n v a r i o u s d i r e c t i o n s . T h e r e w o u l d n o t b e pressures to m a i n t a i n t h e system unless there was also s o m e pressure for c h a n g e i n s o c i e t y . C o n f l i c t s will t h e r e f o r e e m e r g e w h i c h will h a v e to be resolved by t h e leader in favour of a n u m b e r of different positions, b u t t h e result m a y be a tightrope o p e r a t i o n from which the leader m a y n o t be able to emerge victorious. T h e r e m a y be gradual e s c a l a t i o n o f t e n s i o n , a n d t h e d e m a n d s m a y b e n o t j u s t for a c o m f o r t e r o r a r e f o r m e r , b u t for a r u l e r a b l e t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s q u o
103
a t all c o s t s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d for a p r o p o n e n t o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y change, on the other. This is the type of evolution that has resulted in the coming to p o w e r of a u t h o r i t a r i a n leaders of the right, as in Chile in 1 9 7 3 , o r o f t h e left, a s i n E t h i o p i a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r . T h e level o f c o n f l i c t t h a t i s r e q u i r e d for a call for r e v o l u t i o n a r y transformers to be widespread has to be very high. This is why the probability of such situations arising is relatively low. Internal conflict has to be very high; b u t very high conflict d o e s n o t n o r m a l l y arise in an i n s t a n t , or even very quickly. It arises either o u t of e n d u r i n g s o c i a l c l e a v a g e s o r o u t o f n e w social c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h o f t e n , i n t u r n , stem from e c o n o m i c c h a n g e . If the cleavages are old a n d enduring, p r e s u m a b l y t h e y a r e o l d a n d e n d u r i n g b e c a u s e t h e level o f c o n f l i c t t h a t is generated is tolerable; otherwise there w o u l d h a v e been a societal b r e a k - u p . If t h e conflicts are relatively new a n d arise in particular f r o m e c o n o m i c c h a n g e , t h e y will i n c r e a s e g r a d u a l l y a n d a r e likely t o r e s u l t i n a d e m a n d for i n n o v a t o r s o r a t m o s t r e f o r m i s t s , d u r i n g a n e a r l y p e r i o d a t l e a s t . T h u s , i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t s will b e c o m e v e r y h i g h o n l y after a s u b s t a n t i a l p e r i o d a n d p r o v i d e d n o a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n given to these conflicts during that period, that is to say, if the leaders of t h e time m a i n t a i n e d society as it w a s , an o u t c o m e t h a t is unlikely to h a p p e n unless e x t r a o r d i n a r y pressures were used deliberately in order to prevent change. This is so rare that, in m o s t cases, events external to the polity need to have played a part. M o r e o v e r , even if they occasionally emerge as a result of ' n a t u r a l ' i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s , for i n s t a n c e if, b y a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o i n c i d e n c e , e n d u r i n g s o c i a l c l e a v a g e s a r e j u x t a p o s e d t o social c o n f l i c t s s t e m m i n g from rapid economic change, these revolutionary situations are u n l i k e l y t o last for l o n g a n d l e a d e r s a r e likely t o h a v e q u i c k l y r e t r e a t e d to a m o r e 'conservative' standpoint. T h e new system that has been i n t r o d u c e d n e e d s t o b e p r e s e r v e d ; b u t less r a p i d c h a n g e i s a l s o likely t o be d e m a n d e d by the society. This is w h y Stalin should be described as a ( h a r d ) p a t e r n a l i s t l e a d e r r a t h e r t h a n a r e v o l u t i o n a r y i d e o l o g u e , for instance. Those who have preached 'permanent revolution' have f o u n d i t i m p o s s i b l e t o c a r r y o u t i n p r a c t i c e for m o r e t h a n a few y e a r s at m o s t , a n d they have d o n e so at the expense of their o w n leadership. M a o is p e r h a p s t h e clearest e x a m p l e of a leader w h o succeeded in b e i n g ' r e v o l u t i o n a r y ' o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d , t h o u g h e v e n h e failed t o meet the ' s t a n d a r d ' during m a n y years, and re-established the preeminence of the revolutionary ideal only at great cost; interestingly, he w a s q u i c k l y s u c c e e d e d b y m a n i f e s t l y r e f o r m i s t l e a d e r s (in t h e conservative direction). Pressures on the external plane and the goals of leaders. In m o s t c o u n t r i e s , c o n c e r n w i t h f o r e i g n a f f a i r s i s b y a n d l a r g e less i n t e n s e t h a n t h e c o n c e r n with h o m e affairs; b u t citizens d o h a v e prejudices, a n d
104
i n d e e d a g g r e s s i v e t e n d e n c i e s , t o w a r d s o t h e r n a t i o n s , w h i c h a r e fuelled by the behaviour of these n a t i o n s . M e a n w h i l e , the pressures exercised b y f o r e i g n g o v e r n m e n t s a r e o f t e n s t r o n g , a n d i n a few c a s e s p a r a m o u n t , a n d o v e r r i d e all o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h i s i s n a t u r a l l y t h e o c c a s i o n w h e n t h e r e i s a call f o r a ' s a v i o u r ' t o c o m e t o t h e r e s c u e o f t h e n a t i o n , for i n s t a n c e i n c a s e s o f i m m i n e n t o r a c t u a l i n v a s i o n . M o s e s was such a saviour: he could, by his inspiration, protect the Jews against their enemies a n d m o v e t h e m t o w a r d s the promised land not by changing the characteristics of the nation, but, on the contrary, by m a i n t a i n i n g existing ties, by b o o s t i n g m o r a l e , a n d by finding a solution to the problem posed by the outside threat. S a v i o u r s c a n a l s o e m e r g e w h e n i n t e r n a l difficulties c o m b i n e w i t h environmental pressures originating outside the nation. If the country's institutions need some strengthening in order to be able to meet outside pressures, t h e saviour m a y h a v e to repair t h e edifice; the n a t i o n will t h e n b e a b l e t o o f f e r g r e a t e r r e s i s t a n c e a g a i n s t t h e e l e m e n t s . B u t t h e m a i n call for t h e s a v i o u r m u s t r e s u l t f r o m e x t e r n a l t r o u b l e s , since, as we saw, ' p r o t e c t o r s ' are unlikely to e m e r g e w i t h o u t t h e r e b e i n g a l s o a d e m a n d for c h a n g e o n t h e p a r t o f s o m e s e g m e n t s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n . P u r e s a v i o u r s will b e r e q u i r e d b y s o c i e t y o n l y i f s o c i e t y ' w i s h e s ' t o b e s a v e d . T o p u t i t d i f f e r e n t l y , a s a v i o u r i s likely t o a r i s e o n l y i f t h e r e i s s o m e will o n t h e p a r t o f t h e n a t i o n ' s c i t i z e n s t o m a i n t a i n their society. T h e citizens, like the King of F r a n c e at the time of J o a n of A r c , m a y despair of the chances of m a i n t a i n i n g the society in being; they m a y h a v e given up h o p e or be on the verge of doing so. But they must be profoundly oriented in a positive m a n n e r towards that society or t h e regime t h a t is b r e a k i n g u p ; they m u s t be lamenting its p o s s i b l e d i s a p p e a r a n c e w h i l e feeling i m p o t e n t , b y t h e m s e l v e s , i n t h e face o f t h e m a j o r t h r e a t . B y a n d l a r g e , t h e i n t e r n a l p r o b l e m s t h a t m a y exist will p r o v i d e a n o p p o r t u n i t y for a s a v i o u r i f t h e s e p r o b l e m s are viewed b r o a d l y as the cause of the external weakness of the c o u n t r y . S u c h w a s t h e s i t u a t i o n i n F r a n c e i n 1940 o r 1958; w h a t w a s w a n t e d b y t h e p o p u l a t i o n w a s a s t a b l e (or m o r e s t a b l e ) a r r a n g e m e n t a l o n g the lines of a l i b e r a l - d e m o c r a t i c system, in p a r t in o r d e r to be able to meet the external challenge. T w o c o n d i t i o n s t h u s h a v e t o b e fulfilled for s a v i o u r s t o e m e r g e ; t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e s t r i c t , a n d t h e r e f o r e will o c c u r r a r e l y . O n l y c e r t a i n s o c i e t i e s , a t c e r t a i n t i m e s , a r e likely t o b e b o t h u n d e r i m m i n e n t threat of b r e a k - u p a n d p o p u l at e d by citizens w h o are anxious to m a i n t a i n t h e s y s t e m , i f a t all p o s s i b l e . T h i s , o f c o u r s e , d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t s a v i o u r s will a l w a y s e m e r g e i n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o r t h a t l e a d e r s w h o w i s h t o b e s a v i o u r s will a l w a y s s u c c e e d i n t h e i r t a s k . T h e impact m a y be varied; saviours may not achieve their goals. But these conditions are prerequisites; to put it differently, they constitute the
105
framework within which saviours emerge. A s o m e w h a t similar, t h o u g h w a t e r e d - d o w n , situation occurs with respect to the type of leadership that was described in the previous s e c t i o n a s t h a t o f t h e ' c o m f o r t e r s ' . T h e s e fulfil a s o m e w h a t a n a l o g o u s f u n c t i o n t o t h a t o f s a v i o u r s , b u t a t a s o m e w h a t l o w e r level o f t h r e a t t o t h e o v e r a l l s y s t e m , o r a t a level a t w h i c h o n l y p a r t o f t h e s y s t e m i s t h r e a t e n e d . C o m f o r t e r s are n e e d e d w h e n t h e r e is a general a n d diffuse feeling t h a t t h e s o c i e t y i s u n d e r s o m e s t r e s s . T h e r e m a y n o t b e c l e a r a n d i m m e d i a t e d a n g e r s , b u t t h e r e i s t h e belief, for i n s t a n c e , t h a t t h e c o u n t r y m a y b e less s e c u r e o r t h a t e n e m i e s m a y g r a d u a l l y b e g a i n i n g i n s t r e n g t h i f n o t i n m i l i t a r y t e r m s , a t least i n e c o n o m i c t e r m s . T h i s relative e c o n o m i c i m p r o v e m e n t of other nations m a y a p p e a r t h r e a t e n i n g if it is viewed as a decline of t h e c o u n t r y ' s o w n p o s i t i o n . The population therefore needs to be 'comforted', because, as when it l o o k s for a s a v i o u r , i t w a n t s t h e s t a t u s q u o t o b e m a i n t a i n e d . T h e r e i s s u p p o r t , even if it is diffuse a n d r a t h e r passive: the w o r r y c o m e s p r e c i s e l y f r o m t h e feeling t h a t t h e s o c i e t y w h i c h i s s u p p o r t e d a n d 'liked' m a y be passing. T h u s , in t h e case of b o t h the saviour a n d t h e comforter, there has to be an external threat and internal support, a l t h o u g h t h e levels a t w h i c h b o t h c o n d i t i o n s n e e d t o exist a r e n o t t h e same in the two situations. N o t all e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s ' r e q u i r e ' c o m f o r t e r s , s a v i o u r s o r i n d e e d m a n a g e r s , h o w e v e r . S o m e , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s for leaders to modify the status q u o a m o n g nations. W h a t are considered here, of course, are only those instances in which the situation induces leaders to p r o m o t e change in the world order, a n d not cases, which we shall e x a m i n e later, in which the leader himself initiates action or even cases in which there is a complex interrelationship between external a n d internal pressures. But there are instances when the desire to m o d i f y the status q u o arises from pressures within the p o p u l a t i o n a n d / o r are triggered by actions of foreign g o v e r n m e n t s . If the p o p u l a t i o n , o r a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f it, feels a g g r i e v e d b y h a p p e n i n g s a t t h e b o r d e r o f t h e s t a t e ; i f i t feels t h a t a n e i g h b o u r i n g t e r r i t o r y should be annexed because that territory is inhabited by a g r o u p with w h i c h i t i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d ; if, m o r e g e n e r a l l y , t h e p o p u l a t i o n v i e w s other parts of the world usually, but not necessarily, parts t h a t are r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e g e o g r a p h i c a l l y a s b e i n g t h e ' l e g i t i m a t e ' p r e y o f its imperialism, then leaders are manifestly pressurized or induced to engage in aggressive actions. Such was the situation, to s o m e extent, in J a p a n i n t h e 1930s; s i m i l a r p o i n t s c a n b e m a d e for v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s o f central E u r o p e from the second half of the nineteeth century. In these c a s e s l e a d e r s m a y b e i n c i t e d t o a c t a s ' t r a n s f o r m e r s ' (in e f f e c t , ' a g g r e s s o r s ' ) , o r a t least a s ' r e f o r m e r s ' o r ' i n n o v a t o r s ' i n t h e international sphere, in the same way as they m a y be asked to act as
706
transformers, reformers or i n n o v a t o r s on the internal plane in order t o bring a b o u t political, social o r e c o n o m i c c h a n g e . By a n d large, however, the p r e s s u r e for change in the i n t e r n a t i o n a l field i s r a r e r t h a n t h e p r e s s u r e f o r c h a n g e i n t h e i n t e r n a l field. T h u s t h e most frequent observations are, on the one hand, those in which external pressures are relatively high a n d comforters or even saviours are ' r e q u i r e d ' to m a i n t a i n t h e c o u n t r y in existence or in a state of ' w e l l - b e i n g ' vis-a-vis o t h e r n a t i o n s , a n d , o n t h e o t h e r , t h o s e i n w h i c h i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e for c h a n g e i s s t r o n g a n d t h e p o l i t y n a t u r a l l y l o o k s for redefiners, reformists or populists to solve p r o b l e m s ; there m a y even be an o p p o r t u n i t y for r e v o l u t i o n a r y ideologues to b e c o m e leaders; but environmental conditions, internally, are unlikely to be ' r i p e ' n a t u r a l l y , a n d t h e y will c e r t a i n l y n o t b e ' r i p e ' for l o n g . On the external plane, most other types of leadership goals are unlikely to result naturally from the pressures of the e n v i r o n m e n t , as they are viewed with suspicion a n d even in s o m e cases with h o r r o r . Internally, transformers tend to be preferred to protectors a n d even comforters, as these appear to prevent progress from occurring which, indeed, they d o . Especially in the c o n t e m p o r a r y world, they are associated with repression, m o r e even t h a n are the revolutionaries: 'progress' is associated with change, a n d those w h o achieve some internal change are j u d g e d positively, even if the m e a n s t h a t they used a r e d i s l i k e d . O n t h e e x t e r n a l p l a n e , h o w e v e r , t r a n s f o r m e r s a r e i n fact a g g r e s s o r s a n d a r e j u d g e d n e g a t i v e l y for t h i s r e a s o n , w h i l e t h o s e w h o wish to m a i n t a i n the status q u o , such as the saviours a n d the comforters, are considered positively. By a n d large, leaders are regarded as ' g o o d ' if they are saviours externally and reformists or revolutionaries internally (although there is regret that revolution appears to be associated with repression). This m a y not explain why transformers on t h e external plane aggressors a n d protectors of t h e society internally are relatively r a r e ; i n d e e d , saviours a n d revolutionaries, even reformists, can rarely be found, either. But the p r e s s u r e , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t exists, i s for e x t e r n a l s a v i o u r s a n d internal reformists and revolutionaries, a situation that must, to an extent at least, increase the n u m b e r s of t h o s e w h o strive to play this part. T h e 'call' for m a n a g e r s , t o o , is limited, since, as we saw, only countries living in h a r m o n y internally a n d with t h e rest of the world a r e likely t o r e q u i r e m a n a g e r s . M a n a g e r s m a y exist i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s , admittedly, but this is probably why they are usually regarded as l e a d e r s o f a lesser k i n d : t h e y a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s m a l l a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d , at the limit, with a ' d o - n o t h i n g ' p o s t u r e in cases w h e r e there is a d e m a n d for s o m e external action, if only relatively limited. While 'aggression' is typically disliked, a p o s t u r e of total disengagement
107
from foreign affairs is viewed generally as unsatisfactory. This m a y explain in p a r t w h y , as a m a t t e r of fact, ' p u r e ' m a n a g e m e n t on the external plane is rarer t h a n might perhaps have been expected, and is indeed rarer t h a n on the internal plane. Indirect external pressure and the goals of leaders T h e direction of leaders' goals can therefore be 'expected' to be different d e p e n d i n g on whether they are related to the c o u n t r y internally or to the world position of the nation. Yet, in the concrete r e a l i t y o f t h e life o f s t a t e s , e x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l a s p e c t s o f t h e environment interact frequently. Internal environmental pressures colour to a substantial extent the ways in which some leaders intervene in foreign policy m a t t e r s ; even m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , external elements b o t h modify the characteristics of the internal environment with which leaders a r e c o n f r o n t e d a n d give leaders o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o h a v e a n i n d i r e c t , b u t o f t e n s t r o n g , effect o n t h i s i n t e r n a l e n v i r o n m e n t . O n e o f t h e m o s t r e n o w n e d e x a m p l e s o f s u c h a n i m p a c t o c c u r r e d i n 1914. B o t h G e r m a n y .and A u s t r i a w e r e c o n f r o n t e d a t t h e t i m e w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l internal opposition a n d with m a r k e d discontent on the part of substantial segments of their populations, including, in Austria, m a n y of the nationalities t h a t c o m p o s e d t h e A u s t r o - H u n g a r i a n E m p i r e . Yet these apparently large conflicts were suddenly reduced indeed, seemed to vanish as the two countries entered the war. An external t h r e a t h a d silenced internal d i s c o n t e n t . This e x a m p l e , like t h a t of m a n y o t h e r s t h a t c o m e readily to m i n d including the advent of the Russian Revolution in the aftermath of d e f e a t i n 1917-18 i n d i c a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l s t r e n g t h o f t h e i m p a c t o f external events on t h e internal situation. It is therefore essential to examine the forms that this indirect role of external events takes in c o n f r o n t i n g l e a d e r s w i t h c o n s t r a i n t s a s well a s o p p o r t u n i t i e s . T h e c o n v e r s e effect t h a t o f t h e i n t e r n a l s i t u a t i o n o n t h e e x t e r n a l p r e d i c a m e n t faced by leaders m a y also be i m p o r t a n t ; we have indeed already noticed that possible 'aggressive' postures of the p o p u l a t i o n m a y h a v e a n effect. How external pressures indirectly affect internal conditions. W h a t , t h e n , a r e t h e w a y s i n w h i c h t h e w o r l d scene m a y i n d i r e c t l y affect i n t e r n a l societal c o n d i t i o n s a n d t h u s ' i n d u c e ' l e a d e r s t o a d o p t c e r t a i n goals? T h e change in conditions if any, must take the form of a m o d ification of the dynamics that we examined in the previous section. Leaders, as we saw, are confronted with ' d e m a n d s ' / f o r the m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e s t a t u s q u o a n d with ' d e m a n d s ' for c h a n g e , b o t h o f w h i c h a r e o f v a r y i n g intensity. T h e i n s e r t i o n o f a (new) e x t e r n a l p r o b l e m will h a v e a n effect o n l y i f this b a l a n c e i s t r a n s f o r m e d , t h a t i s t o s a y , i f s o m e o f t h e p r e s s u r e for m a i n t e n a n c e a n d for c h a n g e a r e m o d i f i e d .
108
Such a modification can o c c u r o n l y if external events alter m a r k e d l y the prevailing ' m o o d ' in the c o u n t r y : those w h o want to bring a b o u t c h a n g e t h e n feel o b l i g e d t o r e d u c e t h e i r d e m a n d s , o r t h o s e w h o w a n t t o m a i n t a i n t h e s y s t e m b e c o m e less i n c l i n e d t o d o s o . T h e e x t e r n a l pressure must thus be strong e n o u g h to modify the extent a n d a m o u n t o f c o n f l i c t i n t h e p o l i t y . T h i s , o f c o u r s e , will h a p p e n i f t h e r e i s a n a r m e d c o n f l i c t ; b u t a c h a n g e i n c o n f l i c t levels c a n a l s o o c c u r i n less dramatic circumstances. Indeed, one can locate the ways in which e x t e r n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r a c t i v i t i e s m a y affect t h e p o l i t y i n t e r n a l l y along a dimension ranging from 'covert' to 'overt'. At one extreme, there are the basic influences t h a t result from the general a n d pervasive influence that a country or g r o u p of countries m a y have on others a n d which m a y m a k e others d e p e n d e n t as a result, for instance because they are larger, or richer, or better organized politically, socially o r e c o n o m i c a l l y , o r h a v e a n a p p e a l i n g i d e o l o g y , o r i n d e e d a r e felt t o h a v e a m o r e d e v e l o p e d c u l t u r e . A t t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e a r e t h e m o r e 'contingent' happenings, of which war is an extreme case. This d i m e n s i o n i s i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e t h e effect i s likely t o b e d i f f e r e n t , b o t h in intensity and in duration: the continuous but somewhat covert influence m a y n o t a p p e a r t o affect m a r k e d l y t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r which leaders are able to rule, t h o u g h , in the long run, the consequences m a y be large and indeed deeper than when there is a b r u t a l shock, which m a y result in a s u d d e n b r e a k - u p , b u t m a y n o t have more than temporary consequences. E x t e r n a l f a c t o r s , s u b d u e d o r n o t , h a v e a n i m p a c t o n levels o f t e n s i o n i n t h e p o l i t y b e c a u s e t h e y affect s e n t i m e n t s o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e . F o r i n s t a n c e , w h e n t h e c i t i z e n s o f a n a t i o n p r e f e r t h e w a y o f life o f a foreign c o u n t r y to their o w n , their b e h a v i o u r a m o u n t s to a display of a l o w level o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e : t h e i r e s t e e m for t h e i r o w n c o u n t r y i s r e d u c e d w h i l e t h e i r e s t e e m for o t h e r c o u n t r i e s i s i n c r e a s e d . W h e n t h e p o p u l a t i o n r e a c t s v i g o r o u s l y t o a t t a c k s m a d e a g a i n s t its c o u n t r y b y a f o r e i g n p o w e r , o r w h e n t h a t p o p u l a t i o n e m b r a c e s t h e d e c i s i o n s o f its leaders to t h r e a t e n or even to go to war against a n o t h e r country, the feelings o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e a r e , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , v e r y h i g h : t h e e s t e e m for o n e ' s o w n c o u n t r y i s m u c h g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t felt for o t h e r n a t i o n s . W h e n f e e l i n g s o f n a t i o n a l self-esteem a r e l o w , c i t i z e n s a r e likely either to wish to 'exit' o r , m o r e c o m m o n l y , to l o o k for i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e i r o w n c o u n t r y ; t h e y will t h e r e f o r e t u r n t o t h e i r l e a d e r s a n d impress u p o n t h e m t h a t goals must be c h a n g e d in o r d e r to achieve a b e t t e r w a y o f l i f e . T h u s , i n a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e n a t i o n a l feelings o f t h e c i t i z e n s a r e m a d e t o suffer, i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n ( a n d n o t m e r e l y e x t e r n a l c o n f l i c t ) will b e h i g h e r , w h i l e , i n a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e n a t i o n a l p r i d e i s b o o s t e d , i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n will b e d e c r e a s e d . T h i s i s w h y , i n 1914, G e r m a n s a n d A u s t r i a n s c o u l d s i l e n c e t h e i r ' d i f f e r e n c e s '
109
a n d all b e G e r m a n s o r A u s t r i a n s ; t h i s i s w h y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , faced w i t h t h e feeling t h a t t h e c o u n t r y i s less successful e c o n o m i c a l l y t h a n , s a y , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , c i t i z e n s i n m a n y n a t i o n s h a v e a sense o f frustration which increases the conflicts within the society. The type of indirect impact of external conditions on the internal s i t u a t i o n will t h e r e f o r e d e p e n d o n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e a c t i o n h a s t h e effect o f d e p r e s s i n g o r , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , i n f l a t i n g feelings o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e i n t h e c o u n t r y . T o b e s u r e , a b s o l u t e feelings o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e v a r y f r o m c o u n t r y t o c o u n t r y a s well a s w i t h i n e a c h c o u n t r y ; b u t w h a t i s m o r e r e l e v a n t i s t h e r e l a t i v e i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e i n feelings o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e . T h u s , w h e r e an a c t i o n or, indeed, a generally diffuse c o n d i t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s t o a d e p r e s s i o n o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e , t h e level o f c o n f l i c t i n t h e s o c i e t y will t e n d t o i n c r e a s e a n d p r e s s u r e s o n l e a d e r s will h e n c e i n c r e a s e for t h e m t o m o d i f y t h e i r s t a n c e ; w h e n , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e s e n s e o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e r i s e s , p r e s s u r e s o n l e a d e r s will d e c r e a s e a n d t h e l e a d e r s will b e b e t t e r a b l e t o m a i n t a i n t h e i r p o l i c y initiatives. National pride and changes in levels of internal tension. It therefore becomes possible to explain why leaders both those w h o h a v e b e e n i n office a n d n e w o n e s find t h e m s e l v e s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h changes in internal tension as a result of external pressure. First, l e a d e r s will b e s u b j e c t e d t o g r e a t e r p r e s s u r e i f c i t i z e n s c o m e t o a d m i r e t h e w a y of life of a n o t h e r c o u n t r y , or if t h e r e is a r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t a feeling o f ' d e p e n d e n c y ' ; t h e s e l e a d e r s will c e a s e t o b e a b l e t o a c t a s m a n a g e r s a n d will h a v e t o b e c o m e i n n o v a t o r s o r e v e n r e f o r m i s t s . T h i s h a p p e n e d to a substantial extent in Western E u r o p e after the second w o r l d w a r , as a result of t h e ' A m e r i c a n i z a t i o n ' of t h e societies (the S o v i e t U n i o n a l s o , for a w h i l e , e x e r c i s e d a n a t t r a c t i o n i n s o m e quarters). T h e same occurred to a substantial extent in J a p a n until the 1970s, w h i l e i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t p e r i o d t h e s i t u a t i o n h a s p a r t l y b e e n reversed between the United States and J a p a n . Conversely, if n a t i o n a l i s m b e c o m e s s t r o n g e r a s a r e s u l t o f e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e , t h e level o f i n t e r n a l ' c r i s i s ' will d e c l i n e a n d l e a d e r s m a y n o l o n g e r n e e d ( o r b e able) to i n t r o d u c e large reforms. This often occurs when leaders w h o came to power as reformists become national heroes. It h a p p e n e d to a n e x t e n t w i t h F . D . R o o s e v e l t ; i t m i g h t e v e n b e said t o h a v e h a p p e n e d with Stalin during the second world w a r . T h e r e a r e i n d e e d m a n y e x a m p l e s o f t h e effects o f i n c r e a s e d o r decreased tension resulting from wars or other forms of international p r e s s u r e . I h a v e already m e n t i o n e d the case of Western E u r o p e after t h e s e c o n d w o r l d w a r , w h e n t h e loss o f p r e s t i g e o f t h e c o u n t r i e s o f t h a t a r e a r e s u l t e d i n a ' d e m a n d ' for a c t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o a c h i e v e b e t t e r e c o n o m i c a n d social s t a n d a r d s . S i m i l a r l y , m u c h o f t h e p r e s s u r e for ' d e v e l o p m e n t ' in the Third W o r l d results from increased tension
110
within these polities as the g a p b e t w e e n t h e countries of t h e S o u t h a n d the West has become recognized. Conversely, the victory achieved rapidly by M r s Thatcher in the F a l k l a n d Islands is an example of a limited a r m e d conflict t h a t h a d a m a n i f e s t indeed, m e a s u r e a b l e impact on the popularity of t h e British leader in reducing tension resulting from internal conflicts, a n d t h u s in m a k i n g it possible (or easier) to carry o u t policies t h a t i g n o r e d s o m e of the d e m a n d s for change that had hitherto been prevalent. F a i l u r e s i n t h e d i p l o m a t i c field a n d , e v e n m o r e , d e f e a t a t w a r r e s u l t i n i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n s b e i n g m a r k e d l y i n c r e a s e d , a s feelings o f national pride are deeply hurt. W o u n d e d nationalism reverberates on t h e leaders, w h o s e t e n u r e of office m a y be s h o r t e n e d a n d in s o m e cases a b r u p t l y b r o u g h t to an end as a result of these failures. But the c o l l a p s e of a r e g i m e in c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s p l a y a substantial part correspondingly results in the coming to power of different m e n a n d w o m e n w h o are t h u s helped significantly b y the c o m b i n a t i o n o f t e n s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m a loss o f n a t i o n a l s e l f - e s t e e m a n d of severe internal conflicts. These new leaders n o t only achieve p o w e r ; they also thereby o b t a i n a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u r s u e g o a l s w h i c h n e i t h e r t h e y n o r a n y o n e else might have been able to pursue in ordinary circumstances. They are in a position to i m p l e m e n t goals that d e p a r t significantly, radically even, from policies previously followed. T h e r e is t h u s a close relationship b e t w e e n t h e seriousness o f t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e p r e v i o u s l e a d e r s h i p a n d t h e a b i l i t y o f n e w l e a d e r s t o p u s h for r a p i d c h a n g e : i t i s t y p i c a l l y w h e n an international catastrophe has occurred that revolutionary leaders are able to pursue their goals. The Russian Revolution was b o r n out of t h e t r a u m a o f t h e first w o r l d w a r , w h i l e t h e C h i n e s e R e v o l u t i o n o c c u r r e d a f t e r a l o n g w a r w i t h J a p a n c o m b i n e d w i t h a civil w a r . Indeed, the 'radicalization' of the French Revolution which occurred after 1792 w a s a t l e a s t i n p a r t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l conflict. External pressures thus modify in a n u m b e r of i m p o r t a n t ways the conditions u n d e r which leaders are able to rule. If national pride is b o o s t e d , i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t s will b e l e s s e n e d a n d t h e l e a d e r will b e a b l e to continue with policies that are m o d e r a t e or conservative. If n a t i o n a l p r i d e i s a f f e c t e d , i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n will i n c r e a s e ; a n d i f t h e r e h a s b e e n a m a s s i v e f a i l u r e e x t e r n a l l y , t h e loss o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e will o f t e n r e s u l t i n t h e fall o f t h e l e a d e r ( a n d o f t h e r e g i m e ) . W h e n t h i s f a i l u r e i s c o u p l e d w i t h a n a l r e a d y h i g h level o f i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n , a n e w leadership m a y be able to introduce radical policies, as these can be r e g a r d e d a s a m e a n s o f r e s o l v i n g t h e c o u n t r y ' s difficulties. 'Revolutionary t r a n s f o r m e r s ' , who usually c a n n o t achieve power as a r e s u l t o f i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n a l o n e , h a v e a c h a n c e t o t r y o u t t h e i r policies
III
when external disaster is a d d e d to internal conflict. T h e c o m b i n e d effect o f i n t e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s d o e s n o t stop at this point, h ow ev e r . F u r t h e r consequences follow, which can be viewed as o r d e r e d a l o n g a c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n . At o n e extreme, t h e p o l i t y m a y b e e n t i r e l y r e c a s t : t h i s o c c u r r e d i n 1918 i n R u s s i a a n d i n 1945 i n G e r m a n y . A t t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e , t h e d u r a b l e , t h o u g h s u b d u e d , influence of s o m e n a t i o n s on others m a y p r o v o k e a gradual increase in nationalism, which may, as currently throughout the Third World, create a p r o f o u n d a n d persistent sense of discontent against the 'imperialistic' p o w e r s . In between, there are the often violent but l a r g e l y t e m p o r a r y effects o f s u d d e n s h o c k s . L i m i t e d w a r s o r i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a n a t i o n h a s t o g i v e i n t o t h r e a t s a s well a s l i m i t e d v i c t o r i e s and short-term gains m a y be forgotten rapidly; with time, the p o p u l a t i o n m a y g r a d u a l l y r e t u r n t o its t r a d i t i o n a l p a t t e r n s o f c o n f l i c t . As the sense of n a t i o n a l self-esteem ceases to be b o o s t e d , earlier internal cleavages m a y once m o r e b e c o m e p r o m i n e n t , unless transformations have occurred in the intermediate period within the s o c i e t y , for i n s t a n c e i f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g g r o u p s h a v e b e e n a l t e r e d . I f t h i s h a s n o t h a p p e n e d , t h e s u p p o r t for t h e g o a l s p u r s u e d b y the leader m a y be eroded. T h u s , a conservative leader w h o can use b o l s t e r e d feelings o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e t o h i s o r h e r b e n e f i t m a y f i n d t h a t pressures for internal c h a n g e are o n c e again strong; t h u s , the standing of the revolutionary leader emerging after a defeat m a y be r e d u c e d , n o t only because m a n y old cleavages c o m e back to the fore, but because the n e w policies p u r s u e d create further p r o b l e m s . The role of leaders in manipulating external influences on society. L e a d e r s o f t e n h a v e t h e d e s i r e t o ' e s c a p e ' i n t o f o r e i g n affairs. By doing so, they want to avoid the drudgery of domestic policy-making; but they also h o p e to increase their standing internally. T h u s there is often the temptation to win a 'quick' war; but t h e r e i s a l s o t h e d e s i r e t o b e i n v o l v e d i n c o n f e r e n c e s a n d i n visits a b r o a d , a s well a s t o m a k e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t a r e v i e w e d a s r e s u l t i n g i n points being scored on the international chessboard. A l t h o u g h these a c t i v i t i e s m a y n o t r e s u l t i n s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e s i n levels o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e , t h e r e a p p e a r t o b e a t least s o m e o c c a s i o n s i n w h i c h l e a d e r s c a n for a t i m e d i m i n i s h t e n s i o n s o m e w h a t t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f t h e s e t a c t i c s . M o r e o v e r , as large n u m b e r s of leaders engage in these activities, those w h o m i g h t n o t d o s o m i g h t lose p o p u l a r i t y ; t e n s i o n will i n c r e a s e a s citizens begin to think that their c o u n t r y is absent f r o m the international scene. T h e environment thus places before leaders constraints and o p p o r t u n i t i e s which are of a very different character a n d which s u g g e s t t h a t l e a d e r s will h a v e t o a d o p t v e r y d i f f e r e n t p o s t u r e s . A l t h o u g h the characteristics of each situation are distinct, since they
112
result from a different c o m b i n a t i o n of internal and external pressures, it is possible to circumscribe, in a b r o a d and s o m e w h a t cursory m a n n e r , five m a i n t y p e s . T h e r e i s , first, t h e s i t u a t i o n o f h a r m o n y a t h o m e a n d a b r o a d , w h e r e the leaders required are m a n a g e r s or, at most, and occasionally, adjusters. In such a situation, w h i c h is obviously highly exceptional, l e a d e r s will find i t difficult t o b e o t h e r t h a n m a n a g e r s , a l t h o u g h t h e y m a y b e m o r e o r less successful i n t h e m a n a g e r i a l a r t t h a t t h e y d i s p l a y . Second, there are the situations of intense external pressure c o m b i n e d with internal h a r m o n y , either predating the external pressure or, as we saw, resulting from external pressure: these situations are not very c o m m o n , but they occur occasionally. If the external pressure takes the form of a r m e d aggression, a saviour m a y be n e e d e d ; if t h e e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e is w e a k e r , t h e r e will be a n e e d for a comforter. Indeed, as we k n o w , the need to restore the country can t a k e m a n y f o r m s , ranging from the defence of the whole society to a s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i n w h i c h t h e n e e d i s o n l y t o r e a s s u r e citizens w h o m i g h t feel d i s t u r b e d b y p r e s s u r e f r o m a b r o a d o r e v e n b y t h e s h e e r m i l i t a r y o r e c o n o m i c superiority of other n a t i o n s . An a n a l o g o u s case is that of t h e n e w n a t i o n w h i c h e m e r g e s a f t e r a s t r u g g l e for i n d e p e n d e n c e ( v i o l e n t o r n o t , q u i c k o r p r o t r a c t e d ) : t h e r e , t o o , citizens n e e d t o b e reassured that there is no longer any extensive outside threat. Such situations are of relatively short d u r a t i o n : the nation that is u n d e r attack may be subjugated, and, temporarily perhaps, there may be no p o s s i b i l i t y for a s a v i o u r t o a c c o m p l i s h h i s t a s k ; o r t h e n a t i o n m a y o v e r c o m e t h e t h r e a t a n d t h e n e e d for t h e s a v i o u r m a y g r a d u a l l y d i m i n i s h . I n d e e d , t h e r e m a y finally n o l o n g e r b e a n e e d e v e n for a comforter. T h i r d , t h e r e a r e s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e r e i s w i d e s p r e a d d e m a n d for l i m i t e d c h a n g e s i n t h e s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c o r p o l i t i c a l fields. T h e s e d e m a n d s can be h a n d l e d by leaders w h o are adjusters or i n n o v a t o r s . These are cases in which t h e bulk of the p o p u l a t i o n agrees a b o u t the ills o f s o m e a s p e c t o f t h e s t r u c t u r e , for i n s t a n c e b e c a u s e c i t i z e n s feel that solutions a d o p t e d in other countries are m o r e appropriate than in t h e i r o w n , b u t d o n o t , o n t h e w h o l e , p r e f e r t h e life styles o f t h e s e countries. If innovations occur to 'solve' the p r o b l e m s at h a n d i n d e e d , if, i n t h e c o u r s e o f t i m e , l e a d e r s a n t i c i p a t e p r o b l e m s b y proposing new solutions the situation m a y be stable. Both leaders and society m a y be in h a r m o n y , t h o u g h in a d y n a m i c m a n n e r , in the sense t h a t o n l y b y i n t r o d u c i n g s o m e c h a n g e d o l e a d e r s s u c c e e d i n keeping abreast of the requirements of society. T h e f o u r t h a n d fifth t y p e s c o r r e s p o n d t o s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e , o n t h e contrary, such ' h a r m o n y ' does not prevail. F o u r t h , if there is conflict, a r i s i n g f o r i n s t a n c e f r o m divisions a m o n g t h e p o p u l a t i o n a s t o
13
whether the present structure should be maintained or altered ( w h e t h e r t h e s e d i v i s i o n s a r i s e f r o m a n c e s t r a l , for i n s t a n c e t r i b a l , a n t a g o n i s m s o r f r o m m o r e r e c e n t c o n f l i c t s o v e r d e v e l o p m e n t , fuelled in particular by the desire to imitate or shake the influence of other c o u n t r i e s ) , l e a d e r s will b e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h c o n f l i c t i n g d e m a n d s ; t h e y m a y also be c o n f r o n t e d with strong d e m a n d s if they or their p r e d e c e s s o r s h a v e failed t o i n t r o d u c e a d j u s t m e n t s o r i n n o v a t i o n s i n earlier p e r i o d s . In such cases, t h e centre of gravity of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e will b e c l o s e t o t h e p o i n t i n t h e t w o d i m e n s i o n a l space of leaders' goals w h e r e the society ' n e e d s ' redefiners: b u t the variance m a y be large, indeed very large, as s o m e will p r e s s for p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d o t h e r s for r e f o r m . T h i s p l a c e s l e a d e r s i n a difficult p r e d i c a m e n t . I f t h e y i n t r o d u c e m a j o r c h a n g e s , t h e y a n t a g o n i z e t h o s e w h o wish to m a i n t a i n the system; if they do not introduce change, they are attacked by those who want profound alterations to society. T h e y t h u s h a v e to try to lower the tension, which they are unlikely to achieve by their actions on the internal plane only. This is why external pressure, often contrived, m a y be a means of 'pulling the country together' by reducing the pressure of those w h o wish to bring a b o u t c h a n g e . If, h o w e v e r , t h i s i s n o t a c h i e v e d , t h e c o u n t r y m a y m o v e t o a fifth p o s i t i o n , i n w h i c h t h e r e i s v e r y h i g h c o n f l i c t a n d a w i d e s p r e a d call for r e f o r m i s t s , i n d e e d r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d for protectors on the other. Such a situation is of course very unstable, unless external pressure, there t o o , enables the leader gradually to r e d u c e t h e call for r e v o l u t i o n a n d b r i n g s t h e c o u n t r y n e a r e r t o 'normalcy'.
Conclusion
Leaders are subjected to the e n v i r o n m e n t , which creates conditions that they c a n n o t disregard; but, while constraints are strong, there is a l s o r o o m for m a n o e u v r e . A s p r e s s u r e o f t e n c o m e s f r o m m a n y directions within the polity, leaders a p p e a r forced to exercise s o m e choices, for instance between conservatism a n d c h a n g e . As pressures from outside the polity have to be taken into account alongside internal pressures, leaders can also acquire s o m e leeway, unless they a r e h e r e , t o o , f o r c e d t o m a k e difficult c h o i c e s b e t w e e n w h a t a r e o f t e n contradictory forces. Whether because they are forced to c h o o s e or b e c a u s e t h e y a r e a b l e t o c h o o s e , l e a d e r s s e e m p r i m a facie t o b e a b l e t o m a k e an impact on the complex network of the environment. Clearly, t h e r e i s a n i n t e r p l a y b e t w e e n t h e will o f l e a d e r s , t h e i r a i m s a n d a m b i t i o n s , a n d t h e reality a r o u n d t h e m . I t i s b y g r a d u a l l y a n a l y s i n g the c o n d i t i o n s of this interplay that we shall be better able to assess t h e precise impact of leadership under various types of circumstances a n d
114
discover the ways leadership c a n serve nations in the m a n n e r m o s t profitable to their p o p u l a t i o n s .
Notes
1. This classification originates in part from a model developed by Cartwright (1983). See also Hoffmann (1967: 109-12). 2. To use Burns's terminology in Leadership (1978).
4 The influence of personal characteristics on political leadership
If leaders m a k e an i m p a c t on their societies, c o m m o n sense concludes that this m u s t be d u e , in very large p a r t , to their personal qualities. This is the subject to which countless biographies and autobiographies are devoted; indeed, negatively and indirectly, it is the subject to which works aiming at reducing the power of leaders are devoted, since these n a t u r a l l y a s s u m e t h a t , unless rulers are c o n s t r a i n e d , they will act a r b i t r a r i l y . T h e i n t e r e s t a n d belief i n t h e p e r s o n a l r o l e o f l e a d e r s i s w i d e s p r e a d ; i t e x t e n d s well b e y o n d a c a d e m i c a n d e v e n political circles. Yet the link between p e r s o n a l qualities a n d i m p a c t r e m a i n s vague a n d obscure. Biographies and autobiographies m a y provide detailed descriptions suggesting asserting, often that the personal a t t r i b u t e s o f l e a d e r s h a v e a l a r g e effect; i n d e e d , m o r e r e c e n t l y , s t u d i e s of a psychological a n d a psychoanalytical character h a v e t e n d e d to relate this large influence to deeper elements of the personality or to events t h a t o c c u r r e d in c h i l d h o o d . But in spite of these d e v e l o p m e n t s , t h e p a r t p l a y e d b y i n d i v i d u a l a t t r i b u t e s h a s still n o t b e e n demonstrated. Of c o u r s e , p a r t of the difficulty stems from disagreements a b o u t t h e extent t o which leaders m a k e a n y i m p a c t a t all; b u t p a r t also c o m e s from p r o b l e m s relating to the assessment of the personal c o m p o n e n t s of the leaders' influence. It is not easy to distinguish these from institutional facilitation, which is clearly also i m p o r t a n t , a n d to which we shall devote the next c h a p t e r . To u n d e r s t a n d the role of the p e r s o n a itself, w e n e e d t o b e a b l e t o see h o w i t i s a b l e t o m o d i f y t h e course of events; this m e a n s that we m u s t be able to d e c o m p o s e these personal characteristics into elements a n d show h o w they c o m b i n e d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t c a s e s . O f c o u r s e , w e d o t h i s all t h e t i m e a t a m o r e c a s u a l level w e t a l k a b o u t t h e c o u r a g e , t h e t e n a c i t y , t h e intelligence of some leaders. But a systematic analysis must do m o r e : it m u s t p r o v i d e m e a n s of assessing precisely the origin of this p e r s o n a l influence; it must, therefore, identify the c o m p o n e n t s of the p e r s o n a l i t y ; i t m u s t t h e n link t h e s e p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o e a c h o t h e r a s well a s t o t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s . T h i s g o a l i s still r a t h e r d i s t a n t . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p , systematic enquiries have been relatively recent, despite the centuries-
116
old tradition of individual ruler assessment; as a matter of fact, the limited n u m b e r of general studies c o n t r a s t s with the m a n y efforts u n d e r t a k e n i n t h e field o f p s y c h o l o g y ; a s w a s p o i n t e d o u t i n C h a p t e r 1, t h e study of political l e a d e r s h i p r e m a i n s a Cinderella by comparison with the study of other types of leadership. But even in the g e n e r a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l field, t h e r e i s still n o o v e r a l l f r a m e w o r k t h a t m i g h t be indirectly applicable to politics; also, findings are often controversial or imprecise, a n d the types of leadership that are analysed are usually rather simple. T h e p u r p o s e o f this c h a p t e r t h e r e f o r e h a s t o r e m a i n r a t h e r m o d e s t . F i r s t , I shall s u m m a r i z e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o p e r s o n a l i t y , b o t h i n t h e political context a n d outside; I shall then outline the directions in which the study of personal characteristics of political leaders m i g h t p r o c e e d ; a n d shall assess t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e t o believe, at this early point in the d e v e l o p m e n t of analyses, that personal characteristics have a substantial influence on the impact of political leadership.
The analysis of personal factors in political leadership

T h e r e has long been a general interest in the personal characteristics of political leaders, n o t just in political science p r o p e r , b u t also in history and in literature. This m a y indeed be why m u c h of the work has been based on individual analyses, with actions and events being ' e x p l a i n e d ' b y t h e specific c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p e r s o n m o s t i n v o l v e d rather t h a n by general factors applicable to a class of leaders. Alongside this 'individualistic' t r a d i t i o n , political science a n d empirical sociology have been interested primarily in the recruitment of political elites. A t t e m p t s have been m a d e to e x a m i n e the b a c k g r o u n d of leaders over time and cross-nationally, often in order t o assess t h e r o l e o f f a c t o r s s u c h a s s o c i a l o r i g i n , e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n a n d ideology in the selection of leaders. But, as the concern of these studies is sociological r a t h e r t h a n psychological, t h e r e h a s b e e n little c r o s s - f e r t i l i z a t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s t u d i e s a n d elite s t u d i e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , elite s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n little c o n c e r n e d w i t h decision-making; on t h e other h a n d , as psychological studies have b e e n d e v o t e d t o t h e b e h a v i o u r o f i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e y h a v e h a d little cumulative explanatory value. More recently, however, some change has o c c u r r e d . Psychological analyses h a v e b e c o m e m o r e general; t h e r e i s , f o r i n s t a n c e , a c o n c e r n for t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f d i m e n s i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o all t y p e s o f political l e a d e r s . A l t h o u g h p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s a r e still a l o n g w a y f r o m h a v i n g d e v e l o p e d a g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f the role of personality variables, there is n o w a discernable m o v e m e n t in that direction.
The
influence
of personal characteristics
117
Demographic characteristics and the impact of political leadership Even in this age of t h e c o m m o n m a n , n a t i o n a l political leaders are n o t d r a w n proportionately from the various groups that form the populations they rule. Both single-country studies a n d cross-national analyses have s h o w n without any shadow of d o u b t that distortions are considerable (Blondel, 1980: 1 1 5 - 3 4 ) . These national leaders m a y no l o n g e r c o m e f r o m a n e x t r e m e l y n a r r o w s e g m e n t i n effect, f r o m o n e o r a few f a m i l i e s w h o s e m e m b e r s s u c c e e d e a c h o t h e r o n t h e t h r o n e o r a t t h e h e a d o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t b u t t h e r e a r e still c o n s i d e r a b l e restrictions. To begin with, even outside monarchies, the hereditary or f a m i l y p r i n c i p l e still p l a y s a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t . P e r h a p s t h e m o s t e x t r e m e e x a m p l e i s t h a t o f I n d i a , w h i c h h a s b e e n r u l e d d u r i n g 3 5 o f its 40 post-independence years by three m e m b e r s of the s a m e family grandfather, m o t h e r a n d son while the other t w o prime ministers l a s t e d i n office f o r o n l y v e r y s h o r t p e r i o d s ; s i m i l a r d e v e l o p m e n t s h a v e o c c u r r e d i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , s u c h a s N o r t h K o r e a , T a i w a n , Sri L a n k a and Argentina. M o r e o v e r , even if succession by heredity or t h r o u g h marriage has b e c o m e t h e e x c e p t i o n , l e a d e r s c o m e f r o m r a t h e r exclusive b a c k g r o u n d s . T h e y are overwhelmingly male; they are relatively old, a majority being over 50 when they c o m e to power; they are comparatively well-educated, over two-thirds having been to a higher e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n ; a n d t h e y a r e m i d d l e o r u p p e r - m i d d l e class b y virtue of their o c c u p a t i o n . There are s o m e variations from c o u n t r y to country, from region to region a n d from regime to regime there have been m o r e m e n with a working-class b a c k g r o u n d a m o n g c o m m u n i s t s t a t e s , for i n s t a n c e . B u t , b y a n d l a r g e , p r o f e s s i o n a l m e n ( a n d e s p e c i a l l y l a w y e r s ) , civil s e r v a n t s , t e a c h e r s a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e a r m e d forces have usually h a d a strikingly greater t h a n average chance of becoming leaders. These distortions are large everywhere a n d often very large. Opportunities to c o m e to the t o p are thus limited: it is s i m p l y n o t t h e c a s e , for i n s t a n c e , t h a t e v e r y o n e h a s t h e s a m e c h a n c e o f becoming president of the United States, despite the claim that has r e p e a t e d l y been m a d e a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of politics in t h a t society. It is n o t immediately clear, h o w e v e r , w h a t the consequences of this d i s t o r t i o n a r e f r o m t h e p o i n t o f view o f t h e g o a l s t h a t a r e p u r s u e d o r the i m p a c t of these leaders. No systematic analysis h a s been c o n d u c t e d t o e x p l o r e t h e d i r e c t effect o f d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on political leadership effectiveness, in large p a r t , if n o t essentially, b e c a u s e t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h i s e f f e c t i v e n e s s h a s s o far b e e n l a r g e l y impressionistic. But the impression that emerges is that there is no very strong a n d manifest impact of age or occupational b a c k g r o u n d on t h e effectiveness of leaders. I t m a y t h e r e f o r e b e t h a t social b a c k g r o u n d v a r i a b l e s d o n o t h a v e a
118
m a r k e d influence on the i m p a c t of leadership, a conclusion that is c o n f i r m e d , i n d i r e c t l y a t l e a s t , b y t h e f i n d i n g s o f Rejai a n d P h i l l i p s o n r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s ( R e j a i a n d P h i l l i p s , 1979, 1983). N u m b e r s a r e t o o s m a l l t o a l l o w for a c l e a r - c u t c o n c l u s i o n , b u t , a l t h o u g h revolutionaries do include a n u m b e r of leaders issued from t h e ' l o w e r class', they h a v e been d r a w n p r e d o m i n a n t l y from the m i d d l e class indeed, largely from t h e s a m e o c c u p a t i o n a l strata as o t h e r l e a d e r s . T h e y i n c l u d e l a w y e r s a s well a s m i l i t a r y m e n ; a l a r g e m a j o r i t y h a v e had a higher education; they are not particularly young; they c o m e in general from m a i n s t r e a m ethnic a n d religious groups; they h a v e h a d m a i n l y a ' n o r m a l ' f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d . P r i m a facie, t h e r e f o r e , i t w o u l d seem that it m a k e s no systematic difference in terms of the goals of leaders whether they h a p p e n to be d r a w n from one of those (narrow) segments of the population from which they are currently mostly drawn. This does not m e a n that leadership would not have different goals a n d a different i m p a c t if n a t i o n a l rulers originated f r o m social g r o u p s t h a t are at present excluded f r o m t h e c o m p e t i t i o n to the t o p : since the empirical evidence is by definition not available, this question c a n n o t be answered, a l t h o u g h it h a s often been claimed indirectly that this is the case. Theories of the 'ruling class' are based on the assumption t h a t t h e social b a c k g r o u n d of leaders plays a m a j o r p a r t in t h e determination of policy goals a n d the general orientation of political life in a c o u n t r y . Before exploring further the possible impact of these demographic characteristics, it is worth examining one rather peculiar indicator which does seem to s h o w s o m e clear influence on leadership goals a n d effectiveness: t h a t of the 'birth o r d e r ' of the leader within his family. A l t h o u g h t h e effect o f t h i s v a r i a b l e h a s n o t b e e n t e s t e d g e n e r a l l y , a study u n d e r t a k e n by Louis Stewart in the case of US presidents and extended to British p r i m e ministers suggests t h a t there are intriguing differences between the part played by leaders depending on whether t h e y a r e o n l y s o n s , first s o n s o r y o u n g e r s o n s ( S t e w a r t , 1977). T h e m a j o r f i n d i n g s a r e t w o - f o l d . F i r s t , i t a p p e a r s t h a t first a n d o n l y s o n s a r e a p p r e c i a b l y m o r e likely t o h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s o f crisis t h a n i n m o r e o r d i n a r y s i t u a t i o n s . T h e m o s t i n t r i g u i n g a s p e c t o f this m a t t e r i s t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n s e e m s t o r e c o g n i z e t h i s f a c t : i f U S e l e c t i o n s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o ' c r i s i s ' a n d ' n o n - c r i s i s ' , a first o r o n l y s o n w a s e l e c t e d in 8 o u t of 9 cases of crisis w h i l e in n o n - c r i s i s e l e c t i o n s y o u n g e r s o n s w e r e e l e c t e d in 12 o u t of 21 c a s e s . S e c o n d , i t a p p e a r s t h a t o n l y s o n s , first s o n s a n d y o u n g e r s o n s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t e d t o t h r e e different t y p e s o f s i t u a t i o n s , a s t h e y s e e m to have three distinct 'styles' of leadership. First sons seem to be most at ease in s i t u a t i o n s of expansion, often leading to external conflict;
The
influence
of personal
characteristics
119
younger sons aim at a d j u s t m e n t a n d are concerned to solve p r o b l e m s by c o m p r o m i s e ; only sons devote their energies to dealing with societal b r e a k d o w n s ( S t e w a r t , 1 9 7 7 : 2 2 6 ) . P a r a l l e l c o n c l u s i o n s a r e d r a w n a b o u t British p r i m e ministers: Asquith a n d C h a m b e r l a i n , w h o w e r e b o t h y o u n g e r s o n s , w e r e i l l - e q u i p p e d for t h e w a r s i t u a t i o n a n d gave way respectively to Lloyd G e o r g e a n d Churchill, w h o were b o t h first s o n s . T h e a r g u m e n t is based on the type of socialization that these leaders received during c h i l d h o o d a n d adolescence. Different kinds of l e a d e r s h i p a r e t h u s f o s t e r e d w i t h i n t h e f a m i l y : ' T a k e for i n s t a n c e t h e only child,' Stewart argues: If we assume that from the child's eye view of the family the parents represent past society and the children represent present society, it follows that of all the birth order positions the only child, being the sole heir of past society and the sole member of present society, would on both counts be best able to identify with society as a totality. (Stewart, 1977: 211) H e t h e n s t a t e s t h a t a first c h i l d ' w o u l d b e u n i q u e l y i n t o u c h w i t h t h e d e m a n d s of an e x p a n d i n g society while also inheriting responsibility for w e a k e r m e m b e r s ' (p. 211). Similarly, y o u n g e r children find t h e m s e l v e s i n a p o s i t i o n ' w h i c h a p p e a r s t o m a x i m i s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s for diverse relationships while at the s a m e time d e m a n d i n g adeptness at m e d i a t i o n a n d a c c o m m o d a t i o n ' (p. 212). Stewart suggests that the last-born may be the natural champion of the oppressed. These findings are intriguing in themselves, as there does seem to be e n o u g h evidence to suggest t h a t the birth o r d e r in the family has an impact on the type of leadership that emerges, and that the p o p u l a t i o n , o r a t least o t h e r p o l i t i c i a n s , b e c o m e a w a r e o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r a p p r o a c h t o l e a d e r s h i p . T h e y t h u s p l u m p for leaders w h o have the characteristics appropriate to the situation and these leaders happen to be found at particular points in the birth order of the family. T h e conclusion that seems to follow is t h a t the 'systemic' relationship between leader a n d environment becomes very close in the process; but it also seems to follow that the leadership characteristics required are m o u l d e d to an appreciable extent by the socialization process that goes on in the family, a conclusion that coincides with findings of psychologists a n d psychoanalysts which we shall e x a m i n e later in this c h a p t e r . L e a d e r s h i p therefore a p p e a r s to be fostered or fashioned by the s u r r o u n d i n g forces; a n d if this is the case in relation to the way in which children are treated when they are a l o n e , c o m e first o r c o m e l a t e r i n t h e f a m i l y , i t s e e m s a t l e a s t permissible to suggest t h a t other e n v i r o n m e n t a l forces, m a n y of which are m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h the family, m a y play a considerable p a r t . T h u s , w h i l e i t h a s s o far n o t b e e n p o s s i b l e t o p r o v e a n d , a s w a s
120
suggested earlier, m a y indeed be impossible to prove in t h e future that demographic variables play a m a j o r part in determining the goals a n d effectiveness o f l e a d e r s , t h e r e d o s e e m t o b e a t least s o m e g e n e r a l g r o u n d s for b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e w o r l d a r e s h a p e d i n s o m e significant m a n n e r b y their b a c k g r o u n d . E d u c a t i o n a n d o c c u p a t i o n , a s well a s ( p r o b a b l y ) r e l i g i o n , e t h n i c i t y o r e v e n g e o g r a p h i c a l o r i g i n , a r e likely t o h a v e s o m e effect, a l t h o u g h w e m a y n e v e r b e s u r e o f t h i s p o i n t , since t h o s e w h o c o m e t o b e l e a d e r s a r e relatively h o m o g e n e o u s in their origins, especially within each region a n d within each c o u n t r y . T h e weight t o b e given t o t h e role o f d e m o g r a p h i c variables m u s t surely be considered greater t h a n w o u l d seem ostensibly to be the case, at any rate as long as national political leaders continue to be d r a w n primarily from the relatively n a r r o w g r o u p s from which they h a v e so far b e e n c h o s e n i n w h a t m i g h t b e v i e w e d i n f u t u r e a s a t r a n s i t i o n period following the collapse of the m o n a r c h i c a l a n d aristocratic order. The psychological characteristics of national political leaders Biographical analysis. T h e s t u d y of d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s of n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s i s still n o t v e r y a d v a n c e d . T h e r e i s m u c h t o explore in order to b e c o m e better aware of the m a n y aspects of the b a c k g r o u n d o f c u r r e n t l e a d e r s , let a l o n e t o a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w their b a c k g r o u n d affects, consciously or otherwise, their goals a n d t h e i r i m p a c t o n s o c i e t y . B u t a t least t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e c o m p a r a t i v e a n d potentially general: they aim at establishing the characteristics of leaders by considering them as a g r o u p . W h e n one turns to the e x a m i n a t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s , i n t h e p o l i t i c a l field a t l e a s t , a m a j o r difficulty in c o m i n g to any definite conclusion stems from t h e traditional focus, as I pointed out in the I n t r o d u c t i o n , on individual cases. T h e result h a s been an almost exclusive c o n c e n t r a t i o n on each case at t h e expense of a t t e m p t s to generalize. T h e r e is indeed even some suspicion of generalizations. In their traditional f o r m , moreover, biographical studies have been based only on cases; they have also tended to be descriptive rather t h a n analytical. In the process, admittedly, certain psychological 'elements' have typically been presented as i m p o r t a n t , a n d these are o f t e n u s e d a s t h e y h e l p t o give s o m e c o n t i n u i t y t o t h e n a r r a t i v e . T h u s the leader is presented as courageous, or c u n n i n g , or as having a deep sense of the l o n g - t e r m national interest. T h e s e characteristics, or traits, a r e o c c a s i o n a l l y c o m p a r e d b e t w e e n l e a d e r s , b u t t h i s i s r a r e l y d o n e i n t h e s y s t e m a t i c m a n n e r o f P l u t a r c h i n h i s Parallel Lives. T h e comparison, or m o r e often the contrast, is typically m a d e between the h e r o w h o is t h e central character of the story a n d his colleagues or o t h e r p o l i t i c i a n s w h o m a y , for i n s t a n c e , h a v e less f o r e s i g h t o r less
The
influence
121
intelligence. T h e result is t h a t these traits are rarely examined systematically, let alone precisely defined and carefully operationalized: they are lighthouses guiding us during the journey, n o t c o m p o n e n t s carefully b r o u g h t together to build an edifice. T h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e n o t p r e s e n t e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n t h e sense t h a t t h e q u a l i t i e s o f t h e h e r o a r e set a g a i n s t all o t h e r p o s s i b l e q u a l i t i e s t h a t the leader m i g h t h a v e possessed. T h u s o n e c a n n o t infer from the a n a l y s i s w h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d for a g e n e r a l m o d e l o f leadership to be developed: it is the subject of the biography w h o is delineated, not the problem of leadership that is analysed. Traditional biographies m a y thus provide a kind of raw material, but they do not h e l p t o b u i l d a series o f p e r s o n a l i t y ' t y p e s ' . Biographies have a further limitation: in the main, they concentrate their attention on exceptional leaders rather t h a n on ordinary or even average ones. Autobiographies m a y be undertaken rather more 'generously'; b u t biographies are rarely written unless it is believed t h a t the leader has m o u l d e d the polity in a distinctive m a n n e r . They t h e r e f o r e r e i n f o r c e t h e p e n c h a n t for d i c h o t o m i e s w h i c h h a s b e e n endemic in the analysis of political leadership, instead of giving t h e sense of a range in the i m p a c t of different leaders. T h u s , a psychological analysis of n a t i o n a l political leadership has not emerged from traditional biographies. We have not learned whether leaders needed to be 'intelligent', 'imaginative', ' s t u b b o r n ' or 'extroverted' in o r d e r to be successful; n o r have we learned whether these or other c o m p o n e n t s particularly suited s o m e types of situations r a t h e r t h a n o t h e r s . W e m i g h t infer f r o m t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f o n e c a s e t h a t s t u b b o r n n e s s could be a d v a n t a g e o u s , while a n o t h e r case m i g h t suggest that this quality can result in disaster. 'Conventional' biographies have tended to be superseded by more sophisticated analyses, however, as interest in leadership has grown in p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e . A l t h o u g h t h e life h i s t o r y r e m a i n s t h e e s s e n t i a l f r a m e w o r k , e m p h a s i s h a s c o m e t o b e p l a c e d i n r e c e n t d e c a d e s o n less d e s c r i p t i v e a n d m o r e a n a l y t i c a l c a s e - s t u d i e s . L a s s w e l l ' s call for a n e x a m i n a t i o n of the ' p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y ' of rulers resulted in a n u m b e r of 'psychobiographies', which placed m u c h emphasis on events having occurred in the distant past and in particular during childhood.
1
These deeper biographies thus aim not merely to narrate a story, e x t o l a l e a d e r o r set t h e r e c o r d s t r a i g h t : t h e y a i m t o p r o v i d e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the personality. Yet in m a n y respects they share t h e s a m e b r o a d characteristics as other biographies. They t o o focus on e x c e p t i o n a l r u l e r s , either b e c a u s e t h e r o l e o f t h e s e l e a d e r s h a s b e e n v a s t ( f o r g o o d o r evil) o r b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e e n g a g e d i n a c t i v i t i e s t h a t appear different from what might have been expected. It is natural
122
that one should explore in d e p t h the motivations and mental states of Hitler or Stalin, L u t h e r or G a n d h i ; it is also interesting to u n d e r s t a n d puzzles such as the manifest inability of W o o d r o w W i l s o n to h a n d l e the US Senate over the Versailles T r e a t y , or the strange m o d e s of behaviour of Richard N i x o n . But the analysis of these cases leads, even m o r e t h a n conventional biographies, towards the highly e x c e p t i o n a l l e a d e r s , a n d t h u s p r o v i d e s few i n s i g h t s o n t h e m e n t a l processes of even m o d e r a t e l y effective o n e s .
2 3
M o r e o v e r , it is n o t clear t h a t t h e ' e x p l a n a t i o n s ' t h a t are p r o v i d e d by t h e s e s t u d i e s d o give a n s w e r s t o q u e s t i o n s o f m o t i v a t i o n , let a l o n e t o questions a b o u t leaders' effectiveness. T h e reference to the f o r m a t i o n of the personality in adolescence or even early c h i l d h o o d helps to explain why a given leader m a y h a v e acted in a certain way; b u t it does n o t suggest why a given element of t h e personality c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o t h e rise o f t h a t l e a d e r t o p o w e r a n d , o n c e i n p o w e r , t o the impact of the leader. Psychoanalytical studies also h a v e so often concentrated on 'unbalanced' leaders that it seems that abnormality is at times the only element that is being examined. A d m i t t e d l y , leaders affected by a manifest 'mental health' p r o b l e m need to be investigated; it is also surely right to point to the n u m b e r of these cases. Enquiries into the madnesses or eccentricities of rulers were u n d e r t a k e n long before the 1930s, w h e n t h e p o w e r o f i r r a t i o n a l d i c t a t o r s w a s a t its h e i g h t for i n s t a n c e b y T . F . T h i s e l t o n i n 1903 a n d A . S . R a p p o p o r t i n 1910. I t w a s c l a i m e d b y a p s y c h o l o g i s t i n t h e 1960s t h a t ' a t least 7 5 c h i e f s o f s t a t e h a v e led t h e i r c o u n t r y , a c t u a l l y o r s y m b o l i c a l l y , f o r a t o t a l o f s e v e r a l centuries, while suffering from severe m e n t a l d i s t u r b a n c e s ' . B u t , n a t u r a l l y e n o u g h , t h e rise o f t h e ' g r e a t d i c t a t o r s ' o f t h e 1920s a n d 1930s l e d t o a n i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e m e c h a n i s m s including personality mechanisms that might result in the coming to power, and the behaviour patterns once in power, of individuals w h o are clearly a b n o r m a l .
4
Such an e m p h a s i s obviously restricts t h e scope of the analysis, however; indeed, it biases the a p p r o a c h . It is clearly n o t possible to c o n c e n t r a t e on such ' a b n o r m a l ' cases a n d h o p e to build a general t h e o r y o f l e a d e r s h i p . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , a l t h o u g h t h e cases o f H i t l e r , Stalin a n d s o m e others are truly o u t of t h e r a n g e of even the moderately peculiar, it has come to be recognized that an objective definition of m a d n e s s or of a b n o r m a l i t y is difficult to provide, as t h e concept is closely linked to culture a n d the e n v i r o n m e n t ; at a m i n i m u m , it might not be worthwhile to draw conclusions based on a l a r g e h i s t o r i c a l f r e s c o . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i n t h e 1970s a n d 1980s p o l i t i c a l scientists h a v e b e c o m e m o r e cautious a b o u t t h e value o f using t h e c r i t e r i o n o f m e n t a l illness a s a m a j o r i n d i c a t o r , t h u s p e r h a p s h e l p i n g
The
influence
123
t o b r i n g t h e a n a l y s i s c l o s e r t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f all t y p e s o f l e a d e r s abnormality being only one element of the analysis alongside m a n y others that needs to be investigated. While these psychoanalytic studies are therefore i m p o r t a n t and indeed p a t h - b r e a k i n g , since they direct o u r t h i n k i n g t o w a r d s a deeper examination of what constitutes the personality, they have the d i s a d v a n t a g e o f i n d u c i n g political scientists t o j u m p t o o quickly t o what might be regarded as the most fundamental plane of explanation before a general m a p p i n g of the personality has been undertaken. For a systematic analysis of the influence of the personality on the effectiveness of leadership m u s t surely go t h r o u g h a n u m b e r of stages. First, it m u s t be established t h a t leaders do m a k e a difference, a m a t t e r which, as we s a w , is fraught with considerable difficulties; s e c o n d , o n e m u s t a t t e m p t t o see t o w h a t e x t e n t t h a t ' d i f f e r e n c e ' i s d u e to the personal characteristics of leaders rather than to the structural c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e offices t h a t t h e y h o l d o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements within which they operate. Only where personal characteristics h a v e been f o u n d to be a significant factor in themselves i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r a t least p a r t o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i s i t p e r m i s s i b l e t o m o v e to the next plane and ask, if personal qualities are i m p o r t a n t , what, in t u r n , a c c o u n t s for t h e e x i s t e n c e of a g i v e n set of p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s in a p a r t i c u l a r l e a d e r ? S i n c e p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e h a s s o far n o t g i v e n m o r e t h a n very limited answers to the second question whether personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d o a c c o u n t for t h e rise o f l e a d e r s a n d t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s it is p r e m a t u r e to e n g a g e in a m a j o r e n q u i r y d e s i g n e d to answer t h e third question, n a m e l y , w h a t a c c o u n t s for given p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f specific l e a d e r s ? I t i s w o r t h w h i l e , t o b e sure, to begin to explore this m a t t e r ; but it is n o t very productive to a t t e m p t t o l o o k for g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r set o f p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , since i t m a y b e t h a t t h e s e a r e o f little o v e r a l l significance, a n d in any case it is n o t clear which of these characteristics is of the greatest relevance.
5
T h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e little t h a t o n e c a n c o n c l u d e f r o m t h e consideration of biographical studies, whether conventional or p s y c h o a n a l y t i c . O n e can say that t h e r e are m a n y types of leaders, t h a t s o m e h a v e s h o w n m o r e foresight t h a n others, that s o m e h a v e s h o w n m o r e intelligence t h a n others, o r m o r e imagination, o r m o r e c u n n i n g . It is clear t h a t these different leaders h a v e h a d s o m e i m p a c t ; w h a t is n o t clear is whether any o n e of t h e 'qualities' t h a t they possessed was particularly instrumental in their achievements. Psychobiographies m a y s h o w t h a t e v e n t s i n c h i l d h o o d fix t h e p e r s o n a l i t y i n a c e r t a i n w a y ; t h e y a l s o m a k e u s a w a r e o f t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y cases o f u n b a l a n c e d r u l e r s a n d t h r o w s o m e light o n t h e r e a s o n s w h y t h e i r m i n d s h a v e b e e n u n b a l a n c e d . But these studies h a v e to be viewed as limit-cases, which
124
i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o e x a m i n e i n o r d e r t o b e a b l e t o see h o w far a n d h o w far w r o n g l e a d e r s h i p m a y g o . T h e y d o n o t , a n d c a n n o t , g i v e a general panoramic description of what the psychological qualities of e x c e p t i o n a l l e a d e r s m i g h t b e , let a l o n e o f all t y p e s o f l e a d e r s . The beginnings of a general conceptualization. A d m i t t e d l y , it is perhaps not surprising that t h e literature should have been devoted to t h e i n - d e p t h s t u d y o f a few e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s , since p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e a n d political discourse generally t e n d to focus on the great heroes rather than on ordinary leaders. It is therefore not surprising either that the m o v e that has been m a d e in the direction of a m o r e general analysis of personal characteristics should have focused on the o n e class o f l e a d e r s t h a t i s t h e m o s t e x c e p t i o n a l : n a m e l y , r e v o l u t i o n a r y leaders. Meanwhile, however, studies of revolutionaries have gone b e y o n d p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y , b o t h because of the desire to s h o w or a c c o u n t for t h e ' p o s i t i v e ' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h o s e l e a d e r s a n d because qualities other t h a n m a d n e s s h a d to be emphasized. B y far t h e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t u d i e s t h a t h a v e b e e n u n d e r t a k e n i n t h i s field i n r e c e n t y e a r s h a v e b e e n t h e t w o w o r k s o n r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s b y R e j a i a n d P h i l l i p s ( 1 9 7 9 , 1983). T h e i r s a r e s y s t e m a t i c efforts, within t h e r e a l m of t h e special type of rulers t h a t revolutionaries constitute, to break away from a case-analysis a n d to p r o v i d e a general description of t h e characteristics of these leaders as a class. T h e a i m is to c o m b i n e a psychological and a sociological analysis in order to show the extent to which personal a n d situational factors a c c o u n t for t h e emergence of these leaders. T h e studies admittedly concentrate on revolutionaries as leaders, rather than f o c u s i n g o n t h e specific i m p a c t t h a t t h e s e l e a d e r s h a v e h a d , i t b e i n g a s s u m e d t h a t t h e y did, indeed, h a v e a n i m p a c t . H o w e v e r , given t h a t an impact can p r o b a b l y be assumed in the context of this particular g r o u p , these studies constitute a genuine a d v a n c e in the analysis of at least o n e class a n e x c e p t i o n a l b u t c l e a r l y i m p o r t a n t class o f political rulers. T h e R e j a i - P h i l l i p s studies are based on an empirical analysis of o v e r o n e h u n d r e d r u l e r s f r o m all p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d a n d a c r o s s h i s t o r y . T h e starting point is the recognition that revolutionaries are e m b e d d e d in a situation b u t that this situation a l o n e does n o t a c c o u n t for t h e i r e m e r g e n c e : ' F o r a r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r t o e m e r g e , i t i s imperative that t h e situation coincide with t h e presence of a certain kind of p e r s o n or p e r s o n a l i t y ' (Rejai a n d Phillips, 1983: 36). A n d the a u t h o r s c o n t i n u e : ' T h i s person o r p e r s o n a l i t y h a s t w o essential c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (1) a m e n t a l set or a p s y c h o l o g y t h a t p r o p e l s h i m t o w a r d s r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i o n s a n d (2) a set of skills p a r t i c u l a r l y verbal a n d o r g a n i s a t i o n a l that enables h i m to p e r f o r m his t a s k s ' (p. 36). T h e a u t h o r s t h e n g o o n t o describe t h e psychological
The
influence
125
characteristics of these leaders, which include 'vanity, egotism, narcissism' b u t also n a t i o n a l i s m , a sense of justice a n d a sense of mission; there is, m o r e o v e r , relative deprivation a n d status i n c o n s i s t e n c y ( p . 3 7 ) . T h e skills o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s a r e t h e n described; these a r e , for instance, an alternative vision of society or a g r e a t c o n c e r n f o r g r i e v a n c e s a n d i n j u s t i c e s ( p . 38); t h e s e l e a d e r s a l s o n e e d v e r b a l skills a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l skills t o p u t t h e i r v i e w s a c r o s s . T h e a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e : 'It is clear t h a t the theoretical p o s t u r e advanced here combines trait theories of leadership with situational theories' (p. 40). T h e r e a r e s o m e p r o b l e m s w i t h t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n . D e s p i t e t h e fact that these points constitute a m o r e sophisticated a n d m o r e precise presentation of the elements that have to be taken into account, it is not stated w h y these are privileged by contrast with other factors. It m a y seem intuitively justifiable to claim that revolutionary leaders n e e d t o h a v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l skills a n d a s t r o n g i d e o l o g y , a n d t h a t t h i s i d e o l o g y i s b a s e d o n s u c h feelings a s a s e n s e o f i n j u s t i c e a n d / o r t h e d e s i r e t o b r i n g a b o u t a n e w p o l i t i c a l a n d social o r d e r ; b u t i t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r all t h e s e l e a d e r s d i s p l a y t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o t h e s a m e degree. Indeed, Rejai a n d Phillips acknowledge the point when they state: 'any n u m b e r of d y n a m i c s m a y play roles in sharpening the m e n t a l set o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y e l i t e s . W e h a z a r d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , t h a t n o single m o t i v a t i o n o r d y n a m i c i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e x p l a i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f all r e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r s o n a l i t i e s . N o r d o w e a n t i c i p a t e an invariant m i x . . . ' (Rejai a n d Phillips, 1983: 38). If this is t h e case, it m u s t b e t h a t t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d m o r e for p u r p o s e s o f illustration t h a n because they are exhaustive. But there is no reason, t h e n , n o t t o assess t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h o t h e r t r a i t s , s u c h a s v a r i o u s aspects of intelligence, sociability or 'personality' in general, are n o t also very i m p o r t a n t . Since the e n d e a v o u r aims at discovering the relevant qualities alongside the ' s i t u a t i o n ' , to be sure, it is difficult to u n d e r s t a n d w h y all t h e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f p e r s o n a l i t y a r e n o t e x a m i n e d , o r a t least d i s c u s s e d . T h e empirical analysis does at least a t t e m p t to consider s o m e of the p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s e l e a d e r s , h o w e v e r . Six t r a i t s a r e identified as elements of what constitute the psychological dynamics of r e v o l u t i o n a r y leaders: vanity, p u r i t a n i s m , relative deprivation, m a r g i n a l i t y , oedipal conflict a n d r o m a n t i c i s m . P u r i t a n i s m a n d marginality are the two elements that appear the most important, w h i l e o t h e r s , e x c e p t for o e d i p a l c o n f l i c t , a l s o p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t . T h e d i f f i c u l t y is, o f c o u r s e , t h a t t h e r e i s n o c o n t r o l g r o u p , e i t h e r o f other leaders or of followers, a m o n g w h o m it might be possible to assess t h e incidence of these characteristics. But p u r i t a n i s m , especially in t h e p o s t w a r period, a n d marginality seem so i m p o r t a n t in these
126
cases that it seems unlikely t h a t they w o u l d be as widespread in the w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n o r a m o n g all l e a d e r s . T o t h i s e x t e n t a t l e a s t , t h e study does provide evidence suggesting that revolutionary leaders h a v e s o m e specific p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h e p o i n t s t h a t a r e m a d e in case-studies of individual revolutionary leaders are thus b r o a d l y confirmed; but they are n o w c o n f i r m e d generally, a l t h o u g h the e n q u i r y clearly does n o t e x h a u s t the personal characteristics of leaders. N o t only is it a limited w i n d o w o p e n on the personality of leaders, but parts of the personality of revolutionary leaders remain unexamined. General studies of the personality of national political leaders are not confined to revolutionaries, however: the combination of conventional biography and psychobiography on the one hand, and of the apparently greater interest devoted to leadership on the other, h a s led t o t h e e m e r g e n c e o f s o m e e n q u i r i e s i n t o t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f all l e a d e r s . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t h e c a s e o f J . D . B a r b e r ' s w o r k o n t h e Presidential Character (1977) w h i c h b u i l d s o n a n e a r l i e r a n a l y s i s of C o n n e c t i c u t l e g i s l a t o r s , The Lawmakers ( B a r b e r , 1968). T h e a i m i s t o e l a b o r a t e a p s y c h o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w h i c h i s u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e . A t a b o u t t h e s a m e p e r i o d , B . H e a d y ' s (1974) s t u d y of British Cabinet Ministers, t h o u g h n o t d e v o t e d e x c l u s i v e l y to t o p n a t i o n a l political leaders, h a d the s a m e overall p u r p o s e a n d a r r i v e d a t c o m p a r a b l e sets o f c a t e g o r i e s . Barber's t w o dimensions are based on energy ('activity' v. 'passivity') a n d on satisfaction with the j o b (a 'positive' v. a 'negative' approach). T h e model is then applied to US presidents who are located in o n e of four positions. T h e basis for t h e classification is psychological. T h e concepts that enable Barber to determine whether a president is, for instance, ' a c t i v e - p o s i t i v e ' a r e 'activity a n d t h e e n j o y m e n t o f it, i n d i c a t i n g r e l a t i v e l y h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m a n d r e l a t i v e s u c c e s s i n r e l a t i n g t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t ' ( B a r b e r , 1977: 11). ' A c t i v e - n e g a t i v e s ' , on the other hand, show a 'contradiction between r e l a t i v e l y i n t e n s e e f f o r t a n d relatively l o w e m o t i o n a l r e w a r d for t h a t e f f o r t ' ( p . 11). W h i l e ' p a s s i v e p o s i t i v e s ' a r e o t h e r - d i r e c t e d a n d search for affection, 'passivenegatives' h a v e an orientation t o w a r d s d u t i f u l s e r v i c e a n d ' a r e i n politics b e c a u s e t h e y t h i n k t h e y o u g h t t o b e ' ( p . 13). These distinctions are conceived as universal. Barber applies t h e m to presidents of t h e United States, b o t h past a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y , but t h e y c o u l d b e a p p l i e d t o a n y l e a d e r . T h u s , t h e first f o u r p r e s i d e n t s a r e viewed as c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the four categories, W a s h i n g t o n being described as 'passive-negative', A d a m s as 'active-negative', Jefferson as 'active-positive' and Madison as 'passive-positive'. F . D . Roosevelt w a s also 'activepositive', a s were T r u m a n a n d
The
influence
of personal
characteristics
127
Kennedy, while Eisenhower was ' p a s s i v e - n e g a t i v e ' a n d Nixon ' a c t i v e - n e g a t i v e ' . T h e m o d e l is even viewed as being predictive since, on the basis of t h e c h a r a c t e r defined in this m a n n e r , it is possible to foresee t h e r e s u l t s ( g o o d o r ill) t h a t a g i v e n h o l d e r o f a n office will a c h i e v e , o r a t least t h e d i r e c t i o n s i n w h i c h h e o r s h e will g o . T h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e t h u s e x p e c t e d t o a c c o u n t , a t least i n p a r t , for t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s a n d for t h e n a t u r e o f t h i s i m p a c t . T h e detailed description of t h e b e h a v i o u r of presidents given in B a r b e r ' s work aims at d e m o n s t r a t i n g that actions follow 'character' a n d that there is therefore evidence that character m a t t e r s . By providing a universally applicable categorization, Barber has u n q u e s t i o n a b l y o p e n e d a n e w line o f g e n e r a l e n q u i r y . T h e w o r k i s t h u s b o t h v a l u a b l e s u b s t a n t i v e l y a n d s e m i n a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , since i t c o u l d b e extended to leaders of other countries. T h e r e are difficulties, however, which stem in large p a r t from the somewhat vague nature of the distinctions that have been adopted. As a first a t t e m p t a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f ' a c t i v e ' v . ' p a s s i v e ' and of 'positive' v. 'negative' begin to help to circumscribe the p r o b l e m ; but the limits of the categorization emerge in the detailed analysis, where the author has to recognize that the complexities of the personality a p p e a r to go beyond the rather simple divisions that have been put forward. T h u s , Kennedy was an 'active-positive' w h o , n o n e t h e less, w a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y m u c h u n c e r t a i n t y ( B a r b e r , 1977: 3 4 3 ) ; t h u s , predictions regarding C a r t e r , w h o was viewed as an ' a c t i v e p o s i t i v e ' a s well, d o n o t s e e m t o h a v e c o r r e s p o n d e d t o r e a l i t y , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e C a r t e r w a s n o t classified c o r r e c t l y a n d w a s m o r e o f an 'active-negative' than an 'active-positive'; perhaps, t o o , because a precise analysis requires m o r e t h a n the t w o distinctions that h a v e been suggested. P a r t of the p r o b l e m might h a v e been alleviated if t h e dimensions h a d b e e n fully u s e d : p r e s i d e n t s m i g h t t h e n h a v e b e e n l o c a t e d a t a l a r g e r n u m b e r o f p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n a s p a c e ; even t h o u g h i t i s difficult t o assess p r e c i s e l y w h e r e a g i v e n ' c h a r a c t e r ' s h o u l d b e p l a c e d , i t s e e m s a t least p o s s i b l e t o g o b e y o n d a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n t h a t a l l o w s for f o u r cells o n l y . B u t e v e n s u c h a n i m p r o v e m e n t w o u l d n o t m e e t all t h e difficulties: the categorization of 'active' or 'passive', 'positive' or ' n e g a t i v e ' , entails bringing together a n u m b e r of psychological elements, such as self-esteem, other-directedness, ambition, assertiveness and so on. W h y these c o m p o n e n t s of character succeed in being c o m p r e s s e d into four categories is not clear; n o r is there even an a t t e m p t to provide clarification. T h u s , each of the positions is a ' c o m p o u n d ' resulting from the c o m b i n a t i o n of ' a t o m s ' ; it is a s s u m e d t h a t these f o r m , so to speak, a stable molecule, but this a s s u m p t i o n would need the backing of substantial evidence. If 'active-positives',
128
for instance, have a high self-esteem, a desire to develop goals a n d an emphasis on rational m a s t e r y , t h e link between these elements should b e s h o w n ; w e s h o u l d b e m a d e t o see t h a t t h e r e is, s o t o s p e a k , a f a c t o r , a n d that a n u m b e r of elements are clustered in the concrete reality of the character of existing leaders. T h e m o d e l provided by B a r b e r does constitute an advance. It indicates that one can discover some personality characteristics by which to c o m p a r e leaders, a n d that these characteristics can be related to the impact they m a y m a k e ; but the characteristics need to be further explored, and it remains to be s h o w n t h a t these, a n d n o t o t h e r s , a r e t h e critical variables. T h e study of the personal aspects of national political leadership h a s t h u s p r o g r e s s e d . T h e i n s t r u m e n t s n e e d e d t o assess t h e p r e c i s e extent to which p e r s o n a l characteristics affect the achievements of leaders are being elaborated, b u t the progress is slow. T o o m u c h e f f o r t , p e r h a p s , i s still d e v o t e d t o d e t a i l e d i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s e s , w h i l e t o o little i s d o n e t o d e v e l o p g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a . I s i t t h a t t h e s e c r i t e r i a d o n o t e x i s t , o r m e r e l y t h a t p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s h a v e failed t o u s e for national leaders the tools applied by psychologists to other types of l e a d e r s ? W e n e e d t o t u r n t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f l e a d e r s h i p a n d o f its p e r s o n a l c o m p o n e n t s i n t h e g e n e r a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l a r e a t o assess h o w far f u r t h e r a d v a n c e s c o u l d b e m a d e b y a w i d e r b o r r o w i n g f r o m t h e tools of psychologists t h a n has been d o n e so far.
Psychology and the general analysis of the personal components of leadership

Studies u n d e r t a k e n by psychologists provide substantial evidence suggesting that personal factors play a part in the development of leadership; b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y this evidence is in m o s t respects rather v a g u e , d e s p i t e t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e field a n d t h e m a n y studies that h a v e been undertaken. There have been attempts to determine a n u m b e r of components that jointly or separately have an influence on t h e effectiveness of l e a d e r s h i p . So far, however, these h a v e n o t b e e n analysed systematically a n d listed comprehensively; little e f f o r t h a s b e e n m a d e t o r e l a t e t h e m t o e a c h o t h e r i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e precise extent to which the c h a r a c t e r a n d the role of l e a d e r s h i p a r e a f f e c t e d a s a r e s u l t . A b o v e all, t h e r e i s a s yet n o g e n e r a l m o d e l or t h e o r y that w o u l d help to provide an accepted definition of what constitutes p e r s o n a l characteristics; n o r is there a readily a c c e p t a b l e d o c t r i n e a b o u t t h e links b e t w e e n p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t s a n d situational factors. T o a v e r y l a r g e e x t e n t , t h e difficulties r a i s e d b y t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e i m p a c t of political leadership stem f r o m t h e fact t h a t the central c o n c e p t i n t h e a n a l y s i s , t h a t o f p e r s o n a l i t y , i s itself r a t h e r u n c l e a r . T h e r e i s d i s a g r e e m e n t a s t o w h a t p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s i s t s of. A s
The
influence
129
G r e e n s t e i n p o i n t e d o u t in h i s Personality and Politics, ' T h e r e a r e differences within psychology over w h a t is m e a n t by " p e r s o n a l i t y " a n d , furthermore, the t e r m tends to have different c o n n o t a t i o n s to p o l i t i c a l scientists t h a n i t h a s t o p s y c h o l o g i s t s ' ( G r e e n s t e i n , 1969: 2 ) ; h e f u r t h e r n o t e s t h a t A l l p o r t lists ' n o less t h a n fifty types o f definitions' (p. 3). T h e personality of an individual has to be defined i n t e r m s o f t h e s t a b l e e l e m e n t s t h a t u n d e r l i e a n d a p p e a r t o give s o m e consistency to the m a n y discrete actions a n d reactions (emotional as well a s i n t e l l e c t u a l ) o f t h i s i n d i v i d u a l o v e r t i m e ; b u t t h e r e i s n o p r o o f that personality 'exists' in any real sense. As Greenstein also notes, it is an 'inferred reality' rather t h a n an observable p h e n o m e n o n ; it is a construct which enables us to understand and predict the actions and reactions of others. T h u s , though the 'discovery' of the personality of an individual is the result of an empirical examination of the attitudes a n d behaviour of this individual, it is also based on the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t individuals do h a v e s o m e basic consistency, a p o i n t that is at best based on the general 'impressions' that we have of individuals. While t h e r e is e v i d e n c e for a l a r g e d e g r e e of c o n s i s t e n c y , t h e r e is a l s o considerable evidence suggesting substantial degrees of inconsistency. It seems, moreover, that the personality of an individual is modified over time, although psychologists have shown that m a n y characteristics of individuals are formed in early y o u t h , a n d although m a n y studies have aimed at d e m o n s t r a t i n g that the formative years of childhood could m a r k e d l y fashion the political behaviour of political leaders. A s t r u c t u r e d p e r s o n a l i t y is n o t a p r e r e q u i s i t e for t h e e x i s t e n c e of an i n f l u e n c e o f p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p . E v e n inconsistent or unpredictable leaders could m a k e an i m p a c t or exercise i n f l u e n c e ; i t m i g h t e v e n b e a r g u e d t h a t t h e s e l e a d e r s exercise m o r e influence as a result. But if these p e r s o n a l characteristics c a n n o t be s u b s u m e d within the context of a general personality, they can scarcely be examined a n d analysed. Wholly u n s t r u c t u r e d m o d e s of a c t i o n of l e a d e r s n o t o n l y d e f y p r e d i c t a b i l i t y : t h e y d e f y post hoc analysis, as they c a n n o t be related, since they are u n s t r u c t u r e d , to some describable personal characteristic of the leader. In cons e q u e n c e , w e c a n n o t e x p e c t t o d i s c o v e r fully t h e r o l e o f p e r s o n a l c h a r acteristics unless they are encapsulated within a b r o a d e r f r a m e w o r k w h i c h w e m i g h t label ' p e r s o n a l i t y ' . A d m i t t e d l y , a s o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h u m a n p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s d e v e l o p s , w e shall b e b e t t e r a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d some of the inconsistencies that are at present unexplained a n d u n p r e d i c t a b l e . B u t t h e r e will a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y b e a r e s i d u u m . T h u s , t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s will a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y a l s o b e u n d e r e s t i m a t e d , a n d t h e p r o c e s s o n c e criticized b y G r e e n s t e i n , whereby personal characteristics tend to be b r o u g h t in w h e n every
130
o t h e r e x p l a n a t o r y f a c t o r h a s b e e n u s e d , will c o n t i n u e t o p r e v a i l a n d , t o s o m e e x t e n t , will h a v e t o p r e v a i l ( G r e e n s t e i n , 1969: C h . 2 ) . The personal elements that appear to play a part in the emergence of leadership A s s u m i n g , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e r e i s a ' p e r s o n a l i t y ' , t h e first p r o b l e m i s t o i d e n t i f y its c o m p o n e n t s . T h e v a r i a t i o n s i n p e r s o n a l i t y from one individual to a n o t h e r c a n n o t be perceived unless we can identify different configurations of c o m p o n e n t s between these individuals; these c o m p o n e n t s , t o o , m u s t be stable a n d e n d u r i n g , since if they were n o t it w o u l d of course be impossible to 'define' individuals t h r o u g h their intermediary. H e n c e the idea of determining personality traits, which w o u l d constitute the basic elements of the analysis. T h e study of traits has a long history in psychological analysis; b u t after an early period, w h e n it seemed o b v i o u s t h a t individuals (and leaders in particular) h a d traits that distinguished them from others, there has been disillusionment with the a p p r o a c h , partly because so m a n y traits were identified, partly because they were rather vague or at best imprecise, a n d partly because a heavy e m p h a s i s on traits seemed to break the unity of the personality a n d lead to a dissociation o f i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h t h e y a c t e d . Yet i t i s difficult t o see h o w o n e c a n a v o i d u s i n g a n u m b e r o f r a t h e r specific elements: as a m a t t e r of fact, the psychological analysis of leadership over t h e last d e c a d e s h a s consisted of an e n d e a v o u r to discover to w h a t extent s o m e personal characteristics are m o r e prevalent t h a n others. Whether these characteristics are 'traits' or not, they do constitute elements that help to build a comprehensive picture by being c o m b i n e d together in different ways. Indeed, the m a i n problem is perhaps not the emphasis on traits, but t h e fact t h a t t h e r e a r e t o o m a n y t o c h o o s e f r o m . I n his Handbook o n Leadership, B a s s ( 1 9 8 1 : 4 3 - 9 6 ) r e p r o d u c e s a r t i c l e s b y S t o g d i l l , p u b l i s h e d i n 1948 a n d 1970, w h i c h s u m m a r i z e f i n d i n g s f r o m 1904 t o t h e e n d o f t h e 1960s: o v e r 160 articles a r e r e f e r r e d t o , c o v e r i n g a l a r g e variety of physical a n d psychological characteristics of leaders. The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s l i t e r a t u r e a r e classified u n d e r m o r e t h a n 4 0 e l e m e n t s which have been found by scholars to be, to a varying extent, associated with leadership. These 40 characteristics are in turn g r o u p e d by Stogdill u n d e r 6 m a i n h e a d i n g s : physical a p p e a r a n c e (such a s a g e , b u t a l s o e n e r g y ) , social b a c k g r o u n d , i n t e l l i g e n c e , ' p e r s o n a l i t y ' (which includes such diverse matters as a d a p t a b i l i t y , enthusiasm, resourcefulness a n d self-confidence), task-related characteristics, a n d social c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( w h i c h i n c l u d e s u c h r e s o u r c e s a s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ability, p o p u l a r i t y a n d tact). The characteristics listed by Stogdill thus
The
influence
131
cover the entire range of elements that can be associated with a person a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , ' o b j e c t i v e ' s o c i a l a n d d e m o g r a p h i c e l e m e n t s a s well as 'pure' psychological traits. The elements that are mentioned here are those that have been f o u n d t o b e ' r e l e v a n t ' t o l e a d e r s h i p i n a t least o n e a n d , i n m o s t c a s e s , m a n y o f t h e d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s t h a t S t o g d i l l a n a l y s e d i n h i s 1948 a n d 1970 surveys; that is to say, a substantial n u m b e r of 'traits' have been s h o w n t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l e a d e r s h i p . T h e first conclusion must therefore be that, without a shadow of doubt, m a n y c o m p o n e n t s of the personality are at the origin of leadership. In this context, of course, we m e a n any kind of leadership, and indeed usually not political leadership; but if some c o m p o n e n t s account g e n e r a l l y for l e a d e r s h i p , i t s e e m s p e r m i s s i b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y also contribute to an explanation of national political leadership. T h e s e e l e m e n t s h a v e all b e e n f o u n d t o b e r e l a t e d t o l e a d e r s h i p i n s o m e of t h e studies; however, t h e weighting to be given to each of these relationships cannot be deduced from the examination of these e n q u i r i e s . T h i s l a r g e b u t d i s p a r a t e set o f s t u d i e s d o e s n o t p r o v i d e c l u e s as to which of the c o m p o n e n t s is m o r e powerfully linked to l e a d e r s h i p , let a l o n e w h a t i s t h e r e l a t i v e r a n k i n g t o b e g i v e n t o e a c h o f t h e m . T h e closest o n e c a n c o m e t o a w e i g h t i n g i s b y a d d i n g u p t h e n u m b e r of studies t h a t r e p o r t e d a relationship between a given c o m p o n e n t a n d l e a d e r s h i p , a s t h i s n u m b e r p r o v i d e s a t least a n impression of the strength of the relationship. F o r studies reported in t h e 1948 B a s s s u r v e y , o n e c a n a l s o d i s c o v e r t h e n u m b e r o f c a s e s i n w h i c h n o r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s f o u n d t o exist b e t w e e n l e a d e r s h i p a n d a given c o m p o n e n t . T h u s , for instance, over 20 of the studies t h a t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e s i n c e t h e l a t e 1940s s u g g e s t t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e , d o m i n a n c e , s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , a c h i e v e m e n t d r i v e , s o c i a b i l i t y a n d e n e r g y (classified, as we said, u n d e r physical characteristics) are positively correlated w i t h l e a d e r s h i p ( B a s s , 1 9 8 1 : 7 5 - 6 ) . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , v e r y few s t u d i e s h a v e s h o w n e x t r o v e r s i o n , e n t h u s i a s m , t h e a b i l i t y t o enlist c o operation, attractiveness, n u r t u r a n c e , popularity, tact or a p p e a r a n c e t o b e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d t o l e a d e r s h i p . T h i s m a y n o t signify t h a t t h e s e q u a l i t i e s a r e n o t i n d e e d r e l a t e d it, since t h e n u m b e r o f s t u d i e s devoted to these matters m a y have been small; but psychologists have f o u n d e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e view t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e , d o m i n a n c e , selfconfidence, achievement drive, sociability a n d energy have a high r e l e v a n c e for l e a d e r s h i p . Yet t h e evidence is usually n o t o v e r w h e l m i n g , a n d it does n o t always g o i n o n l y o n e d i r e c t i o n . I t i s i n t h e 1950s a n d 1960s, i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h a t a n ' a b u n d a n t reserve o f energy' o r ' s t a m i n a ' a p p e a r s t o h a v e been f o u n d p a r t i c u l a r l y significant ( p . 7 7 ) ; t h e s u r v e y u n d e r t a k e n b y S t o g d i l l i n t h e 1940s d i d n o t find s o m u c h e v i d e n c e , p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e
132
the matter had not been investigated by so m a n y scholars. There is e v e n m o r e c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n t e l l i g e n c e : b o t h t h e 1948 a n d 1970 s u r v e y s i n d i c a t e d t h a t m a n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a d f o u n d a correlation between intelligence a n d leadership (the overall correlation between intelligence a n d leadership (the overall correlation being 0.28); but other studies stressed that 'extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and that of their followers militate[d] against the exercise of leadership' (p. 79). O n e w o r k suggested that the relationship was curvilinear, 'with those i n d i v i d u a l s e a r n i n g b o t h l o w a n d v e r y h i g h s c o r e s [on i n t e l l i g e n c e ] with scores at intermediate levels' ( p . 79). T h e r e were also s o m e discrepancies in relation to the t w o elements of 'personality' that s c o r e d h i g h i n t h e 1970 s u r v e y , a s c e n d a n c e a n d s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e ( p . 80): w h i l e s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e w a s v e r y h i g h i n t h e 1970 s u r v e y , i t s c o r e d l o w e r t h a n o t h e r v a r i a b l e s (for i n s t a n c e i n t e l l i g e n c e ) i n t h e 1948 s u r v e y . A d m i t t e d l y , t h i s m a y h a v e b e e n b e c a u s e fewer s t u d i e s h a d b e e n c o n c e r n e d with t h e p r o b l e m , but a s c e n d a n c e or d o m i n a n c e h a d a very h i g h s c o r e i n t h e 1970 s u r v e y , w h i l e t h e r e s u l t s w e r e m i x e d i n t h e 1948 survey. N o t only was the n u m b e r of studies that stressed the role of a s c e n d a n c e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l (11), b u t a s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r (6) s h o w e d that there were m a n y negative findings. T h e r e were also differences in the results of the t w o surveys with respect to the one task-related characteristic (achievement drive) a n d the social characteristic ( s o c i a b i l i t y ) , w h i c h s c o r e d v e r y h i g h i n t h e 1970 s u r v e y ( p . 8 1 ) . Putting it differently, leadership seems associated with p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o v e r i n g m a n y , i f n o t all, o f t h e a s p e c t s o f t h e h u m a n p e r s o n a l i t y . L e a d e r s a r e likely t o b e d r a w n f r o m a m o n g t h e m o r e i n t e l l i g e n t ; t h e y a r e likely t o b e d r a w n f r o m a m o n g t h o s e w h o h a v e m o r e e n e r g y ; t h e y a r e likely t o b e d r a w n f r o m a m o n g t h o s e w h o w a n t to achieve m o r e results, w h o h a v e a clear orientation t o w a r d s t h e i r t a s k ; a n d t h e y a r e likely t o b e d r a w n f r o m a m o n g t h o s e w h o are able to socialize with others, w h o have, to q u o t e Stogdill, the ' c a p a b i l i t y t o s t r u c t u r e social i n t e r a c t i o n s y s t e m s t o t h e p u r p o s e a t h a n d ' (p. 81). O n t h e s e p o i n t s , B a s s a n d S t o g d i l l h a v e n o d o u b t . B a s s feels t h a t h e c a n g o e v e n f u r t h e r a n d t h u s c o m e closer t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e i m p a c t of l e a d e r s h i p ; for he states that, as a result of the wealth of the evidence, these characteristics m a k e it possible to 'differentiate l e a d e r s f r o m f o l l o w e r s , effective f r o m i n e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s , a n d h i g h e r e c h e l o n f r o m l o w e r - e c h e l o n l e a d e r s ' ( p . 8 1 ) . T h e s e last t w o conclusions are of course of considerable importance in determining the role of p e r s o n a l c o m p o n e n t s on t h e i m p a c t of national political leadership. If they are valid, they suggest, w h e n t a k e n jointly, that effective n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y t o b e d r a w n f r o m t h e
The
influence
of personal
characteristics
133
intelligent, the energetic, the achievement-oriented a n d those w h o wish to be a n d can be p o p u l a r . But s o m e d o u b t has to r e m a i n , as these conclusions are n o t as firmly s u p p o r t e d by the d a t a as they are p r e s e n t e d in t h e Handbook ( S t o g d i l l , 1974). The problem of a general framework and the question of the demographic components Although the evidence may show a relationship between some personal elements a n d the emergence and perhaps even the impact of l e a d e r s h i p , t h e r e i s still n o c l e a r g e n e r a l f r a m e w o r k w i t h i n w h i c h t o relate these findings to each other. T h e efforts that have been m a d e so far t o g r o u p t h e c o m p o n e n t s i n t o b r o a d e r c a t e g o r i e s a r e h i g h l y idiosyncratic. P e r h a p s this is because the concept of personality is itself elusive a n d l a c k s ' o b j e c t i v i t y ' ; w h a t i s a p p a r e n t i n a n y c a s e i s that different groupings are m a d e by different a u t h o r s . T h u s , B o r g a t t a ( 1 9 6 4 : 10) s u g g e s t s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f five c l u s t e r s w h i c h together describe personality: assertiveness, likeability, emotionality, i n t e l l i g e n c e , a n d t a s k i n t e r e s t . H e r m a n n , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , lists o n l y four elements: beliefs, motives, decision style, a n d m o d e s of p e r s o n a l interaction. Intelligence is not m e n t i o n e d ; nor is emotionality, at any rate in a direct m a n n e r ( H e r m a n n , 1977:21). M e a n w h i l e , Bass follows Stogdill a n d a d o p t s , as we saw, a different g r o u p i n g : for h i m , t h e categories are energy, b a c k g r o u n d , intelligence, 'personality', taskr e l a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a n d social c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e no widely accepted f r a m e w o r k . N o r is it clear w h a t the relationship is between the elements of t h e characterization. Intercorrelations have not been calculated; the p r o b l e m of intercorrelation is not even raised in theory. T h u s we do n o t k n o w whether we are faced with factors t h a t are i n d e p e n d e n t of each o t h e r . M o r e o v e r , it seems ill-advised to treat psychological a n d d e m o g r a p h i c e l e m e n t s i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r . P s y c h o l o g i s t s n o t e , for instance, the part played by age, career or b a c k g r o u n d ; but they do not e x a m i n e the possible relationship between these elements a n d psychological variables. Yet it w o u l d seem reasonable to suggest t h a t e n e r g y d i m i n i s h e s w i t h a g e a n d t h a t , a s e n e r g y i s r e q u i r e d for l e a d e r s h i p , o l d e r r u l e r s a r e less l i k e l y , o n b a l a n c e , t o b e effective leaders (though a number of i m p o r t a n t exceptions immediately c o m e t o m i n d ) . O n e m i g h t a l s o say t h a t a g o o d e d u c a t i o n i s likely t o b e correlated positively with intelligence, that it might in t u r n result in f o s t e r i n g a sense of s u p e r i o r i t y w h i c h will r e s u l t in a d e s i r e to d o m i n a t e , a n d t h a t , o n t h e s e g r o u n d s , l e a d e r s a r e m o r e likely t o e m e r g e a m o n g p e r s o n s w i t h a g o o d e d u c a t i o n a n d effective l e a d e r s a r e e v e n m o r e likely t o b e f o u n d a m o n g t h e m . C o r r e s p o n d i n g h y p o t h e s e s m a y b e a d v a n c e d for t h e o t h e r d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; i n d e e d ,
134
the same d e m o g r a p h i c characteristics m a y be found to foster m o r e t h a n one of the elements or traits that have appeared to be particularly prevalent a m o n g leaders. Since t h e correlation between d e m o g r a p h i c a n d p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s i s still u n c l e a r , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e a t t h i s p o i n t t o k n o w w h a t p a r t is played specifically by d e m o g r a p h i c variables a n d what part by psychological characteristics in the development of leadership. Leadership characteristics and the situation with which leaders are confronted W e h a v e seen t h a t p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s still n e e d t o b e a n a l y s e d a n d assessed; b u t the link b e t w e e n these characteristics a n d the particular s i t u a t i o n s t h a t l e a d e r s face n e e d s e v e n m o r e t o b e e x a m i n e d a n d assessed. T h e p r o b l e m has long been recognized, to be sure. Stogdill, for i n s t a n c e , i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f h i s 190447 s u r v e y o f s t u d i e s o n t h e s u b j e c t , lists a m o n g t h e f a c t o r s ' w h i c h h a v e b e e n f o u n d t o b e associated with leadership', alongside capacity, achievement, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d s t a t u s , t h e r o l e o f t h e situation. T h i s includes the characteristics of the followers; he adds, as is n o w generally accepted by psychologists, t h a t 'leadership is a relation that exists b e t w e e n p e r s o n s i n a social s i t u a t i o n a n d t h a t p e r s o n s w h o a r e leaders in o n e situation m a y not necessarily be leaders in other situations' (Bass, 1981: 67). The matter of the 'adequacy' of leaders to particular environments h a s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t w o w a y s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s t h e general q u e s t i o n o f the 'sociability' of leaders. As Bass points o u t , 'the leader m u s t be able t o k n o w w h a t f o l l o w e r s w a n t , w h e n t h e y w a n t it, a n d w h a t p r e v e n t s t h e m f r o m g e t t i n g w h a t t h e y w a n t ' ( p . 111). L e a d e r s a r e circumscribed by the environment to the extent that what the followers w a n t h a s a critical i m p o r t a n c e . T h u s , t h o s e w h o h a v e t h e a b i l i t y t o p e r c e i v e w h a t f o l l o w e r s w a n t a r e m o r e likely t o b e l e a d e r s , a n d , p r e s u m a b l y , effective l e a d e r s . S e c o n d , a n d p e r h a p s m o r e i m p o r t a n t , different types of leaders are a p p r o p r i a t e to different k i n d s o f s i t u a t i o n s . C h u r c h i l l o r d e G a u l l e h a d t o w a i t for s i t u a t i o n s i n which saviours were required before they could be truly recognized a n d m a k e a m a j o r i m p a c t on their societies. H o w e v e r e n d o w e d an individual m a y be with 'leadership qualities', he m a y be able to cope with o n l y s o m e types of situations a n d n o t with all. If this is t h e case, h o w e v e r , it b e c o m e s m o r e difficult to believe t h a t t h e r e a r e general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s h i p , s u c h a s t h o s e d e s c r i b e d earlier. I n d e e d , this conclusion m a y be d r a w n from the w o r k of s o m e p s y c h o l o g i s t s . F i e d l e r , for i n s t a n c e , h a s a t t e m p t e d t o s h o w empirically the association between personal characteristics and the type o f s i t u a t i o n s t h a t the leaders face. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , w h e n the
The
influence
135
p r o b l e m to be solved is simple, the m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e leaders are those w h o a r e ' t a s k - o r i e n t e d ' ; w h i l e i n c o m p l e x s i t u a t i o n s t h e best l e a d e r s are those w h o are c o n c e r n e d m o r e with establishing a relationship w i t h t h e i r f o l l o w e r s , a n d w i t h h a v i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p a t h y for t h e m ( F i e d l e r , 1967). I f o n e c a n g e n e r a l i z e f r o m F i e d l e r ' s a n a l y s e s , i t w o u l d seem that it is n o t permissible to state in general what leadership qualities are, b u t t h a t o n e would have to discriminate a m o n g these qualities according to the circumstances. In some cases, but not in o t h e r s , leaders m a y h a v e to be task-oriented in o r d e r to be effective; in s o m e c a s e s , b u t n o t i n o t h e r s , l e a d e r s m a y h a v e t o seek p o p u l a r i t y a n d indeed to be popular. This conclusion m a y n o t entirely contradict points m a d e earlier, which suggested that leaders tend to be d r a w n from a m o n g both the task-oriented a n d the 'sociable': it m a y be that, in contrast with followers, leaders do have to have these qualities. But an analysis that takes into a c c o u n t t h e characteristics of the situation facing the leader has to be m o r e sophisticated, in that it has to introduce a further form of categorization. Indeed, the distinctions m a d e by Fiedler are p r o b a b l y not the only ones in which differences in the 'situation' s u g g e s t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e m o s t effective f o r m o f l e a d e r s h i p ; t h e y d o constitute a n i m p o r t a n t starting p o i n t a n d , while they h a v e been m a d e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t y p e s o f l e a d e r s h i p t h a t a r e less e x a l t e d a n d g e n e r a l t h a n political leadership, a n d in particular national political leadership, they seem to have considerable potential value. It is t r u e t h a t national political leadership is so c o m p r e h e n s i v e t h a t it appears on the surface to require both task-orientation and popularity; b u t the t w o elements do n o t seem to be needed to the s a m e e x t e n t i n all c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , F i e d l e r ' s a n a l y s e s e c h o to an extent W e b e r ' s ideal-types of bureaucratic a n d charismatic leadership or, in m o r e ordinary situations, the distinction between those w h o are concerned with administrative i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d t h o s e w h o s e m a i n aim is to a p p e a l to the p e o p l e a n d rally the citizens to their cause. T h e difficulty, however, is that Fiedler's m o d e l has been tested n o t only o u t s i d e t h e political context, b u t in relatively simple situations of a l a b o r a t o r y character. T h e experiments have been c o n d u c t e d either with relatively small g r o u p s of college students or with m a n a g e r s , o f t e n a t a l o w e r level, i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u c h a s b u s i n e s s e s o r t h e a r m y . T h e p r o b l e m s faced b y n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s a r e v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t , both because they are appreciably m o r e complex and because the c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r which this leadership is exercised m a k e s it m o r e b u r e a u c r a t i c a n d hierarchical. N a t i o n a l political leadership is never face-to-face, as is often the type of leadership that is e x a m i n e d by p s y c h o l o g i s t s . T h u s , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n m a y n o t b e fully a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e
136
political realm. Fiedler himself suggests indirectly that this m i g h t be t h e case w h e n he states t h a t t a s k - o r i e n t e d leadership is particularly suited to simple situations: since political leadership, a n d national political leadership in particular, is always concerned with complex situations, the model m a y n o t be directly transferable. At a m i n i m u m , i t s e e m s p r u d e n t t o view t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n t e r m s o f a t e n d e n c y r a t h e r t h a n in the f o r m of a clear-cut division w h e n it is applied to political life. The analyses u n d e r t a k e n by psychologists have thus to m a k e further advances before it b e c o m e s possible to state precisely w h a t the relationship is between personal characteristics and the ability of i n d i v i d u a l s t o b e c o m e effective l e a d e r s . T h e y h a v e a l s o p r o b a b l y t o b e modified in o r d e r to be applicable to n a t i o n a l political leadership. But some of the basic exploration has been d o n e . O n e begins to have a g e n e r a l view o f t h e m a n y w a y s i n w h i c h p e r s o n a l i t y a f f e c t s l e a d e r s h i p ; i t s e e m s a l s o t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n specific c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d leadership is indeed p r o v e n . T h e qualities of energy, intelligence, achievement m o t i v a t i o n , task orientation a n d sociability do seem to be a m o n g the variables that have to be taken into account, though it m a y b e t h a t t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d o n o t p l a y t h e s a m e p a r t i n all situations and indeed that, in s o m e cases, they m a y be mutually exclusive. W h a t i s p e r h a p s m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f all i s t h a t , i n s h a r p c o n t r a s t w i t h m o s t political scientists, a n d in particular with m o s t earlier political scientists, psychologists have been c o n c e r n e d with leadership in general; they have also been concerned with 'ordinary' leadership, and not primarily with pathological cases. They are thus showing the direction that the analysis should take in the future, although a further a n d m a j o r s t e p h a s yet t o b e t a k e n : t h a t o f p r o v i d i n g a g e n e r a l framework within which to locate a n d relate to each other the psychological a n d demographic bases of leadership. It is therefore i m p o r t a n t t o t u r n n o w t o t h i s p o i n t a n d t o see h o w far s o m e e l e m e n t s of such a f r a m e w o r k can already be delineated.
Towards a general model of the influence of personal factors on the impact of leaders
D e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f t e n fail t o s h o w t h e p r e c i s e r o l e o f p e r s o n a l factors in t h e c o n t e x t of leadership: yet t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g intuitive impression is t h a t this role is large a n d indeed glaring. Daily c o n v e r s a t i o n s r e m a r k o n t h e effect t h a t a l e a d e r m a y h a v e b e c a u s e o f his o r her c h a r m , a p p e a r a n c e , o r a t o r y a n d p o p u l a r i t y , but also intelligence, c u n n i n g o r decisiveness. T h e s e c o m m e n t s , m o r e o v e r , apply not merely to Churchill or de Gaulle, Roosevelt or Kennedy, N a s s e r , N k r u m a h o r P e r o n : t h e y a r e felt t o b e v a l i d , t o a m o r e l i m i t e d
The
influence
137
e x t e n t , a b o u t m a n y ' o r d i n a r y ' n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s , a s well a s a b o u t m a n y leaders w h o are neither national nor political. Clearly, t h e r e i s a n e n g r a i n e d belief t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y c o u n t s a n d p r o b a b l y c o u n t s for m u c h . C o m p a r e d w i t h t h i s ' c o m m o n s e n s e ' , i m m e d i a t e , intuitive view, w h a t is o n e to m a k e of an analysis that concludes that personal characteristics m a y count to some extent, though the evidence is neither clear-cut n o r definite? Should one assert that the impressions t h a t prevail a m o n g the public a r e illusions a n d form p a r t of a m o d e r n superstition which has transferred to leaders some of the m i r a c u l o u s p o w e r s o n c e believed to be t h e privilege of saints? Or should one conclude, on the contrary, that academic studies are so o b s e s s e d w i t h m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p u r i t y t h a t t h e y fail t o g r a s p w h a t i s obvious to the n a k e d eye? To answer this question, o n e needs to have a further look at the evidence. But before doing so it is worth noting that the problem stems in part from the standpoint from which it is considered. Political scientists consider leaders as a class, while t h e public considers t h e m individually: an individual m a y seem exceptional by comparison with t h e rest o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n , b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e m a y n o t b e s o l a r g e w h e n l e a d e r s a r e c o m p a r e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r . I f all l e a d e r s h a p p e n t o b e e x c e p t i o n a l p e r s o n s w h i c h t h e y a r e likely t o b e , u p t o a p o i n t a t l e a s t , since o t h e r w i s e m o s t o f t h e m w o u l d n o t h a v e b e c o m e l e a d e r s i t m a y well b e t h a t l e a d e r s a s a g r o u p a r e e n d o w e d w i t h e x c e p t i o n a l p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s b y c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e ' c o m m o n m a n ' , a n d yet t h a t t h e r e m a y b e little d i f f e r e n c e w h e n o n e l e a d e r i s c o m p a r e d w i t h a n o t h e r . P o l i t i c a l scientists m a y t h u s c o n s i d e r all l e a d e r s a n d f i n d t h a t the range in the a m o u n t of personal influence is not very large, while ' o r d i n a r y ' observers of politics m a y also correctly n o t e t h a t a given l e a d e r h a s a l a r g e i m p a c t at a g i v e n m o m e n t as a r e s u l t of p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s . T h i s feeling i s r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e fact t h a t w e f o c u s t y p i c a l l y on a small n u m b e r of issues, so t h a t t h e leader is being considered n o t m e r e l y b y c o n t r a s t w i t h w h a t o r d i n a r y citizens m i g h t a c h i e v e , b u t a l s o w i t h r e s p e c t o n l y t o t h e issues t h a t h a v e b e e n s i n g l e d o u t f o r e x a m i n a t i o n . I t i s n o t t h e w h o l e set o f p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s t h a t i s b e i n g assessed, but only that aspect of the personal attributes that resulted in the action of the leader w h o is being e x a m i n e d .
6
Different conclusions m a y thus be legitimately d r a w n , depending o n t h e s t a n d p o i n t . B u t , i f i t i s n o t false t o c l a i m t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l 'qualities' of a leader are 'exceptional' by c o m p a r i s o n with those of the c o m m o n m a n , and that they do have a marked impact on l e a d e r s h i p effectiveness, it is surely w o r t h considering t h e p r o b l e m f r o m t h i s s t a n d p o i n t a s well. O n e s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e e x a m i n e all t h e w a y s i n w h i c h p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s c a n a f f e c t l e a d e r s h i p , a s well a s t h e p a r t t h a t v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y a r e likely t o p l a y i n
138
different situations. O n e h a s to elaborate a model, as general as possible, of the different d i m e n s i o n s of the relationship between personal components and leadership impact. In h i s Personality and Politics, G r e e n s t e i n (1969) p r o v i d e s e l e m e n t s for s u c h a m o d e l w h e n h e d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n t h r e e a s p e c t s , w h i c h h e calls ' p h e n o m e n o l o g y ' , ' d y n a m i c s ' a n d ' g e n e s i s ' . F i r s t , i n w h a t ways does or could this influence t a k e place? W h a t elements of the personality play or m a y play a p a r t ? Second, h o w does this influence vary over time? A n d third, w h a t are the origins of this i n f l u e n c e ? T h i s last q u e s t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t , i n t h e c h a i n l i n k i n g dependent variables to independent variables, the personal attributes h a v e first t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e impact of leaders; but they then have to be considered as dependent variables and to be related to the independent variables that might a c c o u n t for t h e i r e x i s t e n c e . A t t h i s p o i n t , t o o , q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o b i o g r a p h i c a l o r d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h a v e t o b e r a i s e d , a s well as the role of 'deeper' elements of the personality. T h u s , following G r e e n s t e i n ' s d i s t i n c t i o n , w e shall e x a m i n e t h e w a y s i n w h i c h p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t s m a y i n f l u e n c e t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s h i p ; w e shall t h e n c o n s i d e r w a y s i n w h i c h t h i s i n f l u e n c e m a y v a r y o v e r t i m e , a n d finally w e shall l o o k for t h e ' c a u s e s ' , o r a t least t h e ' a n t e c e d e n t s ' , o f t h e s e personal elements.
How do or might impact of leaders?
personal attributes
affect
the
In the two preceding sections, we saw a substantial n u m b e r of personal qualities playing a part in determining the role of leadership. Perhaps these qualities cannot be added to each other: there m a y be d i m i n i s h i n g r e t u r n s i f t h e l e a d e r i s ' t o o ' i n t e l l i g e n t , for i n s t a n c e ; ' t a s k orientation' a n d ' e m p a t h y ' or popularity m a y be to some extent a n t i n o m i c . W h a t w o u l d ideally n e e d t o b e d o n e i s t o m a t c h t h e qualities t h a t might be required to the type of situations with which l e a d e r s a r e c o n f r o n t e d . T h i s c a n n o t b e fully a c c o m p l i s h e d , b u t w h a t can be a t t e m p t e d is to determine the types of activities in which the l e a d e r h a s t o b e e n g a g e d i n v a r i o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; for i n s t a n c e , w h e n have leaders to think analytically, to decide quickly, to court p o p u l a r i t y ? T h i s , in t u r n , we can begin to assess by analysing the roles that leaders have to perform. W h a t , t h e n , are these roles? First, leaders e x a m i n e a n d analyse p r o b l e m s that they or others place on the a g e n d a ; second, they elaborate solutions to these problems; third, they a d o p t a solution which t h e n b e c o m e s a decision; fourth, they 'sell' these solutions to a n u m b e r o f c o n c e n t r i c circles o f ever w i d e r c o m p o s i t i o n . E a c h o f t h e s e
The
influence
139
activities r e q u i r e s d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s i f t h e s t a g e s o f t h e p r o c e s s a r e t o b e fulfilled well. I n t h e first s t a g e s t h e a n a l y s i s o f p r o b l e m s a n d t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o f possible solutions leaders have to be able to grasp what is important a n d what is trivial, to weigh alternatives, to foresee possible outcomes. Of course, they are helped by advisers w h o have examined t h e q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e h a n d a n d will s u g g e s t s o l u t i o n s ; b u t t h e y h a v e t o c h o o s e t h e s e a d v i s e r s a p p r o p r i a t e l y a n d yet n o t d e p e n d e n t i r e l y o n their advice, to assess t h e value of the solutions t h e y p r o p o s e , a n d to question the basis on which these solutions are m a d e , thus detecting b i a s e s o r m i s t a k e s . I n t h e first t w o p h a s e s , t h e n , t h e q u a l i t y m o s t required is manifestly intelligence. In the s u b s e q u e n t stage decision-making t h e leader m u s t be prepared to stop analysing the alternatives at some point and p l u m p for o n e o f t h e o p t i o n s . D e c i s i o n s m u s t n o t b e t a k e n t o o r a p i d l y , b e f o r e the problem has been adequately analysed, but they must not be p o s t p o n e d t o o long either: action has to be taken with respect to the p r o b l e m a t h a n d ; o t h e r p r o b l e m s h a v e a l s o t o b e e x a m i n e d . N o t all problems are equally urgent, admittedly, and intelligence is required to appreciate correctly the m o m e n t when the decision has to be taken. B u t d e c i s i o n - t a k i n g is n o t p r i m a r i l y a m a t t e r of i n t e l l i g e n c e : it is a m a t t e r o f will p o w e r a n d c o u r a g e . T h e l e a d e r h a s t o h a v e t h e e m o t i o n a l ability to s t o p the d e b a t e in his m i n d a n d t a k e a particular s i d e . T h i s h e will d o i f h e h a s a s t r o n g d e s i r e t o a c h i e v e r e s u l t s : 'motivation towards achievement' is thus probably t h e central quality n e e d e d . T o o m u c h intelligence m i g h t even b e c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e w h e n decisiveness is required, as s o m e psychological studies referred to in t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s h o w e d : t h e level o f a n a l y s i s m u s t n o t g o b e y o n d a certain point as the motivation to achieve results might then be impaired. T h e leader must then 'sell' the decision taken to a n u m b e r of g r o u p s in society. To simplify, these g r o u p s c a n be d i v i d e d i n t o three m a i n categories: the immediate entourage, the bureaucracy, and the public at large. T h e immediate entourage includes m a n y w h o have participated in the preparation of the decision. In this respect, the q u a l i t i e s r e q u i r e d o f t h e l e a d e r will b e t h e s a m e a s t h o s e t h a t t h e l e a d e r h a s t o d i s p l a y i n t a k i n g t h e d e c i s i o n ; i n d e e d , t h e d e c i s i o n m a y well often be t a k e n in the context of meetings with m e m b e r s of this i m m e d i a t e entourage. But the leader m u s t also display qualities of c u n n i n g a n d s t u b b o r n n e s s , i n view o f p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i o n s , t a c t i c a l o r substantive, that may be made by members of the entourage. He or s h e i s l i k e l y t o b e , a t least a t t i m e s , u n d e r c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e t o c h a n g e t h e d e c i s i o n ; h e o r s h e i s a l s o likely t o f i n d i m m e d i a t e s u b o r d i n a t e s divided on the solution p r o p o s e d . T h u s a strong
140
motivation to achieve results is s y n o n y m o u s with d e t e r m i n a t i o n . T h e r a t i o n a l c a l c u l a t i o n t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e a n a l y s i s s t a g e gives w a y t o the ' t o u g h ' one-sidedness needed to take and maintain a definite course of action. T h e second type of g r o u p to which the leader must pay attention consists primarily of the administrative a p p a r a t u s of the state, t h o u g h it also includes other bodies in charge of implementation, s o m e of which m a y even be private or semi-public. Of course, the ability of administrators to carry out decisions depends in large part on the q u a l i t y o f t h e p e r s o n n e l ( i n c l u d i n g its w i l l i n g n e s s t o o b e y ) a n d o n t h e efficiency o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ; b u t i n all s i t u a t i o n s i t a l s o d e p e n d s o n the extent to which the leader devotes some attention to what happens to t h e decisions he or she has t a k e n a n d follows t h r o u g h the process of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ( o r sees t h a t o t h e r s f o l l o w i t t h r o u g h o n h i s / h e r b e h a l f ) - Difficulties o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n will a l w a y s o c c u r a n d h a v e t o be smoothed down. These can be minimized only if the leader displays an ability to u n d e r s t a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s a n d s h o w s a t least s o m e attention to details. This is what is referred to by suggesting that he or she must be 'task-oriented'. This type of personal quality is manifestly different f r o m the intelligence required in analysis or the d e t e r m i n a t i o n needed to decide: task orientation m u s t entail s o m e interest in considering the concrete p r o b l e m s posed by the application of a decision a n d s o m e willingness to ' d e s c e n d ' from the general to t h e particular. Yet this is also d a n g e r o u s : over-devotion to detail takes up time that might be m o r e profitably used to consider other problems. A m o n g U S p r e s i d e n t s , t h e style o f C a r t e r , w h o w a s f o n d o f l o o k i n g a t details, is often contrasted to that of Eisenhower or Reagan. Yet task o r i e n t a t i o n m u s t not be viewed merely as a negative trait: w h e r e t h e b u r e a u c r a c y i s inefficient o r w h e n m u c h i s d e m a n d e d o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , for instance if new policies are p u r s u e d , greater a t t e n t i o n t o d e t a i l m a y b e a p r e r e q u i s i t e for s u c c e s s . T h u s i t m a y well be, going b e y o n d the conclusions d r a w n by Fiedler outside the p o l i t i c a l field, t h a t t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n i s a n e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t e v e n when p r o b l e m s are n o t simple, though it has to coexist, in complex a n d difficult s i t u a t i o n s , w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Task orientation also competes with the quality m o s t required with r e s p e c t t o t h e t h i r d set o f g r o u p s t o w h i c h n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s have to relate, n a m e l y , the public at large. All leaders need to be ' s o c i a b l e ' , b u t n a t i o n a l political leaders n e e d particularly to be so endowed; s o m e situations require t h e m to be p o p u l a r or, in the conventional sense of the expression, ' c h a r i s m a t i c ' . It is indeed in terms of their sociability that leaders tend to be judged most f r e q u e n t l y , s i n c e t h e w a y i n which t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e p u b l i c i s t h r o u g h
The
influence
141
activities d e s i g n e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r p o p u l a r i t y . A s a r e s u l t , t h e p u b l i c m a y stress u n d u l y t h e r o l e o f s o c i a b i l i t y a n d u n d e r p l a y t h e p a r t p l a y e d by other personal qualities. H o w e v e r , as Fiedler points o u t , sociability i s likely t o c o n f l i c t w i t h t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ; t h e t w o q u a l i t i e s a r e u n l i k e l y to be jointly possessed by the s a m e leader to a high degree, a n d the time spent on o n e particular aspect is at the expense of time spent on the other. N a t i o n a l political leaders m u s t not therefore concentrate t o o heavily on courting p o p u l a r i t y . A w i d e r a n g e of d i f f e r e n t qualities is t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d of n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s , w h o a r e u n l i k e l y t o p o s s e s s t h e m all t o t h e s a m e h i g h d e g r e e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e y d o still h a v e t o b e e x c e p t i o n a l . H e n c e t h e view t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e also t o b e e n d o w e d w i t h g r e a t e r t h a n a v e r a g e e n e r g y , since o n l y i f t h e y a r e e n e r g e t i c c a n t h e y b e e x p e c t e d t o b e alert t o p r o b l e m s a n d t o e n g a g e all o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y i n t h e q u e s t i o n s a t h a n d . B u t e n e r g y i s n o t e n o u g h ; i t h a s t o b e a d d e d t o t h e o t h e r qualities with w h i c h l e a d e r s m u s t b e e n d o w e d , even i f society i s c a l m a n d d e m a n d s l i m i t e d . W h e n t h e d e m a n d s are large a n d tension great, on the other h a n d , satisfactory ' c a n d i d a t e s ' a r e likely t o b e u n c o m m o n . P e r h a p s i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h e r e f o r e t h a t r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s s h o u l d r a r e l y b e f o u n d , a n d even m o r e r a r e l y b e f o u n d a b l e t o s u s t a i n for l o n g t h e strain o f t h e r e v o l u t i o n . The dynamics of the evolution of the personal attributes of leaders Leaders need to possess a large array of personal attributes if t h e y a r e t o b e s u c c e s s f u l ; b u t d e m a n d s a r e likely t o v a r y o v e r t i m e , w h i l e t h e ' s u p p l y ' o f t h e s e q u a l i t i e s i s a l s o likely t o c h a n g e , e v e n for t h e s a m e l e a d e r s . T h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h e c o u n t r y will a l t e r a s d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m s arise; a n d with age a n d experience, the ability of t h e leaders will n o t r e m a i n t h e s a m e . T h u s , l e a d e r s w h o a r e t a s k - o r i e n t e d a n d m a y be a d e q u a t e or indeed g o o d if w h a t is required by society are l i m i t e d o r p i e c e m e a l c h a n g e s m a y n o t b e a b l e t o rise t o t h e o c c a s i o n i f tension increases a n d analysis, d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d sociability b e c o m e necessary. Even if there is no sudden a n d m a j o r change, a gradual m o d i f i c a t i o n o f societal d e m a n d s m a y r e s u l t i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s being required of the leader. Leaders whose goals were aiming at m a n a g i n g society or introducing limited changes m a y be faced with growing societal pressure a n d with conflicts a m o n g segments of the s o c i e t y w h i c h c o u l d n o t b e h a n d l e d p i e c e m e a l : B r i t a i n i n t h e 1970s i s a case in point a m o n g Western countries. T h u s , leaders w h o are a d e q u a t e at the start of their tenure m a y be increasingly ill-equipped w i t h c h a n g e s o c c u r r i n g i n t h e d e m a n d s o f s o c i e t y . T h i s i s t r u e a s far a s internal affairs are concerned; it is p e r h a p s even truer with respect to external pressures. Eden was thus unable to cope with the strain of the S u e z crisis i n 1956 t h o u g h h e h a d b e e n a s a t i s f a c t o r y m i n i s t e r a n d p r i m e minister previously.
142
M e a n w h i l e , the leaders themselves c h a n g e over time. By a n d large, t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o act effectively i s l i k e l y t o i m p r o v e a t first, a s a r e s u l t of better 'training'. They learn their j o b gradually and become better p e r f o r m e r s . T h e p r o b l e m s they face a r e often similar, a n d they need t h e r e f o r e less i n t e l l i g e n c e t o d i s c o v e r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s o l u t i o n . T h e y are also gradually better able to assess t h e extent to which their decisions are implemented correctly a n d rapidly; they m a y n o t need to intervene to the same extent in administrative details ( t h o u g h s o m e m a y still b e i n c l i n e d t o d o s o , i f t h e y a r e t a s k - o r i e n t e d ) . E v e n t h e p r o c e s s o f t a k i n g d e c i s i o n s m a y b e c o m e less difficult a n d less emotionally exhausting, while actions designed to m a i n t a i n or i n c r e a s e p o p u l a r i t y m a y a l s o r e q u i r e less e n e r g y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e ruler. Such ' i m p r o v e m e n t s ' in the relationship between leaders a n d the v a r i o u s g r o u p s i n s o c i e t y a r e a l s o likely t o r e s u l t f r o m a b e t t e r anticipation of the leader's reactions on the part of those w h o relate to the ruler, especially a m o n g t h e i m m e d i a t e e n t o u r a g e , but also within t h e w h o l e b u r e a u c r a c y a n d t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e . A d v i s e r s will c o m e t o k n o w w h a t t h e l e a d e r w i s h e s t o a c h i e v e ; t h e y will r e c e i v e s i g n a l s a b o u t t h e k i n d o f d e c i s i o n s likely t o b e t a k e n . A d m i n i s t r a t o r s will b e c o m e a w a r e of the extent to which the leader insists on a given degree a n d s p e e d o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . T h e p u b l i c will c o m e t o e x p e c t a p a r t i c u l a r style o n t h e p a r t o f t h e l e a d e r ; t h i s style m a y b e r e g a r d e d p o s i t i v e l y o r negatively, but if the reactions are positive the leader m a y need to d e v o t e less e n e r g y t o m a i n t a i n i n g p o p u l a r i t y i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a particular result. It has been argued, however, and indeed with apparent empirical evidence, that ' n e w ' leaders m a y be in a better position in terms of t h e i r g r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e p o l i c y c h a n g e s ( B u n c e , 1981). T h i s would seem to result from the possession by new leaders of a certain ' c a p i t a l ' , b a s e d o n p o p u l a r i t y , fear ( f o r i n s t a n c e , i f a c o u p h a s t a k e n place) or t h e fact t h a t it would be politically difficult, if n o t impossible, to replace immediately a newly a p p o i n t e d ruler. But l e a d e r s m a y e n j o y m o r e p r e s t i g e o n c o m i n g t o o f f i c e a n d yet b e c o m e better able over t i m e to deal with the p r o b l e m s they have to face. S o m e n e w l e a d e r s b e n e f i t f r o m a ' p e r i o d o f g r a c e ' , d u r i n g w h i c h critical judgement is temporarily suspended or toned d o w n . This does not m e a n that the leaders themselves are, during that period, better at analysing p r o b l e m s , taking decisions, following these t h r o u g h the implementation process or courting popularity: it merely means that t h e y a r e less l i k e l y t o b e c a s t i g a t e d i f t h e y a r e w r o n g . T h e y a r e faced with an altogether easier environment, so to speak; the qualities they n e e d t o d i s p l a y a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e t h e y will h a v e t o d i s p l a y i n future, b u t t h e p r i c e t h a t h a s to be paid is, m o m e n t a r i l y , s o m e w h a t reduced.
The
influence
143
Whether this period of grace occurs c o m m o n l y or not, leaders do seem to b e c o m e g r a d u a l l y better equipped at handling the p r o b l e m s with which they are c o n f r o n t e d : their psychological qualities are s h a r p e n e d a n d t h e y use t h e m m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e l y . But this i m p r o v e m e n t i s n o t c o n t i n u o u s o r i n d e f i n i t e . I n t h e first p l a c e , i f leaders lack certain qualities t h a t are required in a given situation, t h e i r i n a d e q u a c y will t h e n b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . S e c o n d , ' o n - t h e - j o b ' t r a i n i n g i n a n a l y s i s o r t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n will r e a c h a p e a k . L e a d e r s a r e a l s o likely t o r e l a x t h e i r a t t e n t i o n , a s t h e y b e c o m e c o n v i n c e d o f t h e i r a b i l i t y t o h a n d l e effectively c e r t a i n t y p e s o f q u e s t i o n s : t h e y a r e likely t o b e less c a r e f u l a s s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s a r i s e , for i n s t a n c e i n c a r e f u l l y analysing the p a r a m e t e r s of a p r o b l e m before taking a decision; or t h e y will b e c o m e o v e r - c o n f i d e n t a b o u t t h e i r p o p u l a r i t y . B e i n g m o r e sure of themselves, of their j u d g e m e n t and of their capacity to ' d e l i v e r ' r e s u l t s , t h e y will b e m o r e likely t o m a k e m i s t a k e s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e y will a v o i d p r o b l e m s w h i c h t h e y feel ( c o n s c i o u s l y o r n o t ) a r e difficult t o s o l v e , w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t e n s i o n w i t h i n t h e p o l i t y i s likely t o i n c r e a s e . T h i s i s h o w , a s w e s a w , c o n f l i c t s m a y d e v e l o p i n s o c i e t y . O v e r a l l , l e a d e r s ' r e a c t i o n s t o e v e n t s will t h u s t e n d t o b e c o m e ' r o u t i n i z e d ' ; n e w p r o b l e m s will n o l o n g e r p r o v i d e o c c a s i o n s t o l e a r n . T h e 'routinization' of the leaders' responses has often been noticed: it results in large part from the drain on energy experienced by leaders w h o maintain an 'undivided' attention to the problems that arise. W h a t e v e r reserves of energy they might have possessed at the start, these are not indefinite, nor can they be reconstituted at the rate at w h i c h t h e y a r e c o n s u m e d . O f c o u r s e , t h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f e n e r g y will v a r y . L e a d e r s w h o a r e m a r k e d l y t a s k - o r i e n t e d will b e m o r e q u i c k l y e x h a u s t e d . B u t t h i s will a l s o b e t h e c a s e i f m a n y n e w p o l i c i e s a r e launched or if m a n y problems 'accidentally' occur. Indeed, leaders m u s t r e m a i n r e a d y t o face n e w p r o b l e m s , a n d i f t h e y h a v e c o n s u m e d m o s t o f t h e i r e n e r g y i n e a r l i e r y e a r s t h e y will n o t b e a b l e t o d o s o . T h e r e will b e a m a r k e d d e c l i n e i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o r u l e , p o s s i b l y e v e n a total b r e a k d o w n of their m o t i v a t i o n to achieve success; whatever their original goals, they m a y become m a n a g e r s because they no longer h a v e t h e s t r e n g t h t o act i n a n y o t h e r w a y . T h u s a p l a t e a u will b e r e a c h e d . R u l e r s will n o t i m p r o v e o n t h e i r ability to h a n d l e problems b e y o n d a certain point. In m a n y cases, m o r e o v e r , o n e c a n even e x p e c t a d e t e r i o r a t i o n . T h i s r e s u l t s i n p a r t from the 'routinization' of the leader's responses, as we saw; but it m a y well b e p r e c i p i t a t e d b y a g e i n g , w h i c h i n t u i t i v e l y d o e s s e e m t o a f f e c t m a n y n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s w h o h a v e b e e n i n office for l o n g p e r i o d s , especially t h o s e w h o are physically old. It is true that s o m e leaders in their seventies show considerable b u o y a n c y , but even the m o s t active ' g r a n d o l d m e n ' s h o w signs o f p h y s i c a l d e c l i n e a t t h e e n d . T h i s w a s
144
manifestly the case with C h u r c h i l l a n d A d e n a u e r ; F r a n c o a n d B r e z h n e v a l s o s e e m e d v e r y d i m i n i s h e d i n t h e last y e a r s o f t h e i r r u l e . Y e t t h e effect o f a g e i n g , t h o u g h less d r a m a t i c i n t h e c a s e o f o t h e r l o n g l e a d e r s , i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , a l t h o u g h i t m a y b e n o t a s well d o c u m e n t e d ; indeed, w h e n it is associated with illness, as with Eisenhower, ageing c a n affect relatively y o u n g e r leaders as well. T h e r e i s t h u s a n e v o l u t i o n o f t h e effect o f p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on leadership. This evolution results from the combination of t w o distinct m o v e m e n t s which affect t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e l e a d e r o n t h e o t h e r . T h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l q u a l i t i e s o f l e a d e r s will first i m p r o v e , t h e n r e a c h a p e a k , a n d e v e n t u a l l y d e t e r i o r a t e . Meanwhile, the environment confronts these leaders with situations that require different psychological qualities. In the external area, u n f o r e s e e n p r o b l e m s m a y a r i s e f o r w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e n o t well e q u i p p e d ; internally, the situation m a y b e c o m e m o r e difficult t o h a n d l e and the leader's qualities m a y no longer be those that are most relevant. If the emergence of a new situation is added to the r e m a r k t h a t t h e a b i l i t y o f l e a d e r s i s likely t o d e t e r i o r a t e w h e n t h e y h a v e b e e n i n o f f i c e for l o n g p e r i o d s , i t s e e m s p e r m i s s i b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t , o v e r t i m e , l e a d e r s a r e likely t o b e i n c r e a s i n g l y i n e f f e c t i v e : t h i s , o f c o u r s e , i s a g e n e r a l , b u t n o t a u n i v e r s a l , t r e n d . B u t it d o e s s e e m t h a t , w h i l e a v e r y rapid t u r n o v e r results in the inability of rulers to control the e n v i r o n m e n t of which they are temporarily in charge, a long period in office a l s o s e e m s t o b e n a t u r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a d i m i n i s h e d c a p a c i t y t o u s e e v e n t h o s e q u a l i t i e s t h a t l e a d e r s initially p o s s e s s e d . The genesis of the personal influence of leaders N o t m u c h is k n o w n of the reasons w h y a given leader m a y be taskoriented, courting popularity, achievement-motivated or 'intelligent'; b u t s o m e of t h e analyses described earlier in this c h a p t e r suggest t w o possible lines of investigation: the role of d e m o g r a p h i c variables, a n d early socialization p a t t e r n s . D e m o g r a p h i c variables education, family and occupational b a c k g r o u n d were found to be generally associated with leadership, t h o u g h m o r e in the sense that they distinguished leaders from n o n l e a d e r s t h a n i n h e l p i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o n e g i v e n r u l e r w a s likely to h a v e greater influence t h a n a n o t h e r . This a p p a r e n t lack of any direct link between demographic variables and leadership effectiveness, h o w e v e r , m a y be due m o r e to the absence of systematic analyses t h a n to t h e absence of a relationship, since we also noticed t h a t f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s e e m e d t o h a v e a t least s o m e i n f l u e n c e , a n d since s t u d i e s o f l e a d e r s h i p u n d e r t a k e n b y p s y c h o l o g i s t s r e c o g n i z e t h e importance of these variables. T h e d i f f i c u l t y , h o w e v e r , c o m e s f r o m t h e fact t h a t i t i s n o t clear i n
The
influence
145
w h a t w a y d e m o g r a p h i c variables, a n d in particular social b a c k g r o u n d variables, can directly play a part in affecting leadership effectiveness, save in that, as we p o i n t e d o u t , leaders c o m i n g from a certain g r o u p m a y be unwilling to act against t h e interests of this g r o u p . But an i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e a p p e a r s e a s i e r t o d e t e c t : t h e social b a c k g r o u n d o f a leader m a y contribute to the shaping of the psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h i s l e a d e r . T h u s , p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s c o u l d still b e recognized as the elements by which leaders m a k e an impact on society, a l t h o u g h the n a t u r e of these attributes the particular configuration of the personality would also be affected by the demographic variables. For instance, while it m a y be problematic whether s o m e o n e w h o c o m e s f r o m t h e m i d d l e c l a s s i s m o r e likely t o b e a c h i e v e m e n t - o r i e n t e d m e r e l y b e c a u s e o f t h e fact t h a t h e o r s h e h a s a m i d d l e - c l a s s b a c k g r o u n d , i t s e e m s less c o n t r o v e r s i a l t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e v a l u e s , t h e c o g n i t i o n , e v e n t h e e m o t i o n a l b a l a n c e o f t h i s l e a d e r will b e a f f e c t e d b y the social b a c k g r o u n d . As a result of u p b r i n g i n g , t h e potential ruler m a y b e m o r e o r less l i k e l y , first, t o seek p o w e r i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e results a n d , second, to s h o w d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n c e in office. Similarly, c e r t a i n t y p e s a n d levels o f e d u c a t i o n s e e m i n t u i t i v e l y t o r e s u l t i n leaders being e n d o w e d with important psychological attributes. Indeed, some schools, in particular prestigious private schools, have long claimed that o n e of their m a i n functions is to train the character a n d t o p r o v i d e t h e i r p u p i l s w i t h l e a d e r s h i p skills; t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the case of b e t t e r - k n o w n English public schools. Military schools, similarly, emphasize the character-training aspect of their role. While there is no direct evidence that children having u n d e r g o n e such an education are indeed 'different' from what they would otherwise have b e e n ( e v i d e n c e t h a t s e e m s v e r y difficult t o c o l l e c t , i n a n y c a s e ) , i t s e e m s i n c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d b e n o effect a t all o n t h e c h a r a c t e r or intelligence of those w h o a t t e n d e d these schools; at a m i n i m u m , t h e s e c h i l d r e n will h a v e r e c e i v e d a b e t t e r t r a i n i n g a n d t h e r e f o r e will h a v e b e e n a b l e t o i m p r o v e a n y l a t e n t q u a l i t i e s t h e y h a d . T h u s t h e r e i s little d o u b t t h a t d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s , f r o m b a c k g r o u n d to career, constitute a significant element in t h e extent to w h i c h l e a d e r s c a n exercise c e r t a i n s k i l l s , even i f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e s e skills i s n o t d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o this b a c k g r o u n d . D e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s c o n s t i t u t e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e social p a r t o f t h e history of individuals; family history also constitutes p a r t of t h a t social history, but o n e that is usually so intense that it c a n , a n d probably often does, shape the deepest elements of the personality. This is w h y , as we saw, m a n y political scientists h a v e been inclined to look at very early childhood and at the relationship between parents a n d c h i l d r e n t o a c c o u n t for a s p e c t s o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y . A s w e s a w , t h e y
146
have tended to concentrate on the m o r e pathological cases, partly because these seemed m o r e i m p o r t a n t , a n d partly because the (often evil) i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s e l e a d e r s a p p e a r e d t o b e a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h i s early experience. But the influence of early childhood is general; a n d , i n d e e d , a s B a r b e r ' s (as well a s t h e G e o r g e s ' ) a n a l y s e s o f t h e lives o f U S p r e s i d e n t s clearly s h o w , t h i s t y p e o f i n f e r e n c e c a n b e m a d e w i t h r e s p e c t t o all t y p e s o f l e a d e r s , e v e n i f t h e y a r e ' n o r m a l ' o r ' o r d i n a r y ' . I t i s o f c o u r s e n o t yet c l e a r h o w c h i l d h o o d e x p e r i e n c e s a f f e c t t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t i t u d e s t h a t l e a d e r s a r e likely t o p o s s e s s ; b u t w e k n o w from general psychological studies that the personality of individuals is deeply m a r k e d by early socialization. It also a p p e a r s t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h p a r e n t s a n d o t h e r m e m b e r s o f t h e f a m i l y will affect a w i d e r a n g e o f p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s i n t e l l i g e n c e p e r h a p s , t h e n e e d for popularity p r o b a b l y , a n d the m o t i v a t i o n to achieve results almost certainly. T h e ways in which this influence is exerted are obscure, as obscure as the ways in which demographic variables have an impact on the p e r s o n a l i t y . T h e a n a l y s e s o n w h i c h f i n d i n g s a r e b a s e d s o far s u g g e s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t a r e p l a u s i b l e . B e c a u s e t h e y a r e ex post facto a n d d r a w n from individual cases, these scarcely provide a genuine f o u n d a t i o n f o r g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s e s ; i n d e e d , i t will p r o b a b l y b e a l o n g time before studies are u n d e r t a k e n to determine the precise conditions u n d e r which certain types of relationships do or do n o t result in s o m e psychological characteristics prevailing a m o n g potential national political leaders. Yet, a n d as with d e m o g r a p h i c variables, it seems highly unlikely that the relationship between parents and children s h o u l d n o t h a v e a m a j o r effect o n t h e c h a r a c t e r a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e o f these children. Early socialization experiences can therefore legitimately be regarded as an i m p o r t a n t antecedent in the development of the personal qualities of leaders, alongside d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s , w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e i n d e e d l i n k e d , since social b a c k g r o u n d is closely d e p e n d e n t on family b a c k g r o u n d . Of course, early socialization experiences do not provide 'the' reason why leaders possess some psychological attributes, any more t h a n do d e m o g r a p h i c variables; differences a m o n g children c a n n o t be wholly explained, even t h o u g h , as we saw, the family experience of a y o u n g e r c h i l d d i f f e r s f r o m t h a t o f a first c h i l d ; s i m i l a r l y , p e r s o n s w i t h a n a l o g o u s s o c i a l b a c k g r o u n d s o r a n a l o g o u s e d u c a t i o n m a y well possess different psychological attributes. We m u s t recognize that we still d o n o t k n o w t h e f u n d a m e n t a l o r i g i n o f t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s o r , t o t a k e G r e e n s t e i n ' s e x p r e s s i o n , t h e real ' g e n e s i s ' o f t h e p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s o f l e a d e r s . B u t a n e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e b a c k g r o u n d s a n d e a r l y lives o f leaders does at least provide important i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the ways in w h i c h w h a t m a y b e ' i n n a t e ' qualities a r e o r c h e s t r a t e d o r c r i p p l e d , strengthened or weakened.
The
influence
147
Conclusion
For a theory of the role of personal c o m p o n e n t s of leadership effectiveness t o b e e l a b o r a t e d a n d tested, m u c h m o r e i s n e e d e d t h a n can be achieved at present. We m u s t be able to measure the impact of l e a d e r s i n g e n e r a l , i n t h e first i n s t a n c e ; o n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l side o f the analysis, we need to achieve a strikingly m o r e sophisticated u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y , o f its v a r i o u s e l e m e n t s a n d o f t h e relationship between these elements. W e have also t o k n o w a b o u t t h e d y n a m i c s o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y , f r o m its o r i g i n s t o t h e m o m e n t w h e n the leader achieves p o w e r a n d d u r i n g his o r her p e r i o d i n o f f i c e . W e m u s t b e a b l e t o m e a s u r e , o r a t least assess w i t h s o m e degree of precision, the relative part played by the various c o m p o n e n t s in determining the leader's influence. Such results are unlikely to be obtained in the very near future: we have therefore to be c o n t e n t w i t h a n u m b e r of ' d r i l l i n g s ' in a l i t t l e - k n o w n field. Yet s o m e points are clear. It w o u l d be inconceivable that the qualities that c o m p o s e the personality did not matter, assuming that leaders do m a k e a difference in t h e societies they rule. This seems to be true not only of those exceptional leaders (good or bad) w h o have a p e r s o n a l i t y well o u t o f t h e o r d i n a r y , b u t o f o t h e r l e a d e r s , w h o a l s o n e e d t o p o s s e s s s p e c i a l p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , w h e t h e r o f intelligence, determination, task orientation, 'sociability' or, perhaps a b o v e all, e n e r g y . T h e m a n y f i n d i n g s , h o w e v e r d i s p a r a t e a n d d i s c r e t e they m a y be, point in that direction. T h e extraordinary characteristics t h a t a r e r e q u i r e d o f l e a d e r s , m o r e o v e r , h a v e t h e effect o f m a k i n g t h e s e l e a d e r s d i f f e r e n t f r o m m o s t c i t i z e n s , w h i l e a l s o m a k i n g i t difficult for r u l e r s t o p o s s e s s , for l o n g p e r i o d s , t h e q u a l i t i e s n e e d e d t o c o p e w i t h t h e e n v i r o n m e n t t h e y wish t o c o n t r o l a n d t o m a k e t h e s o c i e t y a g r e e with the goals they want to p u r s u e . Precisely h o w m u c h personality c o u n t s m a y r e m a i n a m a t t e r o f d e b a t e for m a n y y e a r s t o c o m e ; b u t that the personality of leaders plays an important part in the way l e a d e r s s h a p e o u r lives i s a s u b j e c t o n w h i c h t h e r e d o e s n o t n e e d t o b e controversy.
Notes
1. For a comprehensive analysis of these biographies and 'psychobiographies', see Runyan (1982). 2. See for instance the studies of R.C. Tucker (1973) on Stalin and those of E. Erikson on Luther (1959) and Gandhi (1969). 3. See the study of A.L. George and J.L. George (1956) on Woodrow Wilson. 4. Noland (1966: 232), quoted in Renshon (1984: 240). 5. See in particular Robins (1977) and Renshon (1984). 6. 1 wish to thank Professor R. King, of Cornell University, for this point.
5 The influence of institutions on political leadership

Leaders as we saw in the previous chapter have personal influence, b u t t h e y a l s o h o l d a p o s i t i o n , a n d , first a n d f o r e m o s t , a t i t l e , w h i c h carries prestige a n d p o w e r . If it is m o s t unlikely that personal characteristics h a v e no i m p a c t on t h e effectiveness of leaders, it is equally unlikely that the position that these leaders hold has no impact. So m u c h has been written a b o u t the positions of national l e a d e r s t h a t i t w o u l d b e p e c u l i a r i n d e e d i f t h e s e w r i t i n g s all c o n c e n t r a t e d on an illusion; t h e w h o l e t h r u s t of political science in t h e field, w h i c h i s d e v o t e d t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e arrangements designed to organize the powers and the status of leaders, cannot be based on a total misapprehension. The examination of the characteristics of the positions that leaders hold is o n e of the main areas of normative and empirical analysis, and it m u s t b e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e i s p r i m a facie a v e r y s t r o n g c a s e for believing t h a t these positions ' m a k e a difference'. A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , a n d a s m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d i n t h e field o f l e a d e r s h i p , t h e p r o b l e m i s n o t s o m u c h t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e s e p o s i t i o n s c o u n t , b u t t o d e t e r m i n e how much t h e y c o u n t . T h e e v i d e n c e in t h i s r e s p e c t is as elusive a n d difficult to e v a l u a t e as it is in relation to personal characteristics. We m a y k n o w 'intuitively' that t h e p r e s t i g e o f a p r e s i d e n c y , for i n s t a n c e , e n a b l e s a l e a d e r t o exercise s o m e influence as a result of that position; but we do not k n o w h o w t o m e a s u r e t h i s i n f l u e n c e i n c o m p a r i s o n , for i n s t a n c e , w i t h p o s i t i o n s held by other n a t i o n a l leaders. M o r e o v e r , we k n o w 'instinctively' that there are institutional consequences, ramifications tentacles of t h a t p o s i t i o n , so to speak which give t h e h o l d e r s o m e influence in the polity. A leader is powerful not merely because of the symbols and the powers attached to the j o b , but because he or she can, as a r e s u l t , c o n t r o l o r a t least i n f l u e n c e m a n y s e c t o r s o f t h e p o l i t i c a l system. But this p o w e r , which results from the position of n a t i o n a l l e a d e r , i s all t h e m o r e difficult t o m e a s u r e s i n c e i t i s s o p e r v a s i v e . It is as if t h e l e a d e r c o u l d press a n u m b e r of b u t t o n s w h i c h w o u l d result i n a n u m b e r o f r e a c t i o n s within m a n y d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s . B e c a u s e t h e y h o l d a p o s i t i o n of n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , for i n s t a n c e , rulers will u s u a l l y b e a b l e t o a p p o i n t m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t ; t h e y will also b e a b l e t o ' i n s t r u c t ' t h e b u r e a u c r a c y t o act i n a c e r t a i n w a y ; finally, t h e y will o f t e n h a v e p o w e r w i t h i n t h e d o m i n a n t p a r t y a n d t h e r e b y will b e able t o t r y t o m o b i l i z e t h e p o p u l a t i o n t o w a r d s t h e i r policies. T h e y will
The influence of institutions
149
u s e t h e s e p o w e r s t o a g r e a t e r o r lesser e x t e n t , t o b e s u r e . P e r s o n a l ability will p l a y a p a r t ; b u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e ' t e n t a c l e s ' , t h e s e c h a n n e l s o f i n f l u e n c e , will p l a c e t h e l e a d e r s i n a p r i v i l e g e d p o s i t i o n , n o t b e c a u s e o f their o w n q u a l i t i e s , b u t b e c a u s e o f t h e p o s i t i o n t h e y h o l d . T h e analysis o f t h e effect o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l e a d e r n e e d s t o b e conducted in some detail, because there are considerable variations from country to country a n d over time. Leaders m a y or m a y not be able t o a p p o i n t t h e i r c a b i n e t a t will, for i n s t a n c e ; t h e b u r e a u c r a c y m a y b e m o r e o r less efficient; t h e p a r t y i n p o w e r m a y o r m a y n o t b e well organized. M o r e generally, institutions and other arrangements that s h a p e t h e p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s s h o u l d b e e x a m i n e d a t f o u r levels; first, t h e s t a t u s of l e a d e r s t h e p r e s t i g e t h a t s t e m s f r o m t h e p o s i t i o n itself varies; second, there are differences in the powers of leaders over the selection a n d c o n t r o l o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d i m m e d i a t e ' e n t o u r a g e ' ; third, there is the bureaucracy, w h o s e m a i n task is to advise on a n d i m p l e m e n t d e c i s i o n s a n d w h i c h i s m o r e o r less a t t h e d i s p o s a l o f l e a d e r s ; and fourth, there are the m e a n s by which leaders can influence the p o p u l a t i o n a n d w h i c h give t h e m g r e a t e r o r lesser l e v e r a g e political p a r t i e s , for i n s t a n c e . T h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e p o t e n t i a l effect o f t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements in helping or hindering leaders has obviously to remain r a t h e r c r u d e , a t a n y r a t e a t this p o i n t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o u r t o o l s o f a n a l y s i s . I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e , for i n s t a n c e , t o b e precise a b o u t t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y c a n s t r e n g t h e n t h e h a n d of a l e a d e r ; n o r is it p o s s i b l e t o s t a t e exactly h o w m u c h a r u l e r g a i n s b y being a b l e t o a p p o i n t a n d d i s m i s s m i n i s t e r s a t will o r b y h a v i n g a s t r o n g b u r e a u c r a c y . B u t certain b r o a d conclusions can be d r a w n . W h a t needs to be d o n e before t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e e x a m i n e d , h o w e v e r , i s t o assess i n g e n e r a l w h e t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s set u p b y c o n s t i t u t i o n s , l a w s o r o t h e r ' v o l u n t a r y ' d e c i s i o n s t e n d o n t h e w h o l e t o h e l p o r restrict t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s , a n d w h e t h e r t h e s e a r e ' f r e e r ' i n t h e exercise o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n s i f t h e y rely p r i m a r i l y o n customs, conventions and other 'natural' developments in the polity. W e shall t h e r e f o r e d e v o t e t h e first s e c t i o n o f this c h a p t e r t o this p o i n t , b e f o r e l o o k i n g successively a t t h e s t a t u s o f l e a d e r s a n d a t t h e ' i n s t r u m e n t s ' t h e y possess a t t h e level o f t h e i r ' e n t o u r a g e ' , t h e i r administration and the population as a whole.
Are leaders helped or hindered by the existence of constitutional and other 'man-made' arrangements?
I n s t i t u t i o n s h a v e often b e e n set u p t o r e d u c e o r c i r c u m s c r i b e t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e existence o f well e s t a b l i s h e d a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y ensure that the leaders' decisions can be m o r e smoothly implemented and accepted by the population. Overall, then, d o l e a d e r s benefit f r o m t h e existence o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r o t h e r ' m a n -
150
m a d e ' a r r a n g e m e n t s , s u c h a s b u r e a u c r a c i e s a n d political p a r t i e s ? T h e r e a r e t h r e e m a i n f a c t o r s t h a t s e e m t o suggest t h a t t h e p o w e r o f leaders is reduced by the presence of m a n - m a d e institutions. First, i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t r o d u c e g r e a t e r p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n political life. A t o n e level, leaders appear to gain because they k n o w that, if they press the a p p r o p r i a t e b u t t o n , c e r t a i n c o n s e q u e n c e s will follow. B u t t h e y a r e n o t a l o n e i n h a v i n g this k n o w l e d g e ; all o t h e r s k n o w , o r a t a n y r a t e q u i c k l y d i s c o v e r , t h a t c e r t a i n c o n s e q u e n c e s flow f r o m c e r t a i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s . T h u s , w h i l e l e a d e r s m a y g a i n f r o m b e i n g (relatively) c e r t a i n t h a t given effects will follow f r o m t h e i r a c t i o n s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e i s a s t r u c t u r e d ' s y s t e m ' , t h e g a i n s a r e s o m e w h a t offset b y t h e fact t h a t o t h e r s , also k n o w i n g w h a t will o c c u r , m a y t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n t o c o u n t e r t h e s e effects. Second, the structuring of t h e position of leader does n o t necessarily result i n t h e l e a d e r a c q u i r i n g g r e a t e r a u t o n o m y ; o n t h e c o n t r a r y , i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y b e s u c h t h a t t h e y limit l e a d e r s ' o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o act o r t o i n f l u e n c e t h e p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s i s w h a t m a n y p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s h a v e p r e s s e d for i n their w r i t i n g s , a n d m a n y constitution-makers have attempted to achieve: namely, to reduce the power of leaders t h r o u g h the introduction of institutional arrangements a n d procedures. In such a case, the structuring of the system does not help leaders to m a k e an impact; on the contrary, they w o u l d m a k e a g r e a t e r i m p a c t i f t h e r e w e r e n o s t r u c t u r i n g a t all. I n d e e d , m a n y h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o s h r u g off t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m p e d i m e n t s t h a t were imposed on them. Third, attempts at introducing arrangements that might help the l e a d e r m a y n o t b e successful. T h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n political c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d electrical circuits is valid o n l y up to a p o i n t ; in fact, l e a d e r s a r e n o t i n t h e f o r t u n a t e p o s i t i o n o f e x p e c t i n g their decisions t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d b y p r e s s i n g a b u t t o n : all t h e y c a n h o p e for i s t h a t s o m e o f t h e s e d e c i s i o n s will b e p a r t l y i m p l e m e n t e d i n t h e fairly n e a r f u t u r e . T h e 'lines' linking leaders to the bureaucracy a n d the population are full o f faults a n d ' s h o r t - c i r c u i t s ' . T h u s , f r o m t h e p o i n t o f view o f l e a d e r s , t h e ' s y s t e m ' i s o f t e n inefficient, b a d l y s t r u c t u r e d a n d b a d l y organized. This is not only because of deliberate opposition, but often p e r h a p s m o s t l y b e c a u s e t h e s y s t e m is s i m p l y u n r e s p o n s i v e or o n l y p a r t l y r e s p o n s i v e . T h i s l a c k o f r e s p o n s i v e n e s s , i n t u r n , i s d u e largely t o t h e fact t h a t w e d o n o t k n o w h o w t o m a k e t h e s y s t e m effective. T h e r e a r e t h u s m a n i f e s t limits t o t h e degree t o w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e a b l e t o rely o n institutions, arrangements and organizations a r o u n d them to have the desired impact. I n p a r t b e c a u s e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y b e l o a d e d against l e a d e r s a n d i n p a r t b e c a u s e i n s t i t u t i o n a l ' e n g i n e e r i n g ' is, t o say t h e least, a very i m p e r f e c t s c i e n c e , t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a set of political a n d
51
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s will n o t necessarily p r o v i d e l e a d e r s with greater opportunities to achieve results: there m a y be, on the contrary, greater constraints. H o w e v e r , the absence of structures consciously d e s i g n e d a n d e s t a b l i s h e d t o facilitate o r restrict t h e exercise o f l e a d e r s h i p d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e n o a r r a n g e m e n t s a t all: i f t h e r e w e r e n o p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s set u p b y l a w o r c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e r e would be 'natural' m e a n s by which leadership would be organized a n d l e a d e r s w o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e rest o f t h e n a t i o n . A political p a r t y m a y b e a m a n - m a d e device w h i c h c a n m a r k e d l y a d v a n t a g e a l e a d e r o r limit his i m p a c t ; b u t , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f political p a r t i e s , l e a d e r s w o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n b y o t h e r m e a n s , for i n s t a n c e t h r o u g h t r i b a l o r o t h e r groups. T h u s , t h e c a s e o f t h e l e a d e r w h o w o u l d h a v e t o rely o n p u r e l y p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s i s v e r y r a r e , s o r a r e a s t o b e p u r e l y t h e o r e t i c a l ; for i t t o o c c u r , t h e r e w o u l d h a v e t o b e n o social g r o u p s i n t h e c o u n t r y , n o c u s t o m s , n o rites b y w h i c h l e a d e r s c o m e t o p o w e r , s t a y i n office a n d r e l a t e t o their e n t o u r a g e , t h e b u r e a u c r a c y o r t h e p e o p l e . W h e n t h e r e a r e n o m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s , n a t u r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s will t a k e t h e i r p l a c e ; m o r e c o r r e c t l y , m a n - m a d e political i n s t i t u t i o n s will g r a d u a l l y b e s u p e r i m p o s e d o n a n d will s u p e r s e d e n a t u r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s . B u t t h e s e n a t u r a l social g r o u p i n g s c o n t i n u e t o b e i n f l u e n t i a l ; i n d e e d , m a n - m a d e political i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e s o m e t i m e s , i f n o t o f t e n , p u r e l y f o r m a l a n d r e m a i n little i m p l e m e n t e d o r n o t i m p l e m e n t e d a t all. T h e i n t e r p l a y between m a n - m a d e and natural arrangements is an instance of the classic i n t e r t w i n i n g b e t w e e n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r legal m e c h a n i s m s a n d behavioural patterns. M a n - m a d e a n d n a t u r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e unlikely t o h a v e t h e s a m e t y p e o f effects o n l e a d e r s h i p , h o w e v e r . M a n - m a d e a r r a n g e m e n t s , for i n s t a n c e , a r e m o r e likely t o b e set u p i n o r d e r t o restrict t h e p o w e r o f leaders t h a n are natural arrangements, although natural arrangements m a y h a v e t h e effect o f restricting t h e r o l e o f l e a d e r s , b y a c c i d e n t r a t h e r t h a n b y d e s i g n , i n s o m e fields. I t i s t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y t o e x a m i n e t h e range of situations that might occur, from those in which m a n - m a d e structures are weak and almost non-existent to those in which they are h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d , i n o r d e r t o see w h e t h e r t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s i s likely t o d e p e n d p r i m a r i l y o n t h e existence o f o n e o r t h e o t h e r t y p e o f a r r a n g e m e n t s . A m a p p i n g of the ways in which m a n - m a d e and natural s t r u c t u r e s c a n affect l e a d e r s h i p will p r o v i d e a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s a n d its r a m i f i c a t i o n s c a n v a r y f r o m o n e s o c i e t y t o a n o t h e r . W e will t h e n k n o w b e t t e r t h e limits o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t m a y b e given t o l e a d e r s a n d o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s u n d e r which they m a y have to operate.
152
The possible impact of leaders in the absence of man-made structures In t h e o r y at least, n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p c o u l d e m e r g e in a c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e r e w e r e n o s t r u c t u r e s specifically d e s i g n e d t o o r g a n i z e t h e political s y s t e m , t h o u g h , a s w e j u s t n o t e d , n a t u r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s will n e c e s s a r i l y exist. H o w , t h e n , w o u l d t h e p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s a n d its r a m i f i c a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e p o l i t y c o m e t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d ? I n such a c a s e , first, t h e p e r s o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e l e a d e r m a y b e v a s t l y enhanced, as there may be no limitations on the conditions under which t h e r u l e i s exercised. O f c o u r s e , i n m a n y cases i n w h i c h t h e r e a r e n o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r legal c o n s t r a i n t s , t r a d i t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y limit s o m e w h a t , t h o u g h usually to a m i n o r extent, the conditions under w h i c h l e a d e r s r u l e . F o r i n s t a n c e , s u c c e s s i o n a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e likely t o exist, o n e c o m m o n p r i n c i p l e b e i n g t h a t o f p r i m o g e n i t u r e ; o r t h e r e m a y be limitations on the d u r a t i o n of the m o n a r c h ' s rule, t h o u g h m o r e f r e q u e n t l y t h e p o s i t i o n i s h e l d for life. T h e s e a r e i n s t a n c e s o f l i m i t e d restrictions, typically resulting from tradition, which can be described therefore as 'natural'. B u t t h e r e m a y b e n o l i m i t a t i o n s a t all: t h e l e a d e r ' s s t a t u s a n d p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n a r e t h e n p u r e l y t h e result o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n a n d t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . S u c h cases o c c u r f r e q u e n t l y , e v e n i n t h e contemporary world, whereas the absolute monarchy is in marked decline. An e x a m p l e of unrestricted status is that of the leader w h o s e a c c e s s i o n t o office a n d w h o s e t e n u r e i s b a s e d o n n o pre-existing a r r a n g e m e n t s . M a n y military rulers w h o c o m e to power by a c o u p are in t h i s g r o u p ; i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n w e k n o w i n a d v a n c e n e i t h e r w h o will a c h i e v e office ( a l t h o u g h chiefs o f staff m a y i n p r a c t i c e b e t h e m o s t likely c a n d i d a t e s ) , n o r h o w l o n g h e will r e m a i n i n office ( B l o n d e l , 1980: 157). T h e p o s i t i o n is entirely u n c e r t a i n ; t h e r e a r e no rules at all, a s t a t e o f a f f a i r s w h i c h m a y h o w e v e r b e v i e w e d b y l e a d e r s a s less p r o p i t i o u s than that of the absolute monarch. While the personal status of leaders therefore m a y not be regulated at all i n s o m e c a s e s , t h e r e a r e even m o r e s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e relationship between leader and entourage is not constrained by any p r e - e x i s t i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s . T h e r e m a y well b e n o rules o r c u s t o m s d e t e r m i n i n g w h o will b e c o m e m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t , h o w l o n g t h e s e m e m b e r s will r e m a i n i n office, w h a t t h e i r p o w e r s will b e o r t h e i r relationship with the leader. There m a y of course be unwritten p r e c e d e n t s t h a t a r e b e i n g a d h e r e d t o : t r a d i t i o n a l m o n a r c h s , for i n s t a n c e , m a y find i t difficult n o t t o i n c l u d e s o m e o f their relatives o r s o m e o f t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e m a j o r families o f t h e r e a l m ; t h o s e w h o c o m e t o p o w e r b y a c o u p m a y find i t difficult n o t t o r e w a r d s o m e o f t h e i r c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s b y giving t h e m a p l a c e i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t . B u t t h i s
153
need not be the case for very long: the absolute rulers m a y later be able t o dismiss m i n i s t e r s a t will a n d r e p l a c e t h e m w i t h w h o m e v e r t h e y w a n t . A m i l i t a r y o r r e v o l u t i o n a r y c o u n c i l m a y h a v e t o b e set u p , b u t this c a n be emasculated, a n d m a n y of t h e m e m b e r s forced to resign; the council itself m a y even b e a b o l i s h e d ( B l o n d e l , 1982: 8 9 - 9 3 ) . A s a m a t t e r o f fact, even i n m o r e ' r e g u l a r ' r e g i m e s , t h e r e a r e o f t e n n o rules o r t r a d i t i o n s f o r c i n g l e a d e r s t o a p p o i n t specific i n d i v i d u a l s o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f specific g r o u p s . I n p r a c t i c e , i t i s n o t u n u s u a l for m a n y l e a d e r s t o c o m e close t o a p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h t h e y c a n c h o o s e t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e i r e n t o u r a g e a t will; m o r e o v e r , t h e r e a r e f r e q u e n t l y n o rules governing the relationship between the leader a n d the m e m b e r s once they have been appointed. L e a d e r s n e v e r h a v e q u i t e t h i s s a m e f r e e d o m w i t h respect t o t h e b u r e a u c r a c y o r t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t l a r g e . T h e y c a n n o t select t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e n a t i o n a l civil service a t will; n o r c a n t h e y o r g a n i z e i t entirely t h e w a y t h e y w i s h . T h e y m a y o f c o u r s e d e m o t e a n d p r o m o t e s o m e officials, especially a t t h e t o p ; t h e y m a y i n t r o d u c e c h a n g e s i n t h e m o d e s o f o p e r a t i o n o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y ; t h e y m a y e x p a n d o r restrict t h e s c o p e o f activities of civil s e r v a n t s . B u t t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n is l i m i t e d n a t u r a l l y in a n u m b e r of i m p o r t a n t ways. First, as leaders cannot in practice replace t h e w h o l e b u r e a u c r a c y , t h e y a r e clearly d e p e n d e n t t o a n i m p o r t a n t e x t e n t o n t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e existing staff. S e c o n d , a n y c h a n g e s t h a t t h e y i n t r o d u c e will result in c o s t s as well as b e n e f i t s : a b u r e a u c r a c y c a n n o t b e u p s e t w i t h o u t losing s o m e o f its efficiency, a t least i n t h e short t e r m . Third, and most i m p o r t a n t , leaders are continuously d e p e n d e n t o n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , w h e t h e r i t i s a pre-existing c o r p u s o r o n e t h e y h a v e r e - f o r m e d ; t h e y h a v e t o a c c e p t d e l a y s , conflicts a n d difficulties i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n s . T h e r e a r e t h u s i n e v i t a b l e c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h respect t o t h e b u r e a u c r a c y . T h e a b s e n c e o f e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s d o e s n o t give l e a d e r s t o t a l f r e e d o m , e i t h e r , i n their r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e p o p u l a t i o n . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e m a y b e few o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o i n f l u e n c e t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d t h u s t o m a k e a n i m p a c t . T h e n a t u r a l b o n d s t h a t tie i n d i v i d u a l s t o g e t h e r m a y c o n s t i t u t e h a n d i c a p s . If a society is p r i m a r i l y t r i b a l , for i n s t a n c e , t h e chiefs will b e t h e m a i n m e a n s b y w h i c h m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e c a n b e i n f l u e n c e d . T h e n a t i o n a l l e a d e r will t h e r e f o r e exercise i n f l u e n c e o n l y if he is a chief; o t h e r w i s e , he will h a v e to w o r k h a r d to convince others or attempt to break up the tribal organization a n d establish m a n - m a d e structures in order to avoid the consequences of n a t u r a l structures. The same applies to ethnic g r o u p s , religious g r o u p s and any other natural communal organization. T h u s , w h e n there are no m a n - m a d e structures in a polity, national l e a d e r s o f t e n will n o t b e a b l e t o exercise a n y m a r k e d i n f l u e n c e o n t h e
154
p o p u l a t i o n . W h i l e their s t a t u s m a y leave their d u r a t i o n i n office a n d t h e i r p o w e r t o a p p o i n t t h e i r e n t o u r a g e u n r e s t r i c t e d , t h e y will e n c o u n t e r severe l i m i t a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r ability t o c o n t r o l t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a n d i n f l u e n c e t h e p o p u l a t i o n . A s t a t e o f affairs i n w h i c h t h e r e w e r e n o m a n - m a d e rules d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e r u l e r a n d its ramifications would be by no m e a n s 'ideal' from the leaders' point of view. The possible impact of leaders in the context of man-made structures With m a n - m a d e institutions and arrangements, the balance of advantages a n d disadvantages becomes different. By a n d large, m a n m a d e a r r a n g e m e n t s r e d u c e t h e f r e e d o m o f r u l e r s i n t e r m s o f their p e r s o n a l s t a t u s ; t h e y m a y r e d u c e a l s o d i s c r e t i o n i n t e r m s o f t h e ability o f r u l e r s t o select a n d c o n t r o l t h e i r e n t o u r a g e ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y m a y i n c r e a s e t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f l e a d e r s vis-a-vis t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , a n d t h e y c a n o f t e n give l e a d e r s g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o exercise direct influence on the p o p u l a t i o n . M a n - m a d e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e o f t e n t h e result o f d e m a n d s t o restrict t h e r o l e o f t h e n a t i o n a l e x e c u t i v e : c o n s e q u e n t l y , o n e o f their m a i n a i m s i s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e chief executive b e c o m e s less e x a l t e d a n d less s e c u r e . B u t t h e r e a r e v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e r a n g e o f t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e y a r e fully a p p l i e d or are circumvented in practice. I n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e a l s o likely t o i n t r o d u c e s o m e r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t h e ability o f l e a d e r s t o select a t will t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e i r e n t o u r a g e . This is not always the case, however: by a n d large, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d o t h e r legal a r r a n g e m e n t s h a v e f o c u s e d r a t h e r less o n governments a n d ministers than on leaders. T h e effect o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d o t h e r m a n - m a d e rules c a n b e very different w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s o v e r t h e b u r e a u c r a c y . T y p i c a l l y , o f c o u r s e , n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s a r e less free t o c h o o s e , p r o m o t e a n d d i s m i s s m e m b e r s o f t h e civil service, a s c o m p l e x p r o c e d u r e s a r e likely t o b e e s t a b l i s h e d , giving civil s e r v a n t s s o m e d e facto a u t o n o m y : this m e a n s some decrease in leaders' possible impact. But t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f these rules a l s o d i m i n i s h e s t h e ability o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to a c t a r b i t r a r i l y . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of an esprit de corps i s likely t o r e s u l t i n t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n i d e o l o g y o f l o y a l t y t o t h e s t a t e ; while t h i s l o y a l t y m a y n o t b e directed t o w a r d s t h e p e r s o n o f t h e l e a d e r a s s u c h , i t will h e l p h i m o r her i n d i r e c t l y . M o r e o v e r , t h e key v a r i a b l e m a y b e a d i f f e r e n t o n e : w h a t i s likely t o b e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i s t h e t e c h n i c a l a b i l i t y a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l efficiency o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , a n d t h e s e q u a l i t i e s a r e likely t o b e fostered b y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m o r e structured arrangements.
155
F i n a l l y , t h e i m p a c t of l e a d e r s vis-a-vis t h e p o p u l a t i o n as a w h o l e is likely t o b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e c r e a t i o n o f m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s . T h e s e tend to centralize the polity a n d strengthen the state. O n e should n o t exaggerate their influence, however: attempts to 'wipe o u t tribalism', for i n s t a n c e , h a v e o f t e n b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l . B u t a t least l e a d e r s c a n c r e a t e i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t will e s t a b l i s h direct l i n k s with t h e p o p u l a t i o n . This is w h a t occurs with political parties, which often enable politicians t o b y p a s s e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s o r o t h e r g r o u p s , even w h e n t h e p a r t i e s originated from these groups. N o t all t h e m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s s t r e n g t h e n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l e a d e r , admittedly; some, indeed, are designed to reduce the power of leaders, p a r l i a m e n t s a n d c o n g r e s s e s a t t h e n a t i o n a l level, a n d o t h e r elected b o d i e s a t t h e l o c a l a n d r e g i o n a l levels. B u t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s also c o n t r i b u t e to a ' n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n ' of politics a n d to a decline of t h e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t existed, s o t o s p e a k , i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e s t a t e a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y , t h e r e f o r e , f r o m t h e n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p . T h u s , even t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t r u l e r s c a n u s e t o their advantage. T h e development of the state thus tends to increase the leaders' impact on the population. Leaders also thereby obtain greater o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o press for t h e i r g o a l s . I n t r a d i t i o n a l s y s t e m s , t h e y a r e severely c o n s t r a i n e d b y t h e i m m e m o r i a l c u s t o m s w h i c h m u s t n o t b e a l t e r e d ; t h e y o f t e n t e n d t o c o n c e n t r a t e o n foreign a f f a i r s , a s w a s p o i n t e d o u t i n C h a p t e r 2 a b o v e . I n t e r n a l l y , t h e y lack t h e p r o c e d u r e s t o b r i n g a b o u t r e f o r m s a n d t h e political m e c h a n i s m s , s u c h a s p a r t i e s , t h r o u g h w h i c h t o 'sell' their n e w p r o p o s a l s t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n . T h u s , n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , E u r o p e a n m o n a r c h s a t t e m p t e d t o set u p i n s t i t u t i o n s designed to enable t h e m to introduce changes at the individual or collective level. In m o d e r n systems, on the contrary, although leaders are markedly constrained, they do have the potential to act. L a w s a n d regulations are mechanisms that can be used to determine the scope of change, while bureaucracies, parties a n d other g r o u p s can help to implement these p r o p o s a l s . N a t i o n a l l e a d e r s a r e t h e r e f o r e far f r o m b e i n g n e c e s s a r i l y 'worse-offl when m a n - m a d e institutions are introduced, t h o u g h their i m p a c t i s likely t o b e s m a l l e r i n s o m e r e s p e c t s t h a n w h e r e t h e r e a r e n o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r legal r u l e s . W h a t t h e y lose i n s t a t u r e a n d i n p o w e r o v e r t h e p e r s o n n e l is o f t e n c o m p e n s a t e d for by a g r e a t e r f r e e d o m of m a n o e u v r e in substantive matters. We need therefore to look m o r e closely a t t h e f o u r levels o f p o s s i b l e c o n s t r a i n t s a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s b e f o r e b e i n g a b l e t o discover t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e h e l p e d o r h i n d e r e d b y t h e political i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t exist i n society.
156
The status position of leaders and the impact of leadership

Limitations on the status of leaders result primarily from constitutional a n d legal r u l e s , a s w e s a w ; b u t t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s c a n v a r y m a r k e d l y . T h e y m a y a i m , for i n s t a n c e , a t e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e life o f a l e a d e r b e n o t vastly different f r o m t h a t o f t h e c o m m o n m a n : a t t a c k s a g a i n s t t h e m o d e o f living o f k i n g s h a v e b e e n m a d e p a r t l y o n this g r o u n d . T h e y m a y organize substantial rotation at the t o p in order to provide m o r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s for a s p i r i n g l e a d e r s . I n a n c i e n t R o m e , c o n s u l s a n d o t h e r m a g i s t r a t e s served for o n e y e a r o n l y ; m a n y c o n s t i t u t i o n s s t a t e t h a t t h e chief executives m a y n o t serve m o r e t h a n o n e o r t w o t e r m s ; Swiss p r e s i d e n t s r o t a t e every y e a r ; a n d i n Y u g o s l a v i a t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r o t a t i o n has been generalized. There are thus reasons of equality or 'democratic participation' behind the limitations that are introduced; but the m o r e c o m m o n p u r p o s e i s t o r e d u c e t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s , t h a t i s t o say, t o d i m i n i s h t h e i n f l u e n c e t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n , i n itself, m i g h t a u t o m a t i c a l l y c a r r y . T h u s , the tenure is subject to periodic r e a p p o i n t m e n t ; or the a p p o i n t m e n t is m a d e continuously accountable to other bodies. Sometimes the f u n c t i o n s o f n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p a r e split b e t w e e n t w o o r m o r e individuals. Of course, these provisions are not foolproof, both because it is possible to circumvent t h e m a n d because other factors o f t e n i n t e r p l a y . N o r i s i t p o s s i b l e t o m e a s u r e precisely t h e i r effect, e v e n in t h e best of c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; b u t it is w o r t h at least d e s c r i b i n g t h e m in broad terms.
Shared leadership O n e type of limitation has consisted in decreasing the prestige of leaders, thereby diminishing the tendency of p o p u l a t i o n s to obey rulers simply because they are in power. T h u s , the p o m p and pageantry a t t a c h e d t o t h e office h a v e been r e d u c e d i n m a n y c o u n t r i e s , especially i n r e p u b l i c s , t h o u g h p r o b a b l y a p p r e c i a b l y less t h a n m i g h t h a v e o n c e b e e n envisaged. T h i s h a s b e e n a c h i e v e d indirectly i n m a n y cases b y splitting t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e h e a d o f state f r o m t h a t o f h e a d o f g o v e r n m e n t . H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e d i v i s i o n often c a m e a b o u t for o t h e r r e a s o n s , i n particular because m o n a r c h s needed help in political a n d administrative fields; t h i s i s a l s o w h y ' s h a r e d ' l e a d e r s h i p h a s f r e q u e n t l y b e e n i n s t i t u t e d r e c e n t l y , especially i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d . I n p r a c t i c e , h o w e v e r , w h e n t h e head of state h a s a primarily formal function, as in most Western European countries and much of the C o m m o n w e a l t h (about 30 c o u n t r i e s , o r a fifth o f t h e t o t a l ) , p r i m e m i n i s t e r s m a y b e s p a r e d t h e b u r d e n s of h a v i n g to be present at purely symbolic functions, but their
157
p e r s o n i s also less r e v e r e d , w h i l e t h e h e a d o f s t a t e o f t e n c o n t i n u e s t o h a v e social p r e s t i g e , b u t m a y b e d e v o i d o f a n y effective p o w e r . (This i s n o t a l w a y s t h e c a s e , since t h e r e i s f r e q u e n t l y a n e e d for r e s i d u a l functions of arbitration.) A l t h o u g h t h e s e p r i m e m i n i s t e r s t h u s h a v e less p r e s t i g e , i t d o e s n o t necessarily f o l l o w t h a t t h e i r i m p a c t is m o r e limited as a r e s u l t . T h e r e m a y be some indirect evidence to substantiate the point, however, if we consider the choices m a d e by a n u m b e r of prominent politicians. S o m e h a v e p r e f e r r e d t o b e h e a d s o f s t a t e t o b e i n g p r i m e m i n i s t e r s , w h e n given t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h o o s e : o n e o f t h e b e s t - k n o w n cases w a s t h a t o f d e G a u l l e i n 1958. T h e e x a m p l e s o f K a r a m a n l i s o f G r e e c e a n d o f S o a r e s i n P o r t u g a l a r e less c l e a r - c u t , since t h e y w e r e also p r e p a r e d t o a b a n d o n s o m e o f t h e i r effective p o w e r , a s h a d p r e v i o u s l y o c c u r r e d w i t h d e V a l e r a i n I r e l a n d ; a n d w h i l e A d e n a u e r d i d c o n s i d e r for a while t h e possibility o f b e c o m i n g p r e s i d e n t i n s t e a d o f c h a n c e l l o r , h e a b a n d o n e d t h e i d e a w h e n i t b e c a m e clear t o h i m t h a t h e c o u l d n o t b e a ' s t r o n g ' president in the context of the West G e r m a n model. A n u m b e r of non-Western prime ministers, however, both in C o m m o n w e a l t h countries a n d in previously French Black Africa, chose t o b e c o m e p r e s i d e n t s ; s o m e even a b o l i s h e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f p r i m e m i n i s t e r , a t least for a p e r i o d . T h i s h a p p e n e d i n G h a n a , Z a m b i a a n d t h e I v o r y C o a s t , a m o n g o t h e r s ; i n Sri L a n k a a n d G u y a n a , t h e m o d e l o f t h e s t r o n g p r e s i d e n t w a s i n t r o d u c e d in t h e l a t e 1970s a n d early 1980s. In all t h e s e c a s e s , i t m u s t b e p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e l e a d e r believed h e c o u l d achieve m o r e as president than as prime minister. There is therefore p r o b a b l y a w i d e s p r e a d belief, especially i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d , t h a t t h e title a n d t h e p o m p o f t h e office h a v e s o m e i m p o r t a n c e .
The right to censure the leader and the impact of leadership O n e r e a s o n w h y t h e p o s i t i o n o f p r i m e m i n i s t e r m a y a p p e a r less p r e s t i g i o u s t h a n t h a t of p r e s i d e n t is t h a t it is less s e c u r e . T y p i c a l l y , p r i m e m i n i s t e r s c a n either b e d i s m i s s e d b y t h e h e a d o f s t a t e o r b e f o r c e d t o resign b y t h e legislature ( a n d p r e s u m a b l y c a n a v o i d t h e first o f t h e s e t h r e a t s o n l y b e c a u s e o f t h e existence o f t h e s e c o n d ) . T h i s surely suggests a relatively w e a k p o s i t i o n , as well as a p r o b a b l e r e d u c t i o n in t h e d u r a t i o n o f t e n u r e . I n d e e d , t h e division o f t h e executive b e t w e e n h e a d of state a n d head of government in nineteenth-century E u r o p e could be viewed as based on a trade-off by which the long duration of m o n a r c h s w o u l d n o l o n g e r m a t t e r , since t h e p r i m e m i n i s t e r ' s p o w e r w o u l d b e exercised for a s h o r t e r p e r i o d . T h e practical situation is not as clear-cut, however. First, the p r o c e d u r e of governmental responsibility to parliament has indeed
158
achieved s o m e reduction in t h e d u r a t i o n of leaders; but this r e d u c t i o n is not unique to parliamentary systems. It is true that long-term leaders t e n d n o w t o b e f o u n d p r i m a r i l y a m o n g t h e few r e m a i n i n g effective m o n a r c h s , a m o n g t h e f o u n d e r s o f n e w states a n d i n c o m m u n i s t countries. But the duration of parliamentary prime ministers is not on a v e r a g e s h o r t e r t h a n t h a t o f o t h e r l e a d e r s ; i n fact, i t i s t y p i c a l l y l o n g e r t h a n t h a t o f l e a d e r s i n m o s t o t h e r r e g i m e s , a u t h o r i t a r i a n o r liberal ( B l o n d e l , 1980: 1 7 7 - 9 1 ) . S e c o n d , t h e effect o f p a r l i a m e n t a r y a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i s far f r o m b e i n g one-sided. T h e right to dismiss t h e national leader is in practice s o m e t i m e s f o r m a l ; o f t e n , it is m e r e l y r e s i d u a l a n d is exercised in e x t r e m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o n l y . I n d e e d , t h e r e a l effect c a n b e t h e c o n v e r s e from the one that was sought. For instance, the prime ministers of m a n y C o m m o n w e a l t h countries and a n u m b e r of continental E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s p r o b a b l y b e n e f i t e d f r o m t h e fact t h a t p a r l i a m e n t c o u l d dismiss t h e m : they were better able to organize the legislature to their a d v a n t a g e by establishing their control over t h a t legislature by m e a n s of a dominant party. T h u s , u n d e r s o m e c o n d i t i o n s a t least, t h e t h r e a t o f p a r l i a m e n t a r y dismissal of the p r i m e minister has the paradoxical impact of increasing the p o w e r of that leader; a n d this situation m u s t be considered in the light o f t h e p r e d i c a m e n t o f o t h e r l e a d e r s . T h e s e c a n b e d i s m i s s e d , w h e t h e r t h e y a r e u n d e r legal o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t h r e a t s o r n o t ; constitutions m a y constitute a hurdle against 'irregular' transfers of power, but these hurdles are frequently overcome. T h e practical d i f f e r e n c e t h e r e f o r e m a y b e small b e t w e e n t h e c a s e o f a l e a d e r w h o m parliament m a y dismiss and that of a n o t h e r w h o m a y be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y safe b u t i s i n real d a n g e r o f b e i n g o v e r t h r o w n b y a c o u p or a r e v o l u t i o n in fact, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of c o u p s is l a r g e r w h e r e t h e r e a r e n o legal m e a n s o f d i s m i s s i n g t h e l e a d e r d u r i n g his o r h e r p e r i o d o f t e n u r e . T h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f dismissal b y p a r l i a m e n t t h e r e f o r e o p e r a t e s a s a s a f e t y v a l v e , n o t as a m e c h a n i s m t h a t effectively e n s u r e s m o r e frequent t u r n o v e r . A d m i t t e d l y , in a few p a r l i a m e n t a r y s y s t e m s l e a d e r s a r e d i s m i s s e d r a t h e r f r e q u e n t l y , a n d s o m e t i m e s v e r y f r e q u e n t l y i n d e e d . T h e bestk n o w n a n d t h e m o s t e x t r e m e c a s e w a s t h a t o f F r a n c e b e f o r e 1958, a l t h o u g h B e l g i u m , I t a l y o r F i n l a n d , a s well a s ( t o a n e x t e n t ) d e m o c r a t i c P o r t u g a l , c o n s t i t u t e m o r e limited i n s t a n c e s o f t h e s a m e p h e n o m e n o n . In the French case certainly, and in the other examples probably, short t e n u r e a p p e a r s g e n e r a l l y associated w i t h l i m i t e d i m p a c t . B u t t h e real c a u s e o f s h o r t t e n u r e , i n these c a s e s , lies n o t i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n g i v i n g p a r l i a m e n t t h e right t o c e n s u r e t h e l e a d e r , b u t r a t h e r f r o m t h e u n c e r t a i n t y , a n d indeed fragility, o f t h e t e n u r e , w h i c h i n t u r n results f r o m t h e characteristics o f t h e p a r t y s y s t e m a n d t h e
159
configuration of t h e political forces. For the coupling of the duration of l e a d e r s h i p w i t h p a r l i a m e n t a r y c o n f i d e n c e m e a n s t h a t , while r u l e r s m a y suffer f r o m t h e l a c k o f p a r l i a m e n t a r y c o h e s i o n , t h e y m a y also benefit f r o m , a n d i n d e e d r e i n f o r c e , p a r l i a m e n t a r y c o h e s i o n w h e r e i t exists; a n d w h e n this c o h e s i o n exists, t h e i m p a c t c a n b e l a r g e a n d t h e d u r a t i o n o f tenure substantial. T h e responsibility of leaders to parliament thus does n o t result in a r e s t r i c t i o n of t h e s t r e n g t h of l e a d e r s : its effect s h o u l d p r o b a b l y b e seen i n a t e n d e n c y t o t r a n s l a t e , b u t w i t h s o m e e x a g g e r a t i o n , t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e political f o r c e s .
Fixed duration T h e third way in which the status of leaders m a y be undermined is t h r o u g h t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f rules l i m i t i n g t h e d u r a t i o n i n h i g h office t o a fixed a n d u s u a l l y r a t h e r s m a l l n u m b e r o f y e a r s . F i x e d d u r a t i o n i s usually viewed as an alternative to the p o w e r of dismissal by the l e g i s l a t u r e , since l e a d e r s w h o o p e r a t e u n d e r t h e t h r e a t o f dismissal typically h o l d office indefinitely: t h a t is, for a s l o n g a s t h e y c o n t i n u e t o be s u p p o r t e d by the legislature a n d t h e d o m i n a n t party. This s u p p o r t m a y be suddenly interrupted by an electoral defeat, but it need not be, and s o m e p r i m e ministers in C a n a d a , Australia or Sweden to m e n t i o n o n l y W e s t e r n e x a m p l e s , h a v e b e e n i n p o w e r for very l o n g p e r i o d s , far l o n g e r t h a n p r e s i d e n t s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r o t h e r ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ' p r e s i d e n t i a l s y s t e m s w o u l d b e legally e n t i t l e d t o r e m a i n i n office ( B l o n d e l , 1980: 2 2 1 - 4 ) . If t h e r e is a fixed t e n u r e r u l e o n e or t w o t e r m s of office, for i n s t a n c e a n d if e a c h of t h e s e t e r m s is o n l y of f o u r , five or six y e a r s , t h e r e i s a clear c o n s t r a i n t o n p r e s i d e n t i a l ' h o r i z o n s ' . T h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s therefore have psychological consequences. T h e president is unlikely to be m a r k e d l y i n v o l v e d in p r o j e c t s t h a t will h a v e a p a y - o f f o n l y after m a n y y e a r s , especially i f t h e s e p r o j e c t s e n t a i l i m m e d i a t e sacrifices. T h i s is t r u e , of c o u r s e , of o t h e r t y p e s of l e a d e r s , b u t t h e r e is a f u r t h e r i n d u c e m e n t for f i x e d - t e n u r e r u l e r s t o b e inclined t o o p e r a t e i n t h e s h o r t t o m e d i u m t e r m : citizens, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e w h o a r e politically a c t i v e , k n o w i n g t h a t a p r e s i d e n t ' s t e r m will e n d at a given p o i n t , b e c o m e less inclined t o follow his g u i d a n c e a s t h e e n d o f his t e r m a p p r o a c h e s . T h e n o t i o n of the 'lame-duck' leader is directly associated with fixed-tenure p o s i t i o n s , t h o u g h o n e m a y o c c a s i o n a l l y find ' l a m e d u c k s ' i n o t h e r s y s t e m s as well (for i n s t a n c e , if a r u l e r is a p p o i n t e d to p r e p a r e an e l e c t i o n ) . T h u s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , t h e l e a d e r w h o o p e r a t e s u n d e r a fixedt e r m r u l e m a y n o t b e inclined t o use his o r h e r p o t e n t i a l t o t h e full: h e o r s h e m a y t h e r e f o r e m a k e less o f a ' d i f f e r e n c e ' t h a n m i g h t n a t u r a l l y h a v e b e e n t h e c a s e ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , citizens m a y b e less inclined t o o b e y a Fixed-term l e a d e r a t t h e e n d o f his o r h e r t e n u r e t o t h e s a m e e x t e n t t h a t
160
t h e y w o u l d o t h e r w i s e , since c i t i z e n s t h e n d o n o t k n o w h o w l o n g h e o r s h e will c o n t i n u e in p o w e r . I t w o u l d b e v a l u a b l e t o b e a b l e t o assess t h e precise e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s i s affected b y f i x e d - t e r m d u r a t i o n : i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y clear m e a s u r e m e n t , o n e c a n m e r e l y s p e c u l a t e o n p o s s i b l e effects o n t h e basis o f indirect e v i d e n c e . F i r s t , a s w a s p o i n t e d o u t i n t h e p r e v i o u s chapter, the impact of leaders probably does not remain the same over t i m e . R u l e r s m a y b e g e n e r a l l y less effective i n t h e v e r y e a r l y p e r i o d ( t h o u g h s o m e m i g h t benefit f r o m a ' s t a t e o f g r a c e ' o n c o m i n g t o office); t h e y m a y t h e n b e c o m e m o r e successful; b u t later still t h e i r p o w e r m a y d e c l i n e . O f c o u r s e , t h e c u r v e i s n o t i d e n t i c a l for every l e a d e r ; s o m e m a y n o t p e a k in this f a s h i o n . If, h o w e v e r , a d u r a t i o n of a b o u t five or six y e a r s i s t h e o p t i m u m for m o s t l e a d e r s a n d i n m o s t s i t u a t i o n s , t h e fixed t e r m s t h a t a r e i m p o s e d b y m a n y c o n s t i t u t i o n s m a y s e e m i d e a l for t h e average ruler. I n d e e d , t h e fixed t e r m m i g h t even c o n s t i t u t e a s p u r t o w a r d s m o r e effective a c t i o n d u r i n g t h e y e a r s w h e n t h e l e a d e r k n o w s t h a t h e o r s h e will b e i n office. I n p r i n c i p l e , a n i n d e t e r m i n a t e t e r m m a y e n a b l e l e a d e r s to keep long-term considerations in mind; however, as leaders k n o w t h a t t h e i r c o n t i n u a t i o n i n office d e p e n d s o n t h e r e b e i n g a sufficient level o f p o p u l a r s a t i s f a c t i o n , w h e t h e r t h e y o p e r a t e u n d e r a fixed t e r m r u l e o r n o t , t h o s e w h o s e t e n u r e i s i n d e t e r m i n a t e m a y find t h a t g r e a t e r p r e s s u r e s a r e exercised precisely b e c a u s e t h e o p p o n e n t s d o n o t k n o w w h e n t h e c u r r e n t l e a d e r s h i p will c h a n g e . C o n v e r s e l y , p r e s s u r e m a y b e r e d u c e d i n t h e c a s e o f f i x e d - t e r m l e a d e r s , w h o m a y t h e r e f o r e b e m o r e inclined t o p u r s u e t h e i r g o a l s w i t h o u t e x a g g e r a t e d c o n c e r n for i m m e d i a t e p o p u l a r i t y , since t h e i r o p p o n e n t s k n o w i n a d v a n c e w h e n t h e y will h a v e t o leave o f f i c e . B u t t h e e v i d e n c e o n t h i s p o i n t , a s w e shall see, i s a t best very m i x e d . A t e r m o f five o r six y e a r s m a y t h u s b e beneficial for t h e m a j o r i t y o f r u l e r s w h o s e e n e r g y i s n e a r l y e x h a u s t e d a t t h e e n d o f their p e r i o d i n p o w e r . T h e s y s t e m d o e s lack flexibility, h o w e v e r . O n e c a n n o t a c c o m m o d a t e t h e c a s e o f t h e ruler w h o m i g h t still b e effective after a decade in office; m o r e i m p o r t a n t , p e r h a p s , there m a y be situations t h a t d e m a n d g r e a t e r c o n t i n u i t y i n office, especially d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f n a t i o n - o r r e g i m e - b u i l d i n g , a s i n G e r m a n y after 1949, p r o b a b l y i n F r a n c e after 1958 a n d a l m o s t certainly i n m a n y o f t h e n e w states after independence. Of course, there needs then to be a (rather unusual) e m p a t h y b e t w e e n l e a d e r a n d society, a s d i d o c c u r i n t h e case o f A d e n a u e r i n G e r m a n y a n d p r o b a b l y w i t h d e G a u l l e i n F r a n c e , b u t this d o e s n o t h a p p e n o f t e n . H o w e v e r , a s h o r t fixed t e r m , w h i c h i s n o t r e n e w a b l e o r i s r e n e w a b l e only o n c e , d o e s n o t e n a b l e l e a d e r s t o c o p e w i t h s u c h c a s e s . P e r h a p s this i s w h y s u c h p r o v i s i o n s h a v e n o t existed i n Black A f r i c a o r h a v e b e e n set aside w h e n t h e y d i d exist; p e r h a p s this i s i n
161
p a r t t h e r e a s o n for t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l instability o f L a t i n A m e r i c a , w h e r e , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , p r o v i s i o n s for fixed t e r m s a r e t y p i c a l l y i n force ( B l o n d e l , 1980: 1 6 8 - 7 1 ) . F o r , i n d e e d , f i x e d - t e r m s y s t e m s h a v e b e e n a s s o c i a t e d with m a r k e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l difficulties. A s a m a t t e r o f fact, t h e s e r e g i m e s h a v e b e e n u n a b l e t o e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r s r e m a i n e d i n office for t h e w h o l e o f t h e p e r i o d for w h i c h t h e y w e r e a p p o i n t e d . T h e d u r a t i o n o f l e a d e r s i n parliamentary systems is longer t h a n the world average, as we saw; on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e d u r a t i o n o f p r e s i d e n t s elected for a fixed t e r m i s o n a v e r a g e s h o r t e r a n d t y p i c a l l y is s h o r t e r s o m e t i m e s m u c h s h o r t e r t h a n the term allowed by the constitution. T h u s , postwar US presidents h a v e b e e n i n office for five y e a r s , o n a v e r a g e , w h i l e t h e y c o u l d h a v e b e e n l e a d e r s for e i g h t . T h i s i s a s h o r t e r d u r a t i o n t h a n t h a t o f W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n a n d C o m m o n w e a l t h p r i m e m i n i s t e r s ; b u t i t d o e s a t least t a k e place in the context of regular succession. In Latin America, on the o t h e r h a n d , w h i l e p r e s i d e n t s a r e elected for t e r m s o f f o u r t o six years a n d i n m a n y cases a r e n o t entitled t o seek r e - e l e c t i o n , t h e a v e r a g e d u r a t i o n i n office h a s b e e n o n l y a b o u t t h r e e y e a r s . T h i s i s largely because m a n y presidential terms have been shortened by coups or forced resignations. T h u s , t h e fixed t e r m s y s t e m d o e s n o t e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r s r e m a i n i n office for t h e w h o l e o f t h e p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d ; i t d o e s n o t p r e v e n t s o m e of these leaders from being as short-lived as are short-lived prime m i n i s t e r s i n s o m e p a r l i a m e n t a r y s y s t e m s ; a n d i t m a y n o t even r e d u c e tension in the polity and thus prevent coups from occurring. Leaders in t h e s e s y s t e m s m a y n o t after all h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o g o v e r n i n a n a s s u r e d m a n n e r , even d u r i n g t h e relatively s h o r t p e r i o d i n w h i c h t h e y are entitled to rule. T h e i m p a c t of leadership is affected by the conditions under which t h e p o s i t i o n c a n b e exercised, b u t t h e effect i s s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m that which the arrangements suggest. Leadership in the c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d h a s , o n t h e w h o l e , less p r e s t i g e , less p o m p , less o f a n a u r a a r o u n d it t h a n it h a d in the past. This p r o b a b l y contributes s o m e w h a t to a reduction in impact. C o n t e m p o r a r y leadership is also, on the whole, of s h o r t e r d u r a t i o n t h a n i n earlier p e r i o d s , except i n c o m m u n i s t states a n d (but to a decreasingly i m p o r t a n t extent) in strong m o n a r c h i e s a n d a m o n g f o u n d e r s o f s t a t e s . T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r legal a r r a n g e m e n t s p l a y a p a r t , this r e d u c t i o n h a s r e s u l t e d , o n t h e w h o l e , f r o m t w o different m e c h a n i s m s : t h e f i x e d - t e r m t e n u r e o f p r e s i d e n t i a l systems, a n d the indeterminate tenure of prime ministers w h o m a y be d i s m i s s e d b y t h e legislature. T h a t t h e s e a r r a n g e m e n t s c o r r e s p o n d t o a felt n e e d i s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t , w h e r e t h e y d o n o t exist, a n d even w h e r e t h e y d o , c o u p s a n d o t h e r ' i r r e g u l a r ' f o r m s o f p r e s s u r e result i n t h e r e s i g n a t i o n o f m a n y l e a d e r s . B u t t h e effect o f s h o r t e n e d t e n u r e o n
162
the role of leaders remains unclear, because m a n y long-serving leaders m a y h a v e e x p e n d e d m o s t o f t h e i r s t r e n g t h b y t h e t i m e t h e y l e a v e office; also, because they are typically forced to concern themselves with short a n d medium-term actions, the impact of leadership during the years in w h i c h t h e y a r e i n office i s n o t a p p r e c i a b l y m o d i f i e d b y t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s d e s i g n e d t o limit it. L e a d e r s a r e n o t m a r k e d l y r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r s c o p e o f a c t i o n a n d t h e i r ability t o press for g o a l s b y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p o s i t i o n t h e y h o l d , w h i l e t h a t p o s i t i o n gives t h e m e n o u g h p r e s t i g e a n d , t y p i c a l l y , e n o u g h t i m e i n office t o b e a b l e t o p u r s u e t h e s e g o a l s w i t h d e t e r m i n a t i o n i f t h e y a r e inclined t o d o s o . While m o d e r n institutions m a y not provide leaders with a p e r m a n e n t ' c a r t e b l a n c h e ' , t h e y give m a n y o f t h e m , a n d for a p e r i o d o f s o m e m a g n i t u d e , almost the s a m e 'carte blanche' as their ' s t r o n g ' predecessors h a d in the past.
The power of leaders over their entourage and the impact of leadership
W h e n w e t u r n t o t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p o l i t i c i a n s w h o a r e close t o t h e leaders, and in particular to the national government, we m o v e from an a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e direct effect t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s m a y h a v e o n r u l e r s t o a m o r e i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e . T h e q u e s t i o n t h e n is, h o w far m a y l e a d e r s b e h e l p e d o r h i n d e r e d b y t h e a c t i o n s o f o t h e r s ? Yet t h e o b j e c t i s n o t t o l o o k a t t h e g e n e r a l effects t h a t p o l i t i c a l b o d i e s m a y h a v e o n decision-making: what has to be examined is a somewhat narrower p r o b l e m , closely r e l a t e d t o t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s h i p itself; n a m e l y , t h e extent to which institutional mechanisms provide a framework that affects t h e a b i l i t y o f l e a d e r s t o i m p l e m e n t t h e i r g o a l s . T h e first t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l m e c h a n i s m s t h a t n e e d s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s t h a t w h i c h r e g u l a t e s t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s vis-a-vis t h e i r closest associates, their e n t o u r a g e and, in particular, the m e m b e r s of the g o v e r n m e n t a s well a s special a s s i s t a n t s a n d a d v i s e r s . P r i m a facie a t least, v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p o s i t i o n a n d p o w e r s o f this g r o u p w o u l d s e e m t o affect t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s h i p ; r u l e r s w h o a r e entirely free t o c h o o s e t h e m e m b e r s o f their e n t o u r a g e , for i n s t a n c e , w o u l d seem potentially m o r e powerful t h a n those w h o do n o t have this freedom. D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r legal p o w e r s o f i n d i v i d u a l m i n i s t e r s would also seem to play an i m p o r t a n t p a r t . In reality, however, differences a r e n o t a s c l e a r - c u t .
The impact of leaders and the appointment of the national executive A l m o s t e v e r y w h e r e , n a t i o n a l leaders h a v e a t least s o m e d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e c h o i c e of t h e i r e n t o u r a g e , a discretion t h a t is a l w a y s g r e a t e r w i t h respect
163
t o t h e p e r s o n a l staff t h a n t o m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t . B u t t h e a m o u n t of this discretion varies m a r k e d l y a n d in m a n y subtle ways. O n e c a n t h u s identify a n u m b e r o f b r o a d t y p e s a l o n g w h a t i s o b v i o u s l y a n u n d e r l y i n g c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n . A t o n e e x t r e m e a r e t h e cases o f l e a d e r s w h o a r e a l m o s t e n t i r e l y free t o c h o o s e t h e m i n i s t e r s a n d o t h e r m e m b e r s o f t h e ' i n n e r c i r c l e ' . T h e y a r e , o f c o u r s e , n e v e r w h o l l y free: s o m e political o r t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s a l w a y s m a k e i t i m p e r a t i v e t o c h o o s e a t least s o m e m e m b e r s f r o m a m o n g specific g r o u p s a n d t o maintain certain key people in their posts longer t h a n the leader might w i s h ; b u t o n e m a y c o n s i d e r a s (in p r a c t i c e ) free t h o s e r u l e r s w h o c a n select t h e i r m i n i s t e r s a n d t h e i r p e r s o n a l staff f r o m a w i d e v a r i e t y o f g r o u p s i n society. M a n y t y p e s o f l e a d e r s c a n d o s o : s t r o n g m o n a r c h s , founders of n e w states a n d m a n y authoritarian presidents, whether civilian o r m i l i t a r y , a r e i n t h i s p o s i t i o n . T h i s t y p e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s f o u n d also i n s o m e liberal s y s t e m s : U S p r e s i d e n t s a r e a m o n g t h e l e a d e r s w h o have the greatest freedom to choose their 'inner circle'. In other countries leaders are appreciably m o r e restricted, b o t h in theory a n d in practice. A m o n g the m a n y forms that these restrictions c a n t a k e , a ' m i d d l e ' p o s i t i o n i s fairly c o m m o n , n a m e l y , o n e t h a t gives leaders the freedom to appoint ministers, distribute portfolios a m o n g t h e m a n d u l t i m a t e l y dismiss t h e m , b u t restricts t h e c h o i c e , exclusively o r p r e d o m i n a n t l y , t o a p a r t i c u l a r a n d i n d e e d r a t h e r n a r r o w g r o u p , for instance a parliamentary party, or perhaps the top elements of the m i l i t a r y o r t h e elite o f t h e civil service. M a n y t y p e s o f l e a d e r s a r e i n this category, including prime ministers of parliamentary systems in which t h e r e i s a d o m i n a n t p a r t y , s o m e m i l i t a r y rulers a n d s o m e civilian p r e s i d e n t s , a t least i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s y s t e m s . T h i s i s t h e c a s e , for e x a m p l e , i n V e n e z u e l a a n d C o l o m b i a . S o m e t i m e s l e a d e r s h a v e a little m o r e c h o i c e , for i n s t a n c e b e c a u s e t h e y c a n select s o m e , b u t o n l y s o m e , of t h e ministers from outside the g r o u p of established politicians: this is t h e c a s e i n Fifth R e p u b l i c F r a n c e . B y a n d l a r g e , a t least since t h e 1970s, c o m m u n i s t s y s t e m s a l s o b e l o n g to this category. Their leaders experience limitations in t w o ways. First, ministers a n d indeed the t o p m e m b e r s of the party hierarchy are selected f r o m a m o n g l o w e r e c h e l o n s o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r t h e p a r t y o n a r e g u l a r s e n i o r i t y basis; t h e h i g h d e g r e e o f s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f m o s t m i n i s t e r s r e s u l t s in t h e r e b e i n g a vertical l a d d e r w h i c h l e a d e r s h a v e to r e c o g n i z e . S e c o n d , o t h e r s p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e selection p r o c e s s m e m b e r s o f t h e p o l i t b u r o s , for i n s t a n c e , a s well a s t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e party secretariat w h o are in charge of personnel. These constraints did n o t exist i n t h e early p e r i o d , w h e t h e r u n d e r Stalin i n t h e Soviet U n i o n o r in the immediate postwar period in Eastern Europe; but the ' n o r m a l i z a t i o n ' of political life in t h e 1960s a n d 1970s r e s u l t e d in t h e de f a c t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f ' r u l e s ' o f c o n d u c t w h i c h severely r e s t r i c t e d t h e
164
appointment powers of c o m m u n i s t leaders, who are n o w appreciably m o r e constrained in this respect t h a n US presidents. Finally, at the extreme end of this c o n t i n u u m , some leaders have a l m o s t n o p o w e r a t all t o select o r d i s m i s s m i n i s t e r s . T h i s m a y o c c u r occasionally in single-party governments if the caucus of p a r l i a m e n t a r i a n s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e c h i e f e x e c u t i v e , decides w h o shall b e ministers: Australian L a b o r g o v e r n m e n t s have been constituted partly o n t h i s p r i n c i p l e , a n d even British L a b o u r g o v e r n m e n t s h a v e m o v e d some way in this direction. But the m o r e usual case is that of multi-party coalitions in which leaders have to agree in advance on both the content o f t h e policies a n d t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t . N o t all c o a l i t i o n executives a r e o r g a n i z e d i n t h i s w a y , b u t m a n y a r e , especially i n continental E u r o p e . At the limit, as in Switzerland, no choice is exercised a t all b y t h e l e a d e r ; i n d e e d , i t m i g h t b e c l a i m e d t h a t , strictly s p e a k i n g , t h e r e i s n o single l e a d e r i n t h a t c o u n t r y a n d t h a t t h e F e d e r a l C o u n c i l as a w h o l e exercises t h e l e a d e r s h i p f u n c t i o n . Unquestionably, therefore, there are m a r k e d differences, both in theory and in practice, in the extent of freedom that leaders have in selecting a n d d i s m i s s i n g m e m b e r s o f t h e i r e n t o u r a g e . W h a t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f this f r e e d o m a r e for t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s i s n o t s o clear. T h e r i g h t t o c h o o s e m i n i s t e r s s u g g e s t s t h a t l e a d e r s c a n h a v e their w a y a n d a r e t r u l y ' a b o v e ' their c o l l a b o r a t o r s : t h e i r c h o s e n m i n i s t e r s a n d aides m a y t h e r e f o r e b e m o r e loyal a n d m a y p u r s u e m o r e k e e n l y t h e g o a l s o f t h e r u l e r s . Yet i t d o e s n o t follow t h a t t h e y a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y m o r e effective i n a c h i e v i n g t h e s e g o a l s . T h e r e a r e t w o m a i n r e a s o n s w h y o n e m a y h a v e a t least s o m e d o u b t s with respect to achievements. First, a leader w h o has complete or nearc o m p l e t e f r e e d o m t o c h o o s e m a y select p l i a n t r a t h e r t h a n effective s u b o r d i n a t e s . S o m e , J . F . K e n n e d y for i n s t a n c e , m a y wish t o h e a r d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s o f view a n d a p p o i n t t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t o r s a c c o r d i n g l y , but others do n o t , a n d prefer to be s u r r o u n d e d by sycophants: in such a c a s e , little i s a c h i e v e d . S e c o n d , a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n t , m i n i s t e r s a n d o t h e r a i d e s will t r u l y h e l p t h e leader i f t h e y h a v e t h e r i g h t skills; unless t h e selection p r o c e s s results i n t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f p e r s o n s w h o a r e influential a m o n g t h e bureaucracy a n d indeed in the p o p u l a t i o n , l e a d e r s m a y g a i n little, b u t t h e c h o i c e o f s u c h m i n i s t e r s m a y t h e n result i n severe c o n s t r a i n t s b e i n g placed o n t h e l e a d e r s . T h u s , d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e a p p o i n t m e n t p o w e r s e n j o y e d b y leaders n e e d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t in c o r r e s p o n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s in effectiveness: l e a d e r s w h o a r e free t o c h o o s e their s u b o r d i n a t e s a r e p r o b a b l y o f t e n o b l i g e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t o p l u m p for l o y a l t y o r g r e a t e r effectiveness. T h u s , c o n s t r a i n t s o n a p p o i n t m e n t p o w e r s m a y exist i n p r a c t i c e , w h a t e v e r l e e w a y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d legal m e c h a n i s m s leave t o t h e leaders.
165
The power of ministers and the impact of leaders O s t e n s i b l y , a t least, a l e a d e r w h o h a s l i m i t e d p o w e r t o select a n d dismiss m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e e m s m o r e likely t o h a v e t o a g r e e t o , o r a t least t o d i s c u s s , t h e v i e w s o f t h e s e m i n i s t e r s t h a n a r u l e r w h o c a n c o n s t i t u t e his e n t o u r a g e a t will. B u t t h e p o w e r o f m i n i s t e r s c a n b e f u r t h e r e n h a n c e d as a r e s u l t of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or legal p r o v i s i o n s w h i c h state that governmental decisions have to be taken jointly by the whole e x e c u t i v e . I n m a n y c o u n t r i e s , especially i n W e s t e r n E u r o p e , t h e p r i n c i p l e o f collective r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o b t a i n s : c a b i n e t d e c i s i o n s a r e d e e m e d t o b e d e c i s i o n s o f all t h e m i n i s t e r s . T h i s s e e m s t o c o n s t i t u t e a m a j o r limitation on t h e possible impact of leaders; while 'hierarchical' g o v e r n m e n t liberal or a u t h o r i t a r i a n s e e m s to leave t h e chief executive free t o p u r s u e his o r h e r g o a l s , t h e e g a l i t a r i a n p r i n c i p l e t h a t i s e m b e d d e d in the parliamentary system appears designed to reduce the personal role of leaders in policy-making. Y e t , i f t h e legal differences a r e l a r g e , t h e p r a c t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n h i e r a r c h i c a l a n d collective g o v e r n m e n t s m a y n o t b e a s g r e a t . A few governmental systems are located at both ends of the c o n t i n u u m ; but in m o s t cases t h e r e i s p r o b a b l y relatively little difference b e t w e e n t h e effective p o w e r s o f m i n i s t e r s i n s y s t e m s t h a t a r e legally h i e r a r c h i c a l a n d legally collective. O n t h e o n e h a n d , i n m a n y g o v e r n m e n t s t h a t a r e formally hierarchical or near-hierarchical, ministers exercise s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e . T h i s i s t r u e i n liberal p r e s i d e n t i a l s y s t e m s , t o begin with. In the United States, the strength of the president is counterbalanced by the strength of the various departments, which are fortresses i n t h e i r o w n r i g h t . T h e h e a d s o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t s a r e t h u s o f t e n t h e s p o k e s m e n for t h e s e d e p a r t m e n t s ; t h e s y s t e m i s d e c e n t r a l i z e d , ' p o l y a r c h i c a P a n a r c h i c , even r a t h e r t h a n h i e r a r c h i c a l . In o t h e r liberal p r e s i d e n t i a l s y s t e m s , especially in t h o s e t h a t h a v e lasted for a substantial period, there are often party coalitions or factions within the ruling party a n d these have to be a c c o m m o d a t e d ; the president c a n n o t issue o r d e r s t o t h e m i n i s t e r s a n d e x p e c t t h a t t h e s e o r d e r s will b e automatically followed. T h e r e are also serious d o u b t s as to whether the 'hierarchical' s t r u c t u r e prevails i n m a n y o f t h e o t h e r s y s t e m s w h e r e t h e l e a d e r i s ostensibly ' a b o v e ' the ministers, such as traditional monarchies, m a n y m i l i t a r y r e g i m e s or a u t h o r i t a r i a n p r e s i d e n c i e s . It is t r u e t h a t a l e a d e r w h o comes t o power m a y b e able b o t h t o appoint w h o m h e wishes a n d to d e t e r m i n e a policy line; b u t it is a l s o t r u e t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n often m a k e i t n e c e s s a r y for t h e l e a d e r t o listen, t o c o m p r o m i s e a n d t o 'give i n ' . S o m e m i n i s t e r s m a y also b e c o m e , for a w h i l e a t least, i n d i s p e n s a b l e : w h a t t h e y p r o p o s e t o t h e l e a d e r i s t h e n a u t o m a t i c a l l y a c c e p t e d . It is as if, w i t h t i m e p a s s i n g , g o v e r n m e n t a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g processes i n e v i t a b l y b e c o m e m o r e r o u t i n i z e d a n d
166
leaders are constrained not so m u c h by the theoretical a r r a n g e m e n t s of t h e s y s t e m , b u t b y t h e very n e t w o r k t h a t t h e y t h e m s e l v e s o r g a n i z e d . Only if they decide to break t h a t n e t w o r k , to destroy the m o u l d a n d recast it, s o t o s p e a k , c a n t h e y a g a i n t a k e t h e initiative fully a n d e n s u r e t h a t their decisions a r e given p r e c e d e n c e . T h i s c a n b e d o n e b y s o m e a u t h o r i t a r i a n l e a d e r s a n d i s m o r e likely t o o c c u r with t h e m t h a n w i t h liberal p r e s i d e n t s . B u t t h e r e s u l t i s t h e n m o r e a q u e s t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y than of organization; or, rather, the workings of the organization n a t u r a l l y lead t o a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e o f i n f l u e n c e b e i n g exercised b y m i n i s t e r s , unless l e a d e r s t a k e i t u p o n t h e m s e l v e s t o see t h a t their o w n influence prevails. T h e case o f c o m m u n i s t states i s i n f o r m a t i v e i n this r e s p e c t , for t h e s e s t a r t e d typically o n t h e basis o f v e r y a u t h o r i t a r i a n a n d h i e r a r c h i c a l leadership arrangements and have become, by and large, markedly m o r e collective. E x c e p t in a few i n s t a n c e s such as N o r t h K o r e a a n d R o m a n i a , where a very strong personal ruler has been in power, leaders c a n n o t o p e r a t e a fully h i e r a r c h i c a l s y s t e m ; s o m e d e g r e e o f c o n s e n s u s has to be obtained a m o n g the oligarchies that are constituted by p o l i t b u r o s a s well a s (to a n e x t e n t a t least) b y t h e p r e s i d i u m s o f c o u n c i l s o f m i n i s t e r s . T h i s a l s o results n a t u r a l l y f r o m t h e s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m w h i c h prevails a n d i n effect r e p l a c e s t h e elective m e c h a n i s m . T h u s , even i n a u t h o r i t a r i a n s y s t e m s , n a t i o n a l executives t e n d n o t t o b e strictly h i e r a r c h i c a l a n d at least s o m e m i n i s t e r s h a v e de facto p o w e r s o v e r i m p o r t a n t segments of the public policy process. T h e s e p r a c t i c a l c h a n g e s d o n o t t u r n t h e s e g o v e r n m e n t s i n t o collective organs, admittedly. But, conversely, parliamentary governments u s u a l l y a r e n o l o n g e r collective, e i t h e r . O n l y i n a few o f t h e m i s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g s h a r e d widely a n d fairly e q u a l l y . S w i t z e r l a n d i s t h e m a i n e x a m p l e here, while s o m e multi-party g o v e r n m e n t s a p p r o x i m a t e this f o r m u l a ; o v e r a l l , a t m o s t h a l f a d o z e n g o v e r n m e n t s a r e t r u l y operating on this basis. Elsewhere a m o n g parliamentary systems, the l e a d e r i s m a r k e d l y a b o v e t h e rest o f t h e m i n i s t e r s a n d m u c h o f t h e decision-making takes place by means of bilateral discussions between t h e l e a d e r a n d t h e r e l e v a n t m i n i s t e r , w i t h t h e l e a d e r a l o n e exercising i n f l u e n c e o v e r a w i d e r a n g e o f fields. T h i s w a s t r u e o f very w e l l - k n o w n statesmen such as Churchill, Trudeau, Adenauer, Schmidt and Palme; b u t i t i s a l s o t r u e o f o t h e r s i n t h e large m a j o r i t y o f t h e c o u n t r i e s i n w h i c h collective g o v e r n m e n t i s h e l d t o p r e v a i l . T h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e distinction b e t w e e n t h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e a r e n u m e r o u s a n d are often mentioned. First, the standing of prime ministers in the party a n d in the country is m a r k e d l y above that of the rest o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t : l e a d e r s a r e t h e o n e s w h o w i n o r lose elections, n o t t h e i r m i n i s t e r s , a n d t h e effective s t r u c t u r e o f t h e executive reflects t h a t p o l i t i c a l f a c t . M o r e o v e r , t h e collective p r i n c i p l e m a y n o l o n g e r
167
satisfy t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f m o d e r n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g o r i n d e e d t h e psychological a n d socio-psychological conditions under which m i n i s t e r s exercise t h e i r f u n c t i o n s , a l t h o u g h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l a n d t h e e v i d e n c e c a n n o t b e said t o h a v e b e e n collected s y s t e m a t i c a l l y . W h a t i s clear i s t h a t t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e d o e s n o t s t o p t h e t r e n d t o w a r d s h i e r a r c h i c a l r u l e i n c a b i n e t s . W h e r e b a r r i e r s t o this t y p e o f r u l e exist, t h e y result f r o m t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p a r t y s y s t e m a n d o f t h e g r o u p c o n f i g u r a t i o n , a s well a s f r o m t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e p r i m e m i n i s t e r a n d f r o m t h e crises a n d o t h e r accidents that m a y occur from time to time in the polity. T h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t itself t h e r e f o r e p r o b a b l y h a s a relatively s m a l l p a r t t o p l a y i n i n c r e a s i n g o r d e c r e a s i n g t h e i m p a c t o f leadership. First, the complexity of m o d e r n government m a k e s it difficult for l e a d e r s t o o p e r a t e o n t h e b a s i s o f a t r u e h i e r a r c h y ; i f t h e y d o , this m a y b e a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e effectiveness o f t h e i r r u l e since, i n order to ensure compliance, they have repeatedly to modify the c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d i n t e r f e r e i n t h e activities o f ministers, thereby creating a climate of suspicion which in turn reduces r a t h e r t h a n i n c r e a s e s t h e effectiveness o f t h e i r e n t o u r a g e a n d t h e credibility o f t h e e x e c u t i v e . S e c o n d , a n d c o n v e r s e l y , l e a d e r s s e e m r a r e l y t o b e fully c o n s t r a i n e d b y t h e collective will o f their c o l l a b o r a t o r s ; this occurs only when not merely the governmental arrangements, but the w h o l e c h a r a c t e r of t h e political s y s t e m , c r e a t e s a n e e d for a h i g h d e g r e e o f c o n s e n s u s a t all levels, a s i n S w i t z e r l a n d . T h e e n t o u r a g e d o e s i n c r e a s e the influence of leaders, as these need ' a r m s a n d legs' to be able to m a k e a m a r k on the polity; but variations in the way decisions are t a k e n in the i n n e r circle a r e certainly n o t a s l a r g e a s t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e s u g g e s t s . On the o n e h a n d , most leaders can mobilize the government t o w a r d s t h e i r g o a l s ; b u t o n t h e o t h e r , a n d especially w h e n t h e r e g i m e b e c o m e s e s t a b l i s h e d , l e a d e r s c a n n o t expect t o o r d e r m e m b e r s o f t h e i r e n t o u r a g e a b o u t as if they were mere subordinates. T h e n a t u r e of the executive as an organization imposes constraints on leaders which the leaders c a n n o t e s c a p e , o r c a n e s c a p e o n l y a t c o n s i d e r a b l e risk a n d a t t h e cost o f considerable efforts.
The character of the bureaucracy and the impact of leadership

I f g o v e r n m e n t s a r e t h e a r m s o f l e a d e r s i n their e f f o r t t o m a k e a n i m p a c t on s o c i e t y , b u r e a u c r a c i e s a r e t h e t o o l s , t h e i n s t r u m e n t s par excellence, w h i c h l e a d e r s h a v e t o u s e a n d o n w h i c h t h e y h a v e t o rely. T h i s i s t h e w i d e l y a c c e p t e d view o f p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a view t h a t h a s t o b e c o r r e c t , a t least negatively; for w i t h o u t t h e b u r e a u c r a c y l e a d e r s a n d g o v e r n m e n t s w o u l d n o t h a v e a direct i m p a c t o n t h e societies t h e y r u l e . T h u s t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t arises is, h o w m u c h c a n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y h e l p t o
168
e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r s a n d p o l i t i c i a n s m a k e a n i m p a c t o n t h e i r societies? T h i s h e l p h a s t o b e viewed i n t h e g e n e r a l c o n t e x t o f a q u e s t i o n t h a t n e e d s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d realistically, t h a t i s t o s a y , o n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s necessarily s o m e g a p b e t w e e n p o l i t i c i a n s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , that administrators cannot be expected merely to implement, and that v a r i a t i o n s i n e n e r g y a n d d r i v e o n t h e p a r t o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s will h a v e t o exist. The general conditions governing implementation in public bureaucracies T h e ' h e l p ' t h a t b u r e a u c r a c i e s c a n give l e a d e r s d e p e n d s , t o a v e r y l a r g e e x t e n t , o n w h e t h e r t h e g o a l s t h a t a r e b e i n g p u r s u e d a r e realistic. A s s u m i n g t h a t t h e y a r e , o n e c a n i d e n t i f y f o u r f a c t o r s w i t h i n t h e civil service w h i c h will affect t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s . T h e first o f t h e s e i s competence: the administrative personnel must be trained to handle the q u e s t i o n s t h a t l e a d e r s w a n t t h e m t o solve. T h e r e h a v e t o b e g o o d general administrators, including lawyers, managers capable of r u n n i n g services, a n d e c o n o m i s t s ; t h e r e h a v e t o b e h i g h l y skilled technicians, in engineering a n d medicine, in agriculture a n d in industry. Clearly, the emphasis depends on the d e m a n d s m a d e by t h e leaders; but c o m p e t e n c e i s m a n i f e s t l y a n essential v a r i a b l e , o n e t h a t r e q u i r e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e o u t l a y i n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d p e r s o n n e l l o n g b e f o r e policies are put forward. T h e s e c o n d c o n d i t i o n relates t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n . L i m i t e d r e s u l t s will be a c h i e v e d if t h e i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e services is either t o o light o r t o o h e a v y . C o - o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n t h e service m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e g o o d , a s h o r i z o n t a l links m a y b e a s i m p o r t a n t a s t h e vertical h i e r a r c h y . O p t i m i z a t i o n b e t w e e n c o n f l i c t i n g a i m s m u s t b e a c h i e v e d ; a n d o n e m u s t a v o i d t h e k i n d o f b o t t l e n e c k s t h a t arise w h e n some agencies p e r f o r m better t h a n others a situation that frequently appears to characterize communist bureaucracies. Third, t h e links between the bureaucracy a n d the leader a n d g o v e r n m e n t m u s t b e close a n d effective; civil s e r v a n t s m u s t also b e expected to be reliable. T h e magnitude of the p r o b l e m , however, d e p e n d s o n w h a t i s d e m a n d e d o f civil s e r v a n t s : i f g r e a t e r d e m a n d s a r e m a d e , m o r a l e m a y d e c l i n e . T h e difficulty s t e m s f u n d a m e n t a l l y f r o m t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e careers o f civil s e r v a n t s a n d t h o s e o f p o l i t i c i a n s ; w h e n p o l i t i c i a n s a r e r e c r u i t e d f r o m a v e r y different w o r l d , m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a r e likely t o o c c u r . T h e f o s t e r i n g o f t h e l o y a l t y o f civil s e r v a n t s by a v a r i e t y of m e a n s b u t n o t at t h e e x p e n s e of i n i t i a t i v e - t a k i n g is a m a n i f e s t r e q u i r e m e n t if b u r e a u c r a c i e s a r e to p r o v i d e a s i g n i f i c a n t h e l p to leaders in a c h i e v i n g t h e i r g o a l s . F o u r t h , b u r e a u c r a c i e s m u s t b e closely l i n k e d t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n , s o t h a t difficulties o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a r e r e d u c e d t o a m i n i m u m .
The
influence of institutions
69
Administrative bodies should have branches in the provinces, a development that is costly a n d also creates c o m m u n i c a t i o n problems w i t h i n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a s well a s b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r a n d t h e b o t t o m echelons of the hierarchy in outlying districts. H e n c e there are considerable debates a b o u t t h e relative value of a decentralized system (likely t o lead t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e n e e d s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n ) a n d a s y s t e m c o n c e n t r a t e d i n t h e c a p i t a l ( w h i c h will follow m o r e closely t h e decisions o f t h e l e a d e r ) . T h e s e f o u r c o n d i t i o n s c a n n o t easily b e fulfilled: s o m e o f t h e d e m a n d s a r e c o n t r a d i c t o r y , a n d t h e o v e r a l l cost m a y b e p r o h i b i t i v e . I n d e e d , w e still d o n o t k n o w h o w t o realize s o m e o f t h e s e a i m s a s w e a r e u n s u r e o f t h e t e c h n i q u e s t h a t m i g h t b e utilized t o a c h i e v e t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t s . I n p r a c t i c e , i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e likely t o o c c u r p i e c e m e a l , b y t r i a l a n d e r r o r , rather t h a n on the basis of g r a n d principles, m a n y of which were shown in the past to be vague and impractical. P r o b l e m s posed by m o d e r n bureaucracies are c o m p o u n d e d by the social a n d e c o n o m i c difficulties p r e v a i l i n g i n their c o u n t r i e s . T h e c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e p e r s o n n e l , for i n s t a n c e , d e p e n d s o n t h e level o f e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t in t h e n a t i o n at l a r g e ; for i n s t a n c e , it is widely believed a n d t h e r e is e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h i s belief t h a t civil s e r v a n t s i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d a r e m o r e ' c o r r u p t ' t h a n civil s e r v a n t s i n t h e W e s t . I f t h e y find t h a t t h e i r p a y i s t o o l o w , t h e y will a t t e m p t t o ' c a s h i n ' on t h e p o w e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n gives t h e m . Y e t , if t h e society is p o o r , it is n o t clear t h a t p a y c a n b e m a r k e d l y i n c r e a s e d . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , t h e p o o r e r t h e c o u n t r y , t h e less efficient t h e b u r e a u c r a c y i s likely t o b e , a l t h o u g h o t h e r v a r i a b l e s , s u c h a s e t h n i c o r r e l i g i o u s c l e a v a g e s , a r e likely to i n t e r p l a y . Yet it is w h e r e social a n d e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s a r e m o s t s e r i o u s t h a t t h e n e e d t o rely o n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y t o effect c h a n g e i s a l s o t h e g r e a t e s t . A t o n e level, admittedly, there are m o r e d e m a n d s on the bureaucracy in advanced i n d u s t r i a l n a t i o n s : t h e e l a b o r a t e social w e l f a r e s y s t e m s , a s well a s t h e c o m p l e x e c o n o m i c r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e s e s t a t e s (even t h e m o s t e c o n o m i c a l l y ' l i b e r a l ' a m o n g t h e m , such a s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ) , r e q u i r e a s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n d l a r g e civil service. T o this e x t e n t d e m a n d s d o rise, b u t t h e efficiency o f t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c m a c h i n e also i m p r o v e s i n t h e context of general socioeconomic development. H o w e v e r , social w e l f a r e m e c h a n i s m s o r e c o n o m i c a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e m o r e e l a b o r a t e i n a d v a n c e d i n d u s t r i a l societies n o t b e c a u s e o t h e r societies d o n o t ' n e e d ' such p r o v i s i o n s , b u t b e c a u s e t h e y c a n n o t a f f o r d t h e m a n d a r e n o t able t o i m p l e m e n t t h e m . T h u s t h e w e a k n e s s e s o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y i n T h i r d W o r l d societies a r e i n p a r t t h e c a u s e , a n d n o t m e r e l y t h e c o n s e q u e n c e , o f t h e u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f social w e l f a r e a n d economic provisions. D e m a n d s on the bureaucracy are kept low, to be s u r e ; b u t a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e s e d e m a n d s w o u l d lead t o a n i m p r o v e m e n t o f
770
the conditions of populations a n d should therefore be fostered: this is indeed gradually occurring. M o r e o v e r , l e a d e r s o f T h i r d W o r l d states a r e o f t e n n a t u r a l l y i n c l i n e d t o w a n t t o m o d i f y t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h society o p e r a t e s a n d t o e x p a n d t h e activity o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y i n o r d e r t o b r i n g a b o u t social a n d economic improvements. They are therefore putting pressure on the b u r e a u c r a c y t o achieve r e s u l t s , w h i l e t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d p e r s o n n e l m a y well b e u n a b l e t o a c h i e v e t h e s e r e s u l t s . T h e d e m a n d s o n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a r e t h e r e f o r e likely t o b e l a r g e , w i t h n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s o n t h e m o r a l e o f t h e civil s e r v a n t s a n d o n t h e i r o v e r a l l p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e r e i s t h u s a m a j o r c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e relatively l o w effectiveness o f b u r e a u c r a c i e s i n less d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s a n d t h e d e m a n d s t h a t a r e o f t e n m a d e i n a n a t t e m p t t o i m p r o v e t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e i r societies. Types of societies, types of bureaucratic effectiveness and the impact of leadership L e a d e r s o f all c o u n t r i e s a r e t h u s faced w i t h s t r u c t u r a l p r o b l e m s w i t h respect t o b u r e a u c r a c i e s , a l t h o u g h t h e p r o b l e m s a n d t h c o n s t r a i n t s a r e different f r o m o n e t y p e o f society t o a n o t h e r . B y a n d l a r g e , t h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s suggest t h a t e a c h c o u n t r y c a n b e e x p e c t e d t o a t t a i n , a t a given p o i n t in t i m e , o n l y a c e r t a i n level of effectiveness in implementation. Of course, leaders a n d in particular leaders w h o wish t o a c h i e v e g o a l s t h a t a r e a p p r e c i a b l y m o r e ' a c t i v i s t ' t h a n t h o s e o f their p r e d e c e s s o r s o f t e n wish t o d o m o r e ; t o a n e x t e n t a t least, t h e y c a n t r y a n d b e n d t h e ' m u s c l e s ' o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y ; b u t their e x p e c t a t i o n s will r e m a i n largely unfulfilled. Variations in administrative 'overload' in different societies M u c h emphasis h a s been placed on the overload of administrative bodies in Western countries, as popular d e m a n d s go beyond what the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a c h i n e c a n p r o c e s s ; o v e r l o a d is a u n i v e r s a l p r o b l e m , however, as d e m a n d s tend almost everywhere to go beyond what a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s c a n d o i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e levels o f c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e staff, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e services a n d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e links w i t h t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e p o p u l a t i o n . I n t h e W e s t , o v e r l o a d results f r o m t h e l a r g e n u m b e r a n d c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e p r o g r a m m e s , a s well a s f r o m e f f o r t s t o i n n o v a t e o r r e f o r m t h e s e p r o g r a m m e s ; b u t i n n o v a t i o n o r r e f o r m c a n b e i m p l e m e n t e d o n l y i f t h e r e i s s o m e slack i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . C o m m u n i s t states h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d this difficulty to a m a j o r extent; a n d in the Third W o r l d p r o b l e m s are most acute, as p r o b l e m s o f c o m p e t e n c e , o r g a n i z a t i o n , v e n a l i t y a n d a l a c k o f links with t h e p o p u l a t i o n a r e m o s t serious. T h u s , b u r e a u c r a c i e s o f t h e T h i r d W o r l d s h o u l d be expected to be ' o v e r l o a d e d ' , unless the leaders
The
171
( p r i m a r i l y t r a d i t i o n a l l e a d e r s ) wish m e r e l y t o m a n a g e t h e i r societies; a s m o s t T h i r d W o r l d l e a d e r s w a n t t o d o m o r e , t h e y a r e likely t o b e h a m p e r e d , rather t h a n helped, by their bureaucracies.
Can the leader improve the conditions under which bureaucracy operates? A d m i t t e d l y , t h e c a p a c i t y of a b u r e a u c r a c y is n o t fixed a n d it is p o s s i b l e for l e a d e r s t o i m p r o v e its effectiveness. L e a d e r s h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o d o s o for c e n t u r i e s , t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , F r a n c e a n d P r u s s i a b e i n g a m o n g t h e n a t i o n s i n t h e W e s t best k n o w n for their h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d b u r e a u c r a t i c s y s t e m s . B u t c h a n g e s a r e n e c e s s a r i l y s l o w , w h i l e d e m a n d s for c h a n g e i n t h e p u b l i c services a p p e a r t o b e c o m e g r e a t e r i n t h e m o d e r n p e r i o d . New leaders have at their disposal t w o types of instruments with which to improve (somewhat) the general conditions under which b u r e a u c r a c i e s c a n b e e x p e c t e d t o h e l p t h e i r r u l e t o b e m o r e effective. O n e t y p e i s p e r s o n a l : l e a d e r s c a n u s e their p r e s t i g e , t h e i r f o l l o w i n g i n t h e n a t i o n a n d w i t h i n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y itself, t o o b t a i n g r e a t e r l o y a l t y a n d zeal o n t h e p a r t o f civil s e r v a n t s . T h i s s t r a t e g y h a s s o m e v a l u e , especially i n t h e early p e r i o d . I t i s p r o b a b l y p a r t o f t h e a d v a n t a g e s t h a t l e a d e r s e n j o y d u r i n g t h e ' s t a t e o f g r a c e ' w h i c h o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e early m o n t h s . B u t this i s o n l y a t e m p o r a r y s t r a t e g y ; s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e h a s t o o c c u r in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a p o l i c y t h a t is o f t e n p r e c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , b y t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s . A n y ' a c t i v i s t ' l e a d e r will i n d e e d t r y t o introduce s o m e changes: the simplest a n d m o s t obvious of these consists in putting forward measures designed to i m p r o v e the loyalty of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , while s a n c t i o n s will b e t h r e a t e n e d a g a i n s t t h o s e w h o d o n o t c o m p l y ; s u g g e s t i o n s a r e m a d e t h a t c o r r u p t i o n will b e e l i m i n a t e d a n d t h a t ' e n e m i e s ' o f t h e n e w g o v e r n m e n t will b e p r e v e n t e d f r o m u n d e r t a k i n g t h e i r ' u n d e r - c o v e r ' activities. B u t t h e s e m e a s u r e s a r e m o r e s p e c t a c u l a r t h a n effective, u n l e s s t h e y a r e p u r s u e d w i t h g r e a t t e n a c i t y a n d a r e i n d e e d a c c o m p a n i e d b y policies s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d e s i g n e d t o t r a i n o t h e r civil s e r v a n t s w h o m i g h t r e p l a c e t h o s e w h o will b e e l i m i n a t e d . F o r l e a d e r s will n o t a c h i e v e a c h a n g e i n t h e c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e civil s e r v a n t s b y t r y i n g t o m a k e t h e p e r s o n n e l d o w h a t they are n o t able to do or by m a k i n g administrators behave in ways in which they have not been accustomed to behave. C o m m u n i s t leaders m a y have been able but only to an extent to modify the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e activities o f b u r e a u c r a t s i n t h e c o u n t r i e s i n w h i c h t h e y c a m e t o p o w e r ; b u t this w a s o n l y after m a n y years o f c o n s i d e r a b l e pressure, m u c h change of personnel a n d a general transformation of t h e socio-political climate. H a v i n g modified the c o u n t r y ' s general i d e o l o g y , t h e s e leaders w e r e t h e n a b l e also t o m o d i f y s o m e w h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s of civil s e r v a n t s . Yet t h i s h a d o n l y a limited s u c c e s s : t h e
/ 72
' s u p e r i o r ' characteristics o f t h e E a s t G e r m a n b u r e a u c r a c y h a v e m o r e t o do with G e r m a n traditions t h a n with the impact of c o m m u n i s m . T h e m o r e effective t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a r e t h o s e t h a t a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h , besides c h a n g e s i n t h e r e c r u i t m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g o f t h e p e r s o n n e l , a systematic examination of t h e ways in which the linkage with the g o v e r n m e n t , t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e service a n d t h e l i n k a g e w i t h t h e population can be improved. But the inevitable trade-offs that have to b e m a d e , b o t h w i t h i n a n d b e t w e e n t h e s e e l e m e n t s , suggest a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s y s t e m a t i c a n a l y s i s a n d a clear r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t ' i m p r o v e m e n t s ' can be obtained only up to a point a n d at a limited p a c e . T h e civil service c a n n o t s u d d e n l y ' s w i m ' w i t h i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n a s 'fish i n w a t e r ' , t o d r a w f r o m t h e C h i n e s e c o m m u n i s t r e m a r k d i r e c t e d a t t h e r o l e o f t h e p a r t y ; this c a n b e d o n e o n l y g r a d u a l l y , especially w h e n prejudices against the bureaucracy are large and an 'anarchistic' or a n t i - s t a t e t r a d i t i o n p r e v a i l s . T h u s , l e a d e r s m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h a t their e f f o r t s a t m o d i f y i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y will h a v e p a y - o f f s o n l y i n t h e relatively l o n g t e r m , a n d t h a t t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f their o w n policies c a n n o t entirely d e p e n d o n t h e s e r e f o r m s , w h i c h a t first might be disruptive. O f c o u r s e , t h e s e activities a r e u n l i k e l y t o b e successful u n l e s s t h e y t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e b u r e a u c r a c y finds itself a n d in particular t h e socioeconomic a n d political characteristics of the c o u n t r y . Since t h e ' i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s ' o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p a r a t u s i s likely t o b e g r e a t e r w h e r e t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i s w e a k e r , o n l y a n i m p r o v e m e n t i n this i n f r a s t r u c t u r e c a n a c h i e v e t h e d e s i r e d results; a n d an i m p r o v e m e n t in the political infrastructure, which we shall e x a m i n e i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n , i s a l s o a n essential p a r t o f t h e operation. But, as an improvement in the socioeconomic infrastructure requires the intervention of leaders a n d g o v e r n m e n t s by m e a n s of the bureaucracy, the only internal way out of the d i l e m m a is by m e a n s of a series o f i n t e g r a t e d j o i n t m o v e s d e s i g n e d t o e n s u r e t h a t o n e t y p e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n i s fully i n h a r m o n y w i t h all t h e o t h e r s . D e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s c a n a l s o c o u n t t o s o m e extent o n e x p a t r i a t e civil s e r v a n t s ; because they are n o t part of the prevailing culture, these m a y help to improve t h e characteristics of the bureaucracy. But they are usually o u t o f p l a c e i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d a t best a r e a t e m p o r a r y r e m e d y t o t h e difficulties o f t h e ' d e v e l o p m e n t a l ' s t r a t e g y p u r s u e d b y t h e l e a d e r s . Bureaucracies are an important element in the process by which l e a d e r s c a n see t h e i r g o a l s realized; b u t t h e c o n s t r a i n t s a n d h u r d l e s a r e n u m e r o u s a n d c a n n o t b e o v e r c o m e easily, let a l o n e r a p i d l y . T h e s e h u r d l e s d o n o t s t e m m a i n l y from t h e fact t h a t b u r e a u c r a c i e s d o n o t ' w a n t ' t h e g o a l s o f l e a d e r s t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d : t h e y a r e n o t i n a n y case h o m o g e n e o u s . N o r a r e t h e y i n h e r e n t l y ineffective; i f t h e y a r e , u n s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n d i t i o n s (including t h e l a c k o f t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s )
173
a r e likely t o b e t h e c a u s e . L e a d e r s h a v e t o a c c e p t t h a t t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c tools at their disposal c a n n o t enable t h e m to achieve m o r e t h a n a certain a m o u n t o v e r a specified p e r i o d o f t i m e ; t h e y c a n i m p r o v e t h e s e t o o l s s o m e w h a t , b u t o n l y s o m e w h a t , a n d also o v e r t i m e . T h e i m p a c t o f leadership depends on the structure of the bureaucracy. Leaders are not powerless to m o v e the m a c h i n e r y a n d the structures, b u t the extent of their power is, a n d to their o w n detriment, often overestimated.
The impact of leadership and the structures of the political system

U n q u e s t i o n a b l y , t h e f a t e o f t h e policies o f l e a d e r s d e p e n d s also o n t h e response of the p o p u l a t i o n , which should not merely not object but i n d e e d b e s u p p o r t i v e . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , h o w e v e r , i t i s o f t e n believed t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f s u p p o r t t h a t c a n b e g e n e r a t e d a m o n g t h e citizenry d e p e n d s largely o n t h e existence o f a p p r o p r i a t e s t r u c t u r e s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanisms within the polity. If these structures do not enable leaders t o p u t a c r o s s t h e i r g o a l s a n d ' m o b i l i z e ' t h e p o p u l a t i o n , o p p o s i t i o n will b e l a r g e a n d m a y b e a d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r ; if, o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e s t r u c t u r e s e n a b l e l e a d e r s t o p r o p a g a t e their g o a l s , i t i s t h e n believed t h a t these goals can be achieved (provided, admittedly, that there is no external interference). T h i s ' v o l u n t a r i s t i c ' a n d ' o p t i m i s t i c ' view a b o u t t h e r o l e o f s t r u c t u r e s h a s led t o w i d e s p r e a d e f f o r t s b y l e a d e r s h o l d i n g d i f f e r e n t i d e o l o g i e s t o set u p o r g a n i z a t i o n s , p r i n c i p a l l y p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , t o serve a s c h a n n e l s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d a s i n s t r u m e n t s d e s i g n e d t o foster s u p p o r t . Yet evidence seems to show t h a t the results are often disappointing. This is sometimes attributed to the unsatisfactory development of these parties a n d organizations; it is sometimes also attributed to the persistence of o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h a r e felt t o p r o v i d e a h o m e for a t t i t u d e s a n d m e n t a l i t i e s o p p o s e d t o t h e l e a d e r ' s g o a l s . T h u s i t i s p r i m a facie s o m e w h a t u n c l e a r w h e t h e r , i n d e e d , l e a d e r s c a n set u p effective s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h will m a r k e d l y h e l p t h e m . T o a t t e m p t t o a s c e r t a i n this m a t t e r , let u s e x a m i n e successively t h e p a r t t h a t t h r e e types o f s t r u c t u r e s p l a y : t h o s e t h a t d e v e l o p ' n a t u r a l l y ' w i t h i n t h e society a n d a r e especially s t r o n g i n t r a d i t i o n a l a n d d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s ; t h o s e t h a t a r e ' m a n - m a d e ' b u t a r e n o t set u p b y t h e l e a d e r a n d p r e v a i l i n W e s t e r n societies; a n d t h o s e t h a t l e a d e r s c r e a t e a n d w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e b o t h c o m m u n i s t c o u n t r i e s (or a t least, c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e m a t t h e s t a r t ) a n d m a n y T h i r d W o r l d societies. 'Natural' structures and the impact of leadership ' N a t u r a l ' s t r u c t u r e s c a n b e d e f i n e d a s t h o s e t h a t h a v e existed i n t h e p o l i t y for a sufficiently long p e r i o d for their origins to be i n d e t e r m i n a t e . T h e y t e n d t h e r e f o r e t o b e c o n s t i t u t e d b y g r o u p s o f a social r a t h e r t h a n
174
p r i m a r i l y a political c h a r a c t e r ; b u t t h e y h a v e a n i m p o r t a n t p o l i t i c a l i m p a c t , especially b e c a u s e o f t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e b o n d s o f l o y a l t y t h a t exist w i t h i n t h e m . T h e y i n c l u d e i n p a r t i c u l a r t r i b e s , e t h n i c g r o u p s a n d r e l i g i o u s b o d i e s ; i n s o m e o f t h e o l d e r i n d u s t r i a l c o u n t r i e s , B r i t a i n for i n s t a n c e , w o r k i n g - c l a s s o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f t e n h a v e a similar c h a r a c t e r . N a t u r a l structures have t w o m a i n characteristics, which are interconnected: they can c o u n t on a massive loyalty of m e m b e r s of the group; and the linkage between the g r o u p and the members is based on emotional rather t h a n rational ties. M e m b e r s belong to these n a t u r a l structures by being b o r n into t h e m a n d by growing up with other m e m b e r s of the g r o u p . They therefore create intense patterns of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h a r e u s u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . T h e link i s b a s e d n o t o n i d e a s o r g o a l s , b u t o n e m o t i o n a l ties; t h e g r o u p s exist n o t b e c a u s e o f w h a t they d o , but merely because of what they are. They develop a culture and an ideology which regulate the behaviour patterns of m e m b e r s and are implemented by means of m o r a l pressure and, if there is transgression, by coercion. But this 'ideology' is concerned m o r e with the m a i n t e n a n c e of the cohesion of the g r o u p t h a n with a n y a c h i e v e m e n t s o r p u r p o s e s ; a t t h e l i m i t , t h e r e a r e n o o t h e r a i m s besides the continuation of t h e g r o u p ' s existence. T h e relationship between the m e m b e r s a n d leaders of the g r o u p is b a s e d o n similar b o n d s o f l o y a l t y . T h e p r o c e d u r e s b y w h i c h l e a d e r s a r e selected e m e r g e g r a d u a l l y . C h i e f s o r e l d e r s i n t r i b e s , e t h n i c g r o u p s o r religious bodies a r e a p p o i n t e d by m e c h a n i s m s which, in principle at least, a r e n o m o r e q u e s t i o n e d t h a n t h e c o d e s o f c o n d u c t t h a t r e g u l a t e the relationship between m e m b e r s , a n d the leaders can count on a loyal f o l l o w i n g . T h e r e a r e clear limits t o t h e p o w e r o f l e a d e r s , h o w e v e r , a n d t h e s e a r e p r o v i d e d b y t h e r u l e s a n d c u s t o m s o f t h e g r o u p . T h e chief o r elder c a n n o t g o b e y o n d t h e s e t r a d i t i o n a l p o w e r s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , policymaking is s o m e w h a t limited; in particular, it does not normally include the power to modify the customs-regulating behaviour a m o n g members of the g r o u p . T h e b o n d s o f l o y a l t y existing w i t h i n t h e s e n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s affect the position a n d p o w e r of national leaders in societies, such as those of t h e T h i r d W o r l d , w h e r e g r o u p s o f this k i n d p r e v a i l . T y p i c a l l y , n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s c a n b e n e f i t f r o m t h e a l l e g i a n c e o f m e m b e r s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y a r e t h e m s e l v e s leaders o f a ' n a t u r a l ' g r o u p (if t h e y a r e chiefs of a t r i b e or h e a d s of a religious o r g a n i z a t i o n ) or else e n t e r i n t o strong alliances with t h e leaders of these g r o u p s . But the b o n d is manifestly stronger in t h e former situation; if t h e n a t i o n a l leader 'floats a b o v e ' t h e n a t u r a l g r o u p s , s o t o s p e a k , h e o r s h e i s likely t o h a v e t o m a k e c o m p r o m i s e s , a n d t h e s e a r e e q u a l l y likely t o b e t e m p o r a r y o r periodically q u e s t i o n e d . G i v e n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s e n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s , a n d given also t h a t
175
the configuration of these structures is unlikely to coincide with n a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y i s t h a t n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s will t e n d t o suffer r a t h e r t h a n b e n e f i t f r o m t h e existence o f s t r o n g t r a d i t i o n a l g r o u p s . F i r s t , n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s will b e o p p o s e d , o r even i g n o r e d , i n their e f f o r t s a t n a t i o n - b u i l d i n g . T e n s i o n m a y g r o w a n d a r m e d clashes m a y o c c u r ( a n d t h e s e a r e likely t o b e h e l p e d f r o m o u t s i d e b y ' s y m p a t h e t i c ' l e a d e r s w h o m a y b e l o n g t o t h e s a m e t r i b a l , e t h n i c o r religious g r o u p s a s t h o s e t h a t a r e ' o p p r e s s e d ' ) . S e c o n d , n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s c a n n o t expect t o b e a b l e t o d e v e l o p a c o m p l e x set o f policies o n t h e basis o f t h e l o y a l t y o f n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s : t h e y will i n t e r m i t t e n t l y o r even c o n t i n u o u s l y find i t difficult t o p r e s s t h e i r g o a l s e i t h e r o n t h e i r o w n g r o u p o r o n t h e o t h e r groups with which they are associated. T h e goals of the national leader will b e v i e w e d w i t h s u s p i c i o n ; t h e y will b e c o n s i d e r e d a s e n c r o a c h m e n t s o n t r a d i t i o n s . T h e d i s r u p t i o n o f t r i b a l , e t h n i c o r religious g r o u p s will b e seen a s t h e u l t i m a t e o r even p r o x i m a t e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e n a t i o n a l leader's actions. T h u s , t h e ' h e l p ' t h a t n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s give t o n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s i s r a t h e r l i m i t e d . I t i s likely t o d e c r e a s e a s t i m e p a s s e s unless t h e s e l e a d e r s decide n o t to modify internal relationships within the nation, a posture that has been adopted by some African rulers. If they are managers or a d j u s t e r s , n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s a r e likely t o b e a c c e p t e d b y t h e l e a d e r s a n d m e m b e r s of the natural structures; they can then benefit, to an extent, f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l l o y a l t i e s . B u t , i f t h e y wish t o a c h i e v e m o r e a n d p u r s u e policies o f social c h a n g e , t h e y will b e h a m p e r e d b y t h e n a t u r a l structures. They need therefore to turn to other structures in order to find s u p p o r t . Man-made structures and the impact of leadership M o s t political structures, in the n a r r o w sense, are ' m a n - m a d e ' ; leaders a n d o t h e r p o l i t i c i a n s h a v e l o n g felt t h e n e e d t o b u i l d i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t will h e l p t h e m c o m e t o p o w e r a n d s t a y i n office. M a n - m a d e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f c o u r s e e x t e n d well b e y o n d t h e p o l i t i c a l a r e n a c o n c e i v e d i n t h e strict sense, but m a n y of these have also been conceived a n d used by politicians. T h u s o n e can distinguish between three b r o a d types of m a n m a d e s t r u c t u r e s : t h e f o r m a l political i n s t i t u t i o n s , s u c h a s a s s e m b l i e s , local g o v e r n m e n t s , courts a n d indeed national executives; t h e informal o r u n o f f i c i a l political b o d i e s , s u c h a s p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s ; a n d t h e o t h e r unofficial organizations that are connected with or play a m a j o r part in p o l i t i c a l life, such a s t r a d e u n i o n s , w o m e n ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n s , y o u t h o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d o t h e r interest g r o u p s . O f c o u r s e , t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e set u p w i t h a i m s t h a t a r e a p p r e c i a b l y b r o a d e r t h a n t h e p u r p o s e o f s u p p o r t i n g l e a d e r s o r even h e l p i n g t o r e c r u i t a political elite; i n d e e d , s o m e h a v e t h e specific a i m o f l i m i t i n g t h e s c o p e o f activity o f l e a d e r s a n d o f s u p e r v i s i n g t h e i r
176
activities. B u t , i n all c a s e s , a n d u n l i k e n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s , t h e y a r e t y p i c a l l y set up for a p u r p o s e f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t of o r g a n i z i n g t h e political s y s t e m a c c o r d i n g t o c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s , a s w i t h f o r m a l s t a t e institutions, or in order to defend a section of the c o m m u n i t y , as with interest g r o u p s . T h u s , these m a n - m a d e institutions experience s u p p o r t a n d l o y a l t y n o t b e c a u s e o f t h e e m o t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t m a y exist a m o n g the members, but because of the expectation that certain results will b e o b t a i n e d . T h e ties l i n k i n g m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s a n d t h e m a j o r i t y o f m e m b e r s a r e t h u s m o r e specific, m o r e i n s t r u m e n t a l a n d , consequently, often weaker. T h e distinction between natural a n d m a n - m a d e structures is n o t always as sharp, admittedly. Efforts are sometimes m a d e to c a p t u r e the p a t t e r n s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t exist w i t h i n n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s f o r t h e benefit o f n e w l y c r e a t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s . G r o u p s o r g a n i z e d for t h e d e f e n c e o f m i n o r i t i e s , for i n s t a n c e , a r e i n p a r t b a s e d o n t h e l o y a l t i e s t h a t exist naturally a m o n g those w h o belong to the same ethnic g r o u p ; voluntary organizations based on o n e church owe part of their g r o w t h a n d continued s u p p o r t to the underlying n a t u r a l loyalty existing a m o n g parts of the society to that religion. Political parties c a n benefit from a similar t r a n s f e r o f l o y a l t y f r o m t r i b a l , e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s o r c l a s s - b a s e d g r o u p s . S t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s h a v e a s i m i l a r b a s e , a s n a t i o n a l feelings a r e u s e d t o b o o s t s u p p o r t for t h e m a n - m a d e o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t e constitutes. T h e linkage between m a n - m a d e institutions which p r o m o t e goals a n d n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h result f r o m p a t t e r n s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s is neither universal nor complete, however. M a n y m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s c o r r e s p o n d o n l y p a r t l y t o p a t t e r n s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s , since t h e g o a l s t h e y p r o m o t e , for i n s t a n c e , c o v e r o n l y a s e c t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l group or, alternatively, extend beyond that g r o u p . This is often because the leaders of t h e m a n - m a d e structures aim at the s u p p o r t of a b r o a d e r segment of the p o p u l a t i o n , the natural structure providing a base that is numerically t o o small or geographically t o o circumscribed: religiousbased parties t h u s h a v e typically a t t e m p t e d to extend their influence b e y o n d t h e c o n f i n e s o f t h e faithful. M o r e g e n e r a l l y , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between natural a n d m a n - m a d e groups has tended to increase as the latter h a v e p r o m o t e d policies a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e w h o l e n a t i o n a n d n o t merely to o n e section. F o r m a n - m a d e g r o u p s a r e typically n a t i o n a l i n c h a r a c t e r , o r , i f t h e i r geographical coverage is limited to a region or district, they are n o n e the less c o n c e r n e d w i t h a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e division o f t h e s t a t e a n d t h e r e b y , indirectly, w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e s t a t e . T o t h i s e x t e n t , a s w a s p o i n t e d o u t i n t h e first s e c t i o n o f this c h a p t e r , m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e ' n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n ' o f politics a n d t h u s h e l p l e a d e r s t o combat the sectional tendencies that characterize n a t u r a l structures.
The
177
Consequently, however, m a n - m a d e institutions often m a y not acquire t h e s a m e s t r o n g l o y a l t y a s n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s ; i n a conflict b e t w e e n n a t u r a l a n d m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s , t h e r e f o r e , citizens m a y s u p p o r t m o r e strongly the natural structures t h a n those of the state, be they the f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s set u p b y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o r i n f o r m a l b o d i e s s u c h a s political p a r t i e s o r i n t e r e s t g r o u p s . T h e h e l p t h a t n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s receive f r o m m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s i s therefore dependent on the extent to which these structures are able to fight successfully a n d e v e n t u a l l y t o roll b a c k t h e n a t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s i n w h i c h p a t t e r n s o f l o y a l t y g o , a s w e s a w , t o chiefs a n d e l d e r s . I f this h a p p e n s , n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s will p r o f i t f r o m t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m a n m a d e s t r u c t u r e s , w h e t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b o d i e s such a s a s s e m b l i e s o r ' u n o f f i c i a l ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u c h as political p a r t i e s . T h e r e is a p r i c e to p a y , h o w e v e r , a s t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s a r e o f t e n set u p i n o r d e r t o restrict t h e p o w e r of leaders: representative assemblies m a y help to 'nationalize' p o l i t i c s , b u t t h e y a l s o a t t e m p t t o m a k e r u l e r s a c c o u n t a b l e ; political parties m a y help to provide leaders with a national following, but they a l s o o b l i g e t h e s e t o p a y a t t e n t i o n t o o t h e r influentials w i t h i n t h e p a r t y , r e g i o n a l l y a n d n a t i o n a l l y . T h e g a m e o f politics b e c o m e s m o r e n a t i o n a l ; it ceases to be based on traditional loyalties; but leaders b e c o m e the prisoners, so to speak, of the type of linkage created by the m a n - m a d e structures. T h u s , w h e n there is a streamlined two-party system, as in m a n y parts of the C o m m o n w e a l t h , national leaders m a y temporarily c o m m a n d great influence; but where multi-party systems prevail as in p a r t s o f c o n t i n e n t a l E u r o p e , n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s o f t e n h a v e little o r n o o p p o r t u n i t y to stand m a r k e d l y a b o v e those w h o are the decisionm a k e r s in each of these parties. The impact of leadership and the setting up of new structures by the leaders themselves T h e w i d e s p r e a d desire o f n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s t o a t t e m p t t o s u r m o u n t t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s l e a d s t h e m t o set u p n e w s t r u c t u r e s , ' p e r s o n a l i z e d ' political p a r t i e s for i n s t a n c e , w h i c h w o u l d b e a t t h e i r c o m m a n d . W e r e t h e y t o b e s u c c e s s f u l i n this e n t e r p r i s e , t h e y w o u l d b e a b l e t o c i r c u m v e n t t h e s e c t i o n a l effect o f t r a d i t i o n a l g r o u p s w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o e n d u r e t h e limiting consequences of established parties and powerful assemblies. B u t t h e t a s k i s difficult, for w h a t n e e d s t o b e d o n e i s t o e s t a b l i s h a p a r t y t h a t , t o g e t h e r with ancillary o r g a n i z a t i o n s , c a n c o m m a n d w i d e s p r e a d s u p p o r t i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d h e l p t o p r o v i d e effective b a c k i n g for t h e l e a d e r ' s policies. I n r e a l i t y , n e w o r g a n i z a t i o n s r u n t h e risk o f b e i n g m o r e f o r m a l t h a n r e a l ; t h e y m a y b e active a t t h e c e n t r e , b u t h a v e few ' f e e l e r s ' a t t h e p e r i p h e r y . T o m e e t this p r o b l e m , a u t h o r i t a r i a n m o n a r c h s o f t h e p a s t set up bureaucracies and implanted t h e m in the provinces, not just to
178
administer the country, but to counter the traditional support of the aristocracy. In the twentieth century the military has sometimes been u s e d for this p u r p o s e ; m o r e c o m m o n l y , single p a r t i e s h a v e b e e n v i e w e d as good instruments to reduce the p o w e r of traditional groups (tribal, e t h n i c o r religious) a n d t o m u z z l e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m e c h a n i s m s i n a d d i t i o n t o a n y ' m o d e r n ' g r o u p s w h i c h m i g h t restrict t h e p o w e r o f t h e l e a d e r ; for political p a r t i e s s e e m especially well s u i t e d t o d e v e l o p ramifications within the nation, at the workplace a n d within c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d t h u s t o h a r n e s s a l a r g e s u p p o r t for t h e n a t i o n a l leaders. T h e t e c h n i q u e o f t h e p e r s o n a l i z e d p a r t y h a s b e e n widely a d o p t e d ; i t has been particularly p o p u l a r in the post-independence period in Black A f r i c a . M i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h a v e a l s o s t a r t e d single p a r t i e s t o o v e r c o m e t h e limitations of the military as a m e a n s of providing a n d shaping support i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . B u t t h e success o f t h e s e v e n t u r e s h a s o f t e n b e e n s m a l l e r t h a n a n t i c i p a t e d . A p o p u l a r l e a d e r m a y u s e s o m e o f his o w n support to build a new party; but it is questionable whether he can then o b t a i n f r o m t h e p a r t y a d d e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o s t r e n g t h e n his i m p a c t . F o r t h e b u i l d - u p o f r e a l s u p p o r t for t h e p a r t y i s s l o w ; t h e e f f o r t m u s t b e sustained by large n u m b e r s of active followers. M a n y personalized political p a r t i e s o f t h e 1960s a n d 1970s h a v e fallen far s h o r t o f t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s : t h e y h a v e b e e n e m p t y shells o r a m e r e c o a t i n g o f t h e natural structures of tribes or ethnic g r o u p s . T h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s , b u t t h e s e c o r r e s p o n d t o cases w h e r e t h e p a r t y i s t r u l y a collective e n t e r p r i s e a n d t h e r e b y g o e s b e y o n d b e i n g of h e l p to the leader alone. This h a s been obviously the case with c o m m u n i s t parties. It is also the case with the Mexican P R I , which has substantially reduced, by i n c o r p o r a t i o n , the role of natural structures; but the P R I is not the ' p u p p e t ' of the Mexican president, w h o cannot use the o r g a n i z a t i o n a s a m e a n s exclusively d e v o t e d t o t h e p r o p a g a t i o n o f his g o a l s . O t h e r p e r s o n a l i z e d p a r t i e s h a v e f o l l o w e d t h e s a m e fate. T h e G a u l l i s t p a r t y i s n o l o n g e r t h e ' p o o d l e ' o f its l e a d e r ; t h e P e r u v i a n A P R A d i d n o t s u c c e e d i n e n a b l i n g its f o u n d e r t o c o m e t o t h e p r e s i d e n c y ; w h i l e t h e P e r o n i s t p a r t y i n A r g e n t i n a h a d g r e a t e r effect i n b r i n g i n g its f o u n d e r b a c k i n t o p o w e r t h a n i n h e l p i n g t o p r o p a g a t e policies w h e n h e w a s i n office. T h u s , w h i l e s t r u c t u r e s existing w i t h i n t h e c o m m u n i t y , b o t h n a t u r a l a n d m a n - m a d e , s i g n i f i c a n t l y h e l p rulers t o e s t a b l i s h t h e m s e l v e s a n d t o c h a n n e l s u p p o r t i n t h e n a t i o n , political p a r t i e s c r e a t e d b y a l e a d e r d e p e n d o n t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f this l e a d e r . T h e y o r c h e s t r a t e t h e f o u n d e r ' s voice, b u t o n l y i f t h e f o u n d e r i s p r e p a r e d t o give t h e p a r t y a l a r g e b a s e a n d s h a r e w i t h h i s o r h e r followers s o m e o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s . T h e effect o f t h e n e w s t r u c t u r e s i s t h u s neither m i r a c u l o u s n o r solely for t h e l e a d e r ' s b e n e f i t . N e w p a r t i e s m a y h e l p t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e political
179
system, to reduce t h e weight of natural structures or to modify the configuration of m a n - m a d e structures: to this extent, they m a y be valuable a n d indeed i m p o r t a n t . But they usually take t o o long to m a t u r e to be of significant help to the founder. By helping to build t h e m , leaders m a y m a k e an i m p o r t a n t contribution to the characteristics of leadership in the country in future generations; they rarely m a k e a very large contribution to their o w n support, which must a l r e a d y b e l a r g e i f t h e p a r t y i s t o h a v e a real c h a n c e o f s u r v i v a l . I n matters of institutional creation and development, there are no m o r e s h o r t - c u t s t h a n i n m a t t e r s o f social d e v e l o p m e n t i n g e n e r a l : p a p e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s deceive o n l y t h o s e w h o wish t o b e d e c e i v e d .
Conclusion
T h e p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s i s m a r k e d l y affected b y i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s ; b u t , because of the diverse ways in which this influence o c c u r s , r u l e r s a r e r a r e l y a b l e to b e n e f i t fully a n d exclusively f r o m a set of advantages without being constrained in a n u m b e r of directions. We e x a m i n e d t h e s e effects a t f o u r levels: t h e p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n , t h e e n t o u r a g e , t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , a n d t h e citizenry. I n all cases t h e r e w e r e c o s t s a s well a s b e n e f i t s , a n d t h e s e c a m e f r o m m a n - m a d e a r r a n g e m e n t s a s well a s f r o m n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t s . L e a d e r s m a y t r y t o i m p r o v e their position by setting up new structures; b u t they c a n n o t ensure t h a t their o r g a n i z a t i o n s will b e sufficiently lively t o h e l p t h e m m a r k e d l y . T h e y n e e d t o h a v e a l a r g e p e r s o n a l f o l l o w i n g t o l a u n c h a political p a r t y o r i n c r e a s e t h e effectiveness o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , for i n s t a n c e ; a n d i t i s n o t clear t h a t t h e y g a i n m a r k e d l y , i n t h e s h o r t t e r m a t least, b y h a v i n g set u p that party or expanded administrative structures. W e c a n n o t o f c o u r s e m e a s u r e t h e c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s precisely; b u t a n i m p r e s s i o n c a n b e g i v e n , i f n o t for i n d i v i d u a l r u l e r s , a t least for t h e m a i n t y p e s o f l e a d e r s h i p a r r a n g e m e n t s t h a t exist i n t h e w o r l d t o d a y . T h e s e fall b r o a d l y i n t o six c a t e g o r i e s : t r a d i t i o n a l m o n a r c h i e s , a u t h o r i t a r i a n civilian p r e s i d e n c i e s , m i l i t a r y p r e s i d e n c i e s , c o m m u n i s t systems, constitutional presidencies, and parliamentary-prime m i n i s t e r i a l g o v e r n m e n t s . I n t h e first t h r e e o f t h e s e s y s t e m s l e a d e r s h a v e considerable personal scope of action a n d , by and large, considerable scope to a p p o i n t the m e m b e r s of their entourage; but they usually r e c e i v e l i m i t e d h e l p f r o m t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a n d often a r e h a m p e r e d b y the strength of the 'natural' structures the traditional tribal, ethnic or religious groupings although, especially in authoritarian p r e s i d e n c i e s , single p a r t i e s a r e o f t e n set u p b y t h e l e a d e r a n d m a y , i n some circumstances, provide some extra support. In communist s y s t e m s l e a d e r s m a y (typically) b e a b l e t o c o u n t o n l o n g t e n u r e , b u t t h e i r p o w e r t o a p p o i n t their e n t o u r a g e i s relatively l i m i t e d ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y receive m u c h s u p p o r t f r o m t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a n d
180
considerable help from the party. In Western systems, t o o , the bureaucracy is usually a strong i n s t r u m e n t at the disposal of leaders, a n d , m o r e than occasionally, so is the d o m i n a n t party, t h o u g h there are also m a n y instances of weak or sharply divided parties. By a n d large, h o w e v e r , l e a d e r s o f t e n h a v e l i m i t e d c o n t r o l o n t h e selection o f t h e i r e n t o u r a g e , except i n s o m e p r e s i d e n t i a l s y s t e m s a n d especially i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ; a n d their p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n i s less secure t h a n i n m o s t other regimes, t h o u g h there are variations, a n d some prime ministerial systems have provided p r i m e ministers with considerable personal s u p p o r t . T h u s , g a i n s a n d losses a m o n g v a r i o u s types o f l e a d e r s i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y world c o m p e n s a t e each other to an extent; types of costs a n d types o f b e n e f i t s differ f r o m o n e r e g i m e t o a n o t h e r , b u t t h e o v e r a l l b a l a n c e sheet m a y n o t b e v e r y d i f f e r e n t . T h e r e are considerable variations in individual cases, however, as t h e r e a r e special c i r c u m s t a n c e s in a p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t r y , for i n s t a n c e if p a r t i e s a r e well o r g a n i z e d b u t s h a r p l y d i v i d e d ; e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s a l s o p l a y a p a r t in e n h a n c i n g , if o n l y for a t i m e , t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e l e a d e r vis-a-vis the nation, the bureaucracy or the entourage; and some leaders, especially t h e f o u n d e r s o f states b u t o c c a s i o n a l l y o t h e r s , m a y b e i n a p o s i t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t will i n t u r n h e l p t h e m t o i n c r e a s e their i m p a c t o n society a n d i n d e e d t h e i m p a c t o f t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s a l s o . I n mentioning these cases, however, we are beginning to m o v e from the specific r o l e o f p o s i t i o n t o o n e i n w h i c h p e r s o n a l i t y i s a d d e d t o p o s i t i o n t o p r o d u c e a n o v e r a l l effect. S o m e l e a d e r s a r e a b l e t o u s e t h e i r o w n skills a n d p o p u l a r i t y t o b u i l d i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h m a y h e l p t o s t r e n g t h e n their r o l e i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t years o f t h e i r t e n u r e ; o t h e r l e a d e r s d o n o t h a v e s t r o n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l . T h e differences a m o n g the majority of leaders are perhaps smaller t h a n might have been e x p e c t e d , p a r t l y b e c a u s e t h e ' m i x ' o f r e s o u r c e s t h a t l e a d e r s receive i s s o v a r i e d t h a t o n e c a n e n j o y a n a d v a n t a g e o n o n e a s p e c t a n d a loss o n a n o t h e r . S u b s t a n t i a l l y m o r e analysis i s r e q u i r e d o n t h i s p o i n t ; b u t i f o n e excludes t h e c a s e s a t b o t h e x t r e m e s , w h e r e all t h e s t r u c t u r e s c o m b i n e t o h e l p l e a d e r s o r h a m p e r t h e i r activities, m a n y r u l e r s a t least a p p e a r endowed with a n u m b e r of institutional 'talents', a n d it is up to t h e m , w i t h their p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s , t o m a k e t h e s e t a l e n t s fructify.
6 The future of the study of political leadership

T h r o u g h o u t this s t u d y , we h a v e felt t h e n e e d for a m o r e precise assessm e n t o f t h e characteristics o f n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s h i p . W e f o u n d t h a t t h e j u d g e m e n t s p a s s e d a r e often v a g u e a n d t h e evidence inconclusive. T h i s vagueness a n d inconclusiveness fuel controversies of principle, such a s t h o s e relating t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r leaders m a k e a difference. Intuitively, it w o u l d s e e m t h a t t h e r e a r e c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n s , f r o m s o m e rulers w h o leave a l m o s t n o m a r k a t all t o m a n y w h o h a v e s o m e effect, a n d a few w h o alter society to a very large degree. Yet it seems difficult t o p r o g r e s s f r o m these i m p r e s s i o n s t o h a r d evidence: t h e i n d i c a t o r s t h a t w e m i g h t use a r e s o m e w h a t imprecise, a n d o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n seems c o n s e q u e n t l y difficult. P a r t o f t h e p r o b l e m p o s e d b y t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f l e a d e r s h i p stems f r o m the need to improve the conceptualization of the problem. T h e main p u r p o s e o f this b o o k h a s b e e n t o l o o k m o r e closely a t these q u e s t i o n s i n o r d e r t o identify t h e e l e m e n t s o n which a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d b e focused i f o n e is to assess political l e a d e r s h i p . Given t h a t w h a t is essential is to d e t e r m i n e t h e p a r t t h a t leaders p l a y , t h e f i r s t p r i o r i t y m u s t b e t o discover variables b y which t o c o m p a r e b o t h t h e a c t i o n s o f leaders a n d t h e r e a c t i o n s o f society; a n effort h a s t h e n t o b e m a d e t o distinguish t h e p a r t played b y p e r s o n a l factors f r o m t h a t p l a y e d b y t h e s t r u c t u r a l resources a t t h e d i s p o s a l of r u l e r s . W h a t a close e x a m i n a t i o n suggests is t h a t t h e r e a r e i n d e e d w a y s o f describing t h e i m p a c t o f leaders i n s o m e detail a n d t h a t t h e r e a r e also w a y s b y w h i c h p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t s c a n b e listed a n d classified. U l t i m a t e l y , h o w e v e r , t h e assessment h a s t o b e m o r e precise. W e n e e d t o d o m o r e t h a n discover w h a t t h e i m p a c t might b e , o r w h a t influence s o m e p e r s o n a l i t y traits or s o m e i n s t i t u t i o n a l factors might have: we n e e d t o b e able t o m e a s u r e w h a t this i m p a c t i s i n c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s , a n d h o w different factors do interplay in t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t of given sets of l e a d e r s . But such a m e a s u r e m e n t c a n be u n d e r t a k e n o n l y if t h e variables t h a t a r e t o b e m e a s u r e d a r e a m e n a b l e t o precise o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . T h i s i s likely t o o c c u r t o a n extent; i n d e e d , o n s o m e aspects, i t h a s a l r e a d y been d o n e . In o t h e r respects, h o w e v e r , p r o g r e s s is likely to be slow, as s u b s t a n t i a l efforts need t o b e m a d e t o discover n e w variables t h a t a r e a m e n a b l e t o better m e a s u r e m e n t .
The aspects of leadership that are measurable and, to an extent, already quantified
If we c o n s i d e r t h e field of l e a d e r s h i p en b l o c , it m a y seem Utopian to assert t h a t m e a s u r e m e n t i s possible. T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n a l y s e s , o r a t
182
least t h o s e t h a t a r e best k n o w n , t e n d t o b e qualitative; they a r e d e v o t e d p r i m a r i l y t o general c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t h e characteristics o f l e a d e r s h i p o r to a description of individual cases of (usually o u t s t a n d i n g ) l e a d e r s . A precise m e a s u r e m e n t seems, a t best, r e m o t e . T h i s is of c o u r s e a valid c o n c l u s i o n , b u t o n l y in so far as we c o n s i d e r t h e field of leadership as a w h o l e . In o r d e r to e x a m i n e t h e p r o b l e m in its m o s t general m a n n e r , w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d first i n s o m e detail t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e possible i m p a c t t h a t leaders c a n m a k e , since only i f leaders c a n b e expected t o m a k e s o m e i m p a c t i s i t m e a n i n g f u l t o e x a m i n e t h e p r o b l e m o f l e a d e r s h i p a t all. W e n o t i c e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e m e t h o d s t h a t m i g h t result i n a m o r e precise assessment t h a n c u r r e n t l y a p p e a r s possible, b u t w e a l s o recognized t h a t t h e t a s k w a s c o m p l e x . As t h e r e seemed to be a p r i m a facie case for c o n c l u d i n g t h a t leaders, a s a c a t e g o r y , d o m a k e s o m e i m p a c t , even if this i m p a c t is n o t as large as is s o m e t i m e s believed, we p r o c e e d e d t o consider its o r i g i n s . W e f o u n d t h a t p e r s o n a l characteristics h a d b e g u n t o b e e x p l o r e d , t h a t t h e y c o u l d b e (to a n extent) classified, b u t t h a t , s o far, t h e r e h a d been relatively few a t t e m p t s t o g o b e y o n d classification, a t least with respect t o n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s h i p . Similarly, w e f o u n d t h a t leaders h a d institutional a n d o t h e r s t r u c t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d h a n d i c a p s . It w a s possible to list m a n y of these, b u t it seemed also t h a t t h e s e institutional a n d s t r u c t u r a l i n s t r u m e n t s h a d n o t been e x a m i n e d closely with a view to assessing h o w m u c h these h e l p e d or h a m p e r e d l e a d e r s ; t h e general direction o f their i m p a c t c o u l d b e a s c e r t a i n e d , b u t t h e precise effect o f each o f t h e m , o r even o f m o s t o f t h e m , r e m a i n s a t best vaguely perceived. Yet, if, instead of l o o k i n g en bloc at these t h r e e p r o b l e m s of i m p a c t , p e r s o n a l variables, a n d institutional i n s t r u m e n t s , w e c o n s i d e r t h e aspects o f each o f t h e m s e p a r a t e l y , s o m e m e a s u r e m e n t seems possible a n d i s even a l r e a d y i n c o m m o n u s e . Institutional variables m a y b e h a r d t o m e a s u r e i n g e n e r a l , b u t t h e d u r a t i o n of leaders in office is intrinsically a n d readily m e a s u r a b l e ; t h e p e r s o n a l variables t h a t relate t o social b a c k g r o u n d a n d career a n d even s o m e o f t h o s e t h a t relate t o p e r s o n a l i t y c a n also b e assessed precisely. A n d , if t h e i m p a c t of leaders seems in general difficult t o m e a s u r e , o n e c o r n e r o f t h e p r o b l e m t h a t o f t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f rulers is k n o w n with g r e a t precision in s o m e c o u n t r i e s . The role of structures and the question of the duration of leaders A m o n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s a t t h e disposal o f l e a d e r s , t h e strength o f t h e p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n is, a s w e saw, a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r . D u r a t i o n i n office is an e l e m e n t of t h e p e r s o n a l position; w h e t h e r this d u r a t i o n is p r e d e t e r m i n e d o r i n d e t e r m i n a t e can b e significant, t h o u g h b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s affect m a r k e d l y , a s w e also saw, t h e legal a r r a n g e m e n t s . T h u s expectations of d u r a t i o n in office a r e p e r h a p s t h e m o s t significant v a r i a b l e : t h e y affect l e a d e r s , politicians a n d t h e p u b l i c a t large. Italian o r
The future study ofpolitical leadership
183
J a p a n e s e p r i m e m i n i s t e r s a r e unlikely t o o p e r a t e o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e i r t e n u r e will e x t e n d b e y o n d a few y e a r s , w h e r e a s British, Swedish or W e s t G e r m a n l e a d e r s c a n expect t o b e c o n s t r a i n e d m a i n l y i f n o t o n l y b y u n f a v o u r a b l e election results, w h i c h t h e y will e n d e a v o u r t o c o u n t e r , a n d c o m m u n i s t p a r t y secretaries c a n p r o b a b l y c o u n t o n being i n office for a t l e a s t a d e c a d e a n d possibly for life. E x p e c t a t i o n s o f d u r a t i o n exist also i n c o u n t r i e s w h o s e political i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e less s t a b l e . I n t h e T h i r d W o r l d , while f o u n d e r s o f states n o r m a l l y c o u l d c o u n t o n staying i n office for p e r i o d s a s l o n g a s t h o s e e n j o y e d b y c o m m u n i s t l e a d e r s , s e c o n d - g e n e r a t i o n leaders a r e n o t s o f o r t u n a t e ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , b e c a u s e o f military c o u p s , rulers rarely stay i n o f f i c e f o r m o r e t h a n a few y e a r s . I n d e e d , e x p e c t a t i o n s c a n also be d i f f e r e n t f r o m legal d u r a t i o n even w h e r e leaders a r e elected for a fixed t e r m , especially i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l presidencies. I n m a n y L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s , a s w e s a w , p r e s i d e n t s often h a v e t o resign o r a r e dismissed b e f o r e t h e e n d o f their legal t e r m . O f c o u r s e , d u r a t i o n i s o n l y o n e v a r i a b l e a m o n g o t h e r s with which t o m e a s u r e t h e institutional r e s o u r c e s a t t h e disposal o f leaders. B u t i t i s a n i m p o r t a n t o n e , a s i s s h o w n b y t h e efforts m a d e b y t h o s e w h o d r a f t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n s either t o r e d u c e d u r a t i o n , a s i n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y A m e r i c a , s o a s t o d i m i n i s h t h e p o w e r o f t h e chief executive, o r o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t o extend tenure, as in mid-twentieth-century Germany and France, in order t o g i v e l e a d e r s a leverage t h e y did n o t h a v e u n d e r preceding p e r i o d s o f d e m o c r a t i c rule. T h i s variable is obviously eminently quantifiable, and it therefore can g i v e a p r e c i s e assessment of t h e realistic e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t leaders c a n h a v e in a v a r i e t y of c o u n t r i e s . Yet so far, few a t t e m p t s h a v e b e e n m a d e to e x p l o i t t h i s i n d i c a t o r t o t h e full. T h e analysis o f l e a d e r s h i p h a s t e n d e d t o be c o n d u c t e d as if d u r a t i o n in office w e r e indefinite, or as if t h e r e w e r e no t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s placed o n great n u m b e r s o f l e a d e r s . T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n p e r m i s s i b l e as l o n g as t h e analysis w a s b a s e d on regimes in which m o n a r c h s w e r e h e r e d i t a r y a n d stayed i n p o w e r until t h e e n d o f their lives. S i n c e , h o w e v e r , h e r e d i t a r y m o n a r c h y h a s r e m a i n e d relatively w i d e s p r e a d o n l y b e c a u s e t h e large m a j o r i t y o f t h e m o n a r c h s h a v e b e c o m e s y m b o l i c , a n d s i n c e m o s t o f t h e o t h e r leaders w h o a r e formally a p p o i n t e d for i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d s c a n n o t stay in office for m o r e t h a n a few y e a r s , q u e s t i o n s o f d u r a t i o n , a n d o f e x p e c t a t i o n s o f d u r a t i o n , a r e highly r e l e v a n t a n d deserve t o b e explored fully. O n o t h e r a s p e c t s o f t h e institutional s u p p o r t o f l e a d e r s h i p , a d m i t t e d l y , a p r e c i s e m e a s u r e m e n t is m o r e difficult. Yet, t h r e e possible i m p r o v e m e n t s c a n b e m a d e . First, i n f o r m a t i o n i s available o r c a n easily b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e o n t h e extent t o w h i c h o t h e r s , besides t h e l e a d e r , p a r t i c i p a t e effectively in policy e l a b o r a t i o n . T h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e o p e r a t i o n o f ' s h a r e d ' o r ' d u a l ' leadership s y s t e m s ,
184
in w h i c h a president (or p a r t y s e c r e t a r y in c o m m u n i s t states) delegates to a p r i m e minister a segment of t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect t o internal m a t t e r s . T h e t e c h n i q u e s o f m e a s u r e m e n t t h a t w e h a v e a t o u r disposal m a y n o t e n a b l e u s t o locate t h e d u a l - l e a d e r s h i p systems precisely on a c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n r a n g i n g f r o m a l l - p o w e r - t o the-president to a l l - p o w e r - t o - t h e - p r i m e - m i n i s t e r , b u t it is at least possible t o divide s h a r e d executives i n t o f o u r o r five t y p e s , d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o w e r s leaves a l m o s t all, a m a j o r i t y , a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n , little, o r very little o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t o t h e ' s e c o n d - t i e r ' leader. Given t h a t v a r i a t i o n s o v e r t i m e c a n easily be p l o t t e d , it is possible also to see h o w far c h a n g e s in this d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o w e r a p p e a r to affect t h e i m p a c t o f t h e t o p leader a n d i n d e e d o f t h e w h o l e l e a d e r s h i p 'duumvirate'. A b o u t t h e s a m e level o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s available with respect t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e leader a n d t h e ' e n t o u r a g e ' , especially t h e c a b i n e t . W e still d o n o t k n o w t h e extent t o w h i c h cabinets a r e collective o r hierarchical so as to be able to plot each of t h e m , at v a r i o u s p o i n t s in t i m e , on a c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n ; b u t we do k n o w w h e t h e r a given c a b i n e t is fully hierarchical, fully collective, or l o c a t e d on at least o n e of t h r e e o t h e r p o i n t s o n this d i m e n s i o n . W e c a n , m o r e o v e r , assess w h e t h e r t h e p o s i t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r c a b i n e t - l e a d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p (near-hierarchical, n e a r collective, o r i n t e r m e d i a t e ) h a s v a r i e d : w e c a n t h e r e f o r e , a s with s h a r e d l e a d e r s h i p , assess to w h a t extent t h e i m p a c t of leaders at a given p o i n t in t i m e a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n affected b y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c a b i n e t a n d ruler. We n o t e d in C h a p t e r 5 t h a t , as a m a t t e r of fact, t h e v a r i a t i o n s m a y be r e d u c e d s o m e w h a t as a result of t h e n e e d t h a t leaders experience t o a p p o i n t s u b o r d i n a t e s t o fulfil specific essential c o n d i t i o n s , for instance s u b o r d i n a t e s w h o h a v e technical c o m p e t e n c e . A s i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f leaders i s available, a n d a s similar i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e o b t a i n e d o n t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f ministers a n d o t h e r m e m b e r s o f t h e ' e n t o u r a g e ' , it is possible to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t e c h n i c a l c o m p e t e n c e a n d hierarchical o r collective g o v e r n m e n t ; o n e c a n also s u b s e q u e n t l y d e t e r m i n e w h a t effect, i f a n y , these t w o variables h a v e j o i n t l y o n t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s . T h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o m e a s u r e precisely t h e role o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a r e a p p r e c i a b l y m o r e limited. It is still impossible to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e on a w o r l d - w i d e basis t h e relevant characteristics of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bodies c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e p e r s o n n e l , o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t s , linkage with t h e g o v e r n m e n t , l i n k a g e with t h e p o p u l a t i o n n o t because such characteristics c a n n o t b e , i n principle, described precisely, b u t because i n f o r m a t i o n on m o s t of these aspects is still t o o scarce with respect to t h e large m a j o r i t y o f c o u n t r i e s . T h e m o s t t h a t c a n b e h o p e d for a t this p o i n t i s to elaborate a n u m b e r of dichotomies. T h e r e i s b e t t e r w o r l d - w i d e i n f o r m a t i o n o n s o m e a t least o f t h e political
The
future
study
ofpolitical
leadership
185
structures linking l e a d e r s t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n : a m o r e precise m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e role o f these s t r u c t u r e s c a n t h e r e f o r e b e a t t e m p t e d , t h o u g h t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e n e t w o r k i s such t h a t m a n y o f t h e ' m e a s u r e m e n t s ' a r e likely t o b e t e n t a t i v e . T h e b e s t - k n o w n s t r u c t u r e s a r e , o f c o u r s e , t h e political p a r t i e s . It is p o s s i b l e to assess t h e effect of t h e p a r t y system a n d t h e r e f o r e t o p r o v i d e d i s t i n c t i o n s a b o u t t h e extent t o which b o t h t h e system a s a w h o l e a n d o n e p a r t y i n p a r t i c u l a r h e l p leaders t o m a k e their goals better k n o w n a n d m o r e a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n . O n e c a n also distinguish a m o n g s y s t e m s w i t h o u t p a r t i e s , systems w h e r e parties a r e w e a k , a n d systems i n w h i c h parties a r e truly significant i n s t i t u t i o n s ; o n e c a n e v a l u a t e , in t h e case of a single-party system, w h e t h e r t h a t p a r t y is b o t h effective a n d principally a t t h e disposal o f t h e leader, a n d , i n t h e case o f systems o f m o r e t h a n o n e p a r t y , w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a d o m i n a n t p a r t y o n w h i c h t h e leader c a n rely or w h e t h e r fractionalization is such t h a t t h e r e is little h o p e for t h e leader t o c o u n t o n being able t o use t h e p a r t y t o exercise significant influence. It is n o t possible at this stage to r a n k c o u n t r i e s by m e a n s of a precise m e a s u r e m e n t ; b u t o n e c a n at least identify a n u m b e r of discrete p o i n t s at which t h e v a r i o u s political systems can be l o c a t e d on a d i m e n s i o n r a n g i n g f r o m ' n o h e l p ' t o ' s u b s t a n t i a l h e l p ' being p r o v i d e d t o t h e leader b y t h e political p a r t y . I t i s m o r e difficult t o assess t h e role o f o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s , b o t h b e c a u s e their characteristics a r e often less well k n o w n a n d b e c a u s e t h e w a y in which t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s s h o u l d b e viewed a s alternative o r c o m p l e m e n t a r y to e a c h o t h e r h a s n o t been a n a l y s e d , let a l o n e m e a s u r e d . It is n o t clear, for i n s t a n c e , w h e t h e r a t r i b e h a s m o r e effect t h a n an ethnic or a religious g r o u p , or t h a n t h e military o r , i n d e e d , a political p a r t y . But it is at least possible t o assess i n b r o a d t e r m s t h e extent t o which ' n a t u r a l ' s t r u c t u r e s p l a y a p a r t in t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of influence across t h e c o u n t r y . It is also possible to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m i l i t a r y , w h e r e it plays a significant p a r t , e x t e n d s widely across t h e n a t i o n or is c o n c e n t r a t e d p r i m a r i l y in t h e c a p i t a l a n d a few o t h e r cities. T h e s e a s s e s s m e n t s c a n at least lead to t h r e e - or f o u r - p o i n t scalings. M o r e o v e r , i t m a y even b e w o r t h w h i l e t o a t t e m p t t o e l a b o r a t e a c o m p o u n d i n d e x w h i c h w o u l d t a k e into a c c o u n t ' n a t u r a l ' s t r u c t u r e s , parties a n d t h e m i l i t a r y . R a n k i n g s o n such a n index c o u l d t h e n b e related t o t h e i m p a c t t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e o n society. A n y c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t w o u l d b e d r a w n f r o m such a n analysis w o u l d manifestly b e t e n t a t i v e ; b u t even such t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s w o u l d constitute a sizeable i m p r o v e m e n t o v e r t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f k n o w l e d g e i n t h e field. T h e s e efforts w o u l d also u n d o u b t e d l y c o n s t i t u t e a s p u r for further efforts t o w a r d s t h e e l a b o r a t i o n of classifications a n d r a n k i n g s which w o u l d g r a d u a l l y p r o v i d e a precise p i c t u r e o f t h e e x t e n t t o which political s t r u c t u r e s h e l p leaders t o m a k e a n i m p a c t o n their societies.
186
The role of personal variables and the assessment of the background of leaders A n o t h e r set of eminently m e a s u r a b l e variables is c o n s t i t u t e d by t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f leaders, which relates n o t o n l y t o sex, a g e , e d u c a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l , religious a n d o c c u p a t i o n a l characteristics, b u t also t o m o r e specifically political i n d i c a t o r s s u c h as p a r t y political affiliation or p a r l i a m e n t a r y career. A s s u m i n g t h a t w e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r certain psychological traits result in certain t y p e s of l e a d e r s h i p , a n d w h e t h e r these psychological traits a r e m o r e likely t o b e f o u n d a m o n g p e o p l e , say, o f a certain age o r social milieu, w e c a n n o t k n o w w h e t h e r t h e p e r s o n s w h o h a v e this t y p e of b a c k g r o u n d b e c o m e leaders because of certain psychological characteristics; b u t w e c a n a t least k n o w w h e t h e r o r n o t these leaders t u r n o u t t o h a v e certain l e a d e r s h i p characteristics. W e m a y n o t k n o w , for i n s t a n c e , w h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l effect age m a y h a v e ; b u t it is n o t irrelevant t o learn w h e t h e r l e a d e r s w h o c o m e t o p o w e r a t a certain a g e h a v e certain characteristics in c o m m o n as l e a d e r s . Is it t h e case, for e x a m p l e , t h a t , b e c a u s e c o m m u n i s t rulers t e n d t o b e old a n d t o stay i n office for a l o n g t i m e (indeed, often after a l o n g p e r i o d of p r e p a r a t i o n n e a r t h e t o p ) , their l e a d e r s h i p i s t h e r e b y affected? T h e r e a r e e n o u g h cases o f old rulers a c r o s s t h e w o r l d t o e n a b l e u s t o ascertain t h e possible effect o f age o n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f l e a d e r s h i p . W h a t h a s b e e n missing so far is a systematic d o c u m e n t a t i o n of social b a c k g r o u n d variables with respect t o leaders a n d g o v e r n m e n t m i n i s t e r s . T h e d a t a t h a t h a v e been collected s h o w t h a t l e a d e r s a r e a l m o s t exclusively m a l e , m o s t l y middle-class a n d m o s t l y well-educated (Blondel, 1980: 1 1 5 - 3 4 ) . F i n e r a n a l y s e s , b a s e d on a m o r e precise d o c u m e n t a t i o n a n d a m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d a t a , w o u l d m a k e i t possible t o follow closely t h e different types o f career p a t h s , a n d w o u l d h e l p t o relate these p e r s o n a l characteristics t o t h e activities o f l e a d e r s . T h e analysis o f p e r s o n a l i t y factors i s m o r e difficult t o u n d e r t a k e , a s i m p r o v e m e n t s d e p e n d largely on d e v e l o p m e n t s in t h e field of psychological a n a l y s i s . B u t t w o aspects c a n a l r e a d y b e s t u d i e d . First, further a d v a n c e s c a n b e m a d e with respect t o exceptional a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , r e v o l u t i o n a r y leaders. T h e studies o f Rejai a n d Phillips (1979, 1983) s h o w t h a t it is possible to d o c u m e n t a n u m b e r of ' t r a i t s ' of these ' e x c e p t i o n a l ' l e a d e r s . F o r these at least, it is t h e r e f o r e b e c o m i n g possible to d e t e r m i n e p s y c h o l o g i c a l characteristics w i t h precision a n d in a c o m p a r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k ; it is c o n s e q u e n t l y b e c o m i n g possible to assess b o t h t h e r o l e o f b a c k g r o u n d o n psychological characteristics a n d t h e influence o f t h e s e psychological characteristics o n t h e i m p a c t t h a t ' e x c e p t i o n a l ' l e a d e r s a r e f o u n d t o h a v e o n their societies. S e c o n d , p r o g r e s s c a n also be m a d e , this t i m e for all types of leaders, a l o n g t h e lines o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f B a r b e r (1977) a n d H e a d y (1974). C o n t e m p o r a r y l e a d e r s can be classified a c c o r d i n g to a n u m b e r of
The
future
study
ofpolitical
leadership
187
i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s , s u c h a s e n e r g y , intelligence o r t h e ability t o h a n d l e s u b o r d i n a t e s a n d t o b e a p p r e c i a t e d b y t h e p o p u l a t i o n . T h e result m a y n o t be a c o m p l e x scaling, b u t s o m e g r o u p i n g s at least c a n be achieved a n d it m a y b e possible t o d e t e r m i n e t h e role o f ' a c t i v i s m ' , o r o f a ' p o s i t i v e ' orient a t i o n a m o n g l e a d e r s . A l t h o u g h t h e distinctions a r e still r a t h e r c r u d e , t h e y t h r o w s o m e light o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r s o n a l i t y a n d l e a d e r s ' backgrounds a n d they provide indications of the relationship between the p e r s o n a l i t y o f l e a d e r s a n d t h e i m p a c t o f these leaders o n society. I t will, for i n s t a n c e , b e possible t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r ' m a n a g e r s ' t e n d t o h a v e different psychological characteristics f r o m leaders w h o p u r s u e o t h e r types o f g o a l s , a n d w h e t h e r ' c a u t i o u s ' l e a d e r s , t h a t i s t o say, leaders w h o wish t o achieve less t h a n society w o u l d wish t h e m t o d o , differ f r o m ' a m b i t i o u s ' rulers t h o s e w h o wish to achieve m o r e t h a n society w o u l d wish t h e m t o b e c a u s e o f t h e characteristics o f their psychological m a k e - u p .
The impact of leaders and the assessment of popularity and popular demands T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , little v a l u e i n a t t e m p t i n g t o m e a s u r e e v e n o n e i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f t h e p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a d e r s a n d t h e instit u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k w i t h i n w h i c h t h e s e l e a d e r s o p e r a t e i f it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o m e a s u r e a l s o t h e i m p a c t o f t h e s e l e a d e r s . H e r e t o o , h o w e v e r , a precise a s s e s s m e n t c a n b e m a d e , for s o m e c o u n t r i e s a t least, i n t w o i m p o r t a n t respects: the popularity of leaders a m o n g the population, and the a t t i t u d e s o f citizens t o v a r i o u s issues. P o p u l a r i t y i s different f r o m i m p a c t , to be s u r e . It is a c o m p o u n d index w h i c h r e s u l t s f r o m policies a n d i m a g e s , f r o m e x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l activities, f r o m style a s well a s c o n t e n t . B u t p o p u l a r i t y d o e s t a k e g o a l s i n t o a c c o u n t , even if t h e s e a r e d i f f r a c t e d in a peculiar m a n n e r . Moreover, as popularity can be examined in conj u n c t i o n w i t h p o p u l a r s t a n d p o i n t s o n issues, o n e c a n begin t o d i s c o v e r elements of the relationship between the perceived characteristics of l e a d e r s a n d societal d e m a n d s . W h e n l e a d e r s a r e p o p u l a r , o n e c a n assess t h e extent t o which societal d e m a n d s c o r r e s p o n d t o this p o p u l a r i t y ; w h e n t h e y a r e n o t , o n e c a n assess t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e leaders' characteristics and the d e m a n d s that the p o p u l a t i o n wishes to press for. There are geographical limitations to these analyses, admittedly. First, only in those countries where opinion polls are conducted a n d published c a n l e a d e r p o p u l a r i t y a n d p o p u l a r d e m a n d s b e assessed w i t h p r e c i s i o n . B u t it is no l o n g e r t h e case t h a t o n l y a few c o u n t r i e s h a v e p u b l i c o p i n i o n polls, a l t h o u g h t h e countries w h e r e t h e s e a r e c o n d u c t e d a r e d r a w n d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y f r o m a m o n g t h e h i g h l y i n d u s t r i a l a n d m o s t liberal. T h e q u a l i t y , a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e reliability, o f t h e m a t e r i a l also v a r i e s , t h o u g h i t h a s m a n i f e s t l y i m p r o v e d o v e r t h e last d e c a d e s . It is highly likely t h a t t h e
188
n u m b e r of c o u n t r i e s in which p o l l i n g t a k e s place regularly will increase g r a d u a l l y ; it a l r e a d y includes, a l o n g s i d e W e s t e r n liberal d e m o c r a c i e s , m a n y Latin American and South a n d South East Asian nations. It is t h e r e f o r e possible t o m e a s u r e w i t h p r e c i s i o n levels o f p o p u l a r i t y a n d t y p e s o f societal d e m a n d s , t o discover v a r i a t i o n s over t i m e , a n d t h u s t o c o m p a r e curves o f success o r failure a m o n g public o p i n i o n o f m a n y l e a d e r s in liberal d e m o c r a c i e s a n d at least a substantial n u m b e r of T h i r d W o r l d polities. O n e c a n g o further, m o r e o v e r . M u c h i n f o r m a t i o n could b e o b t a i n e d i f a sustained effort w e r e u n d e r t a k e n . To b e g i n w i t h , t h e r e is i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e goals o f m o s t l e a d e r s . S o u r c e s o f v a r i o u s k i n d s tell u s w h a t these leaders wish t o d o a n d t o w h a t extent t h e y a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o i m p l e m e n t their p r o g r a m m e s . T h i s i s t r u e for t h e l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f c o u n t r i e s . I n fact, t h e cases a b o u t which little i n f o r m a t i o n exists a r e confined t o t w o t y p e s o f s i t u a t i o n s : t h o s e o f t r a n s i e n t l e a d e r s , w h o e m e r g e r a t h e r frequently i n s o m e c o u n t r i e s , especially i n L a t i n A m e r i c a , a n d t h o s e o f l e a d e r s o f closed c o u n t r i e s , which a r e typically small a n d very t r a d i t i o n a l , t h o u g h s o m e c o m m u n i s t c o u n t r i e s occasionally fall i n t o this c a t e g o r y . I n p r a c t i c e , neither o f t h e s e t w o g r o u p s i s very i m p o r t a n t : t h e t r a n s i e n t leaders usually h a v e n o t i m e t o i m p l e m e n t a n y g o a l s , a n d t h e instances o f closed c o u n t r i e s h a v e b e c o m e very r a r e . I n p r a c t i c e , t h e r e f o r e , t h e p a u c i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n affects o n l y s o m e t i m e c o m p a r i s o n s . N o t only a r e goals k n o w n a t t h e t i m e leaders c o m e t o office, b u t c h a n g e s i n goals o v e r t i m e c a n also b e m o n i t o r e d , a l t h o u g h leaders m a y not always want to proclaim that they have h a d to m a k e a ' U - t u r n ' , at least n o t w h e n t h e y h a v e b e e n forced b y c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o d o s o against their ideological b e n t a n d their original p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . B u t a close e x a m i n a t i o n d o e s i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r a c h a n g e h a s t a k e n p l a c e , even t h o u g h t h e precise m o m e n t o f t h e m o v e m a y n o t a l w a y s b e clear even i n t h e m i n d of t h e leader; in p r a c t i c e , this m a t t e r s little f r o m t h e p o i n t of view of t h e analysis. T h u s , with respect t o t h e collection o f d a t a o n t h e goals o f l e a d e r s , t h e p r o b l e m i s p r i m a r i l y t o u n d e r t a k e t h e r a t h e r l a b o r i o u s t a s k o f identifying w h a t t h e g o a l s h a v e b e e n a n d w h e t h e r c h a n g e s h a v e o c c u r r e d over t i m e . I t is true that the assessment is hampered by conceptual a n d methodological p r o b l e m s , a p o i n t to w h i c h we shall r e t u r n . B u t we s a w in C h a p t e r 3 t h a t it w a s possible t o g r o u p a n d o r g a n i z e t h e g o a l s o f l e a d e r s a c c o r d i n g t o t w o variables: t h e s c o p e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n , a n d t h e extent o f c h a n g e s p r o p o s e d . It m a y n o t be p o s s i b l e , or at a n y rate easy, to assign to e a c h leader a precise position o n t h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l plane t h a t these v a r i a b l e s define. I n t h e first instance, we p r o p o s e d in Chapter 3 that leaders be located at one of n i n e p o s i t i o n s . W i t h o u t b e i n g u n d u l y a m b i t i o u s , i t w o u l d s e e m possible t o achieve a little m o r e a n d t o locate leaders a t o n e o f f o u r o r five p o i n t s o n each o f t h e v a r i a b l e s , o n c e d a t a o n goals b e g a n t o b e collected system-
The
future
study
ofpolitical
leadership
189
atically. If t h i s w e r e p o s s i b l e , a s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t in t h e measurement would be achieved. T h e impact of leaders cannot be measured only by considering the g o a l s t h a t t h e y p u r s u e : t h e s e m u s t b e c o n t r a s t e d , a s w e s a w , with t h e d e m a n d s of the p o p u l a t i o n . F o r m a n y countries we do possess a d e q u a t e information in this respect. These are the countries in which opinion surveys a r e c o n d u c t e d p e r i o d i c a l l y i n o r d e r t o assess b o t h t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f l e a d e r s a n d t h e s t a n d s t a k e n b y citizens o n a v a r i e t y o f i s s u e s . I n d e e d , a s c h a n g e s i n t h e s e societal d e m a n d s a r e m o n i t o r e d b y o p i n i o n p o l l s , a n d as the analysis of the leaders' goals enables us to plot changes in these goals over time, it is possible to look at the evolution of rulers' i m p a c t i n t h e light o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f g o a l s . T h e analysis o f l e a d e r s h i p t h u s c a n b e assessed m o r e precisely t h a n i s being d o n e at present, with the help of d a t a that are already available b u t h a v e n o t b e e n collected s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s o far, a n d w i t h t h e h e l p o f rankings which can be undertaken without any need to improve subs t a n t i a l l y o n c u r r e n t levels o f o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . W e c a n c i r c u m s c r i b e b o t h t h e g o a l s o f l e a d e r s a n d societal d e m a n d s , a n d t h e r e f o r e assess t h e i m p a c t o f t h e s e l e a d e r s w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e o f p r e c i s i o n for m a n y c o u n t r i e s a n d i n b r o a d c o n t o u r s for t h e l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f t h e rest. T h e r e are greater hurdles with respect to the personal a n d structural origins of t h i s i m p a c t , a d m i t t e d l y ; y e t , even t h e r e , p r o g r e s s c a n b e m a d e b e y o n d what is already readily m e a s u r a b l e , which as we saw is substantial, on t h e b a s i s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . C a n i t also b e h o p e d t h a t f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s will b e m a d e b e y o n d this p o i n t , a n d t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s will b e c o m e t r u l y precise i n t h e relatively n e a r f u t u r e ?
Conceptualization, measurement and the study of political leadership

T h e assessment of what is possible in the future depends not only on i m p r o v e m e n t s i n d a t a collection a n d i n t e c h n i q u e s o f a n a l y s i s , b u t a l s o on efforts at conceptualization a n d operationalization, the o u t c o m e of w h i c h i s difficult t o p r e d i c t . W e h a v e t h e r e f o r e t o e x a m i n e t h e o b s t a c l e s a n d assess w h e t h e r t h e s e c a n b e e x p e c t e d t o b e o v e r c o m e . I t s e e m s t h a t t h e least s e r i o u s o b s t a c l e s relate t o t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , while i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f s t r u c t u r a l resources a n d of the impact of leaders raise appreciably m o r e serious difficulties. The measurement of the psychological characteristics of leaders S o f a r , relatively little h a s b e e n a c h i e v e d i n t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s . T h i s i s d u e m a i n l y t o t h e fact t h a t p o l i t i c a l scientists a n d p s y c h o l o g i s t s h a v e n o t yet d e v o t e d m u c h a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o f r a n k i n g s which c o u l d b e a p p l i e d t o political l e a d e r s .
190
L a r g e n u m b e r s of 'traits' have been identified, as we saw in C h a p t e r 4; b u t s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n t o o specialized a n d h a v e h a d little r e g a r d for t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n of knowledge. M o r e o v e r , these traits are often t o o detailed to be of general use in c o m p a r a t i v e analysis: o n e s h o u l d , at least i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , c o n c e n t r a t e o n a small n u m b e r o f b r o a d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h i s i s t h e s t r a t e g y t h a t B a r b e r (1977) a n d H e a d y (1974) have begun to follow, a n d o n e that could be extended to cover t h e traits t h a t , for i n s t a n c e , Rejai a n d P h i l l i p s (1983) h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e i r analysis of revolutionary leaders. P o l i t i c a l scientists c a n n o t u n d e r t a k e t h i s k i n d o f e n q u i r y w i t h o u t t h e help of psychologists, w h o have to provide the relevant techniques and w h o can replicate these analyses a m o n g whole populations in order to d i s c o v e r differences b e t w e e n l e a d e r s a n d n o n - l e a d e r s . B u t , g i v e n t h a t psychologists h a v e already engaged in studies of leadership on a s u b s t a n t i a l scale, t h e p r o b l e m i s n o t s o m u c h t o e l a b o r a t e n e w t e c h n i q u e s a s t o a p p l y existing t e c h n i q u e s w i d e l y a n d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y . P o l i t i c a l scientists also n e e d t o c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h p s y c h o l o g i s t s for t h e analysis of the personal characteristics of the leaders themselves. Tests c a n n o t b e a d m i n i s t e r e d t o n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s i n t h e s a m e w a y a s to r a n d o m samples of the population: one has therefore to analyse the psychological characteristics of leaders, as Rejai a n d Phillips did in their i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y r u l e r s , b y i n f e r r i n g t h e p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e f r o m b e h a v i o u r a l p a t t e r n s . F o r t h e vast m a j o r i t y o f c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n a l political l e a d e r s , s u c h a n a n a l y s i s i s p o s s i b l e , given t h a t s o m u c h i s k n o w n a b o u t t h e i r p a s t a n d p r e s e n t life a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r a b o u t t h e w a y t h e y t a c k l e d p r o b l e m s , r e a c t e d t o crises a n d u n d e r t o o k to be followed and obeyed by subordinates a n d the population. T h e task is manifestly long and a r d u o u s , t h o u g h Rejai and P h i l l i p s h a v e s h o w n t h a t i t c a n b e u n d e r t a k e n successfully. W h a t i s clear i s t h a t t h e r e a r e n o t e c h n i c a l i m p e d i m e n t s t o t h e e n q u i r y . O n e c a n t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f l e a d e r s c a n b e assessed i n some detail, a n d distinctions can be d r a w n between leaders a n d nonl e a d e r s o n t h e b a s i s o f existing m e t h o d o l o g i c a l t o o l s a n d a v a i l a b l e information. The measurement of the structural resources of leaders T h e r e a r e m o r e s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s with r e s p e c t t o t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e structural resources of leaders. The information that needs to be collected i s v a s t , a n d t h e f r a m e w o r k o f analysis i s u n c l e a r . Ideally, w e w o u l d n e e d t o k n o w , for e a c h c o u n t r y a n d for e a c h l e a d e r , b o t h t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s a n d t h e extent o f h e l p t h a t t h e y c a n p r o v i d e for t h e r u l e r . A s a m a t t e r o f fact, w h a t w e k n o w a b o u t t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s i s vague. We could i m p r o v e our grasp of t h e characteristics of b u r e a u c r a c i e s i f a s y s t e m a t i c effort w e r e m a d e t o e x a m i n e t h e
The future study
of political leadership
191
o r g a n i z a t i o n , c o m p e t e n c e a n d l i n k a g e s o f t h e s e b o d i e s with t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e p o p u l a t i o n . W e m i g h t also b e m o r e precise a b o u t t h e h e l p t h a t p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s c a n give l e a d e r s . B u t i t s e e m s q u i t e u n r e a l i s t i c t o h o p e t o b e a b l e t o c a t e g o r i z e precisely t h e p a r t p l a y e d b y ' n a t u r a l ' structures, n o t even by such ' m o d e r n ' institutions as the m i l i t a r y , i n p a r t b e c a u s e t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s e b o d i e s i s less clearly defined, and in part because empirical enquiries are unlikely to be c o n d u c t e d o n a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e s c a l e . T h e m o s t t h a t c a n b e h o p e d for is a gradual i m p r o v e m e n t of the i n f o r m a t i o n . Yet t h e m a i n difficulty lies in t h e a b s e n c e of a c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k for t h e analysis o f t h e h e l p t h a t s t r u c t u r e s c a n give t o l e a d e r s . W e n e e d , first, t o b e a b l e t o assess w h a t p a r t e a c h s t r u c t u r e plays i n t h e p o l i t y , for i n s t a n c e i n o r d e r t o m o b i l i z e t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e citizens; w e n e e d t o d i s c o v e r t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h political p a r t i e s a s well a s o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e followed b y t h e citizens. I n effect, w e h a v e t o b e a b l e t o m e a s u r e t h e ' w e i g h t ' o f e a c h s t r u c t u r e i n t h e p o l i t y . I n reality, t h e r e a r e s o far n o m e a n s o f d o i n g s o . W e m a y feel intuitively t h a t t h e c o m m u n i s t p a r t y i n c o m m u n i s t s t a t e s is ' v e r y s t r o n g ' in t h a t it e x t e n d s its t e n t a c l e s widely within the population; but there is no satisfactory means by which o n e c a n c o m p a r e t h i s ' s t r e n g t h ' with t h a t o f s o m e W e s t e r n p a r t i e s , for e x a m p l e . O n e c a n list figures o f m e m b e r s h i p , o n e c a n p o i n t o u t t h a t most of the i m p o r t a n t decisions of the state are taken by the party, but one cannot go beyond that and arrive at a c o m p o u n d index which w o u l d suggest t h a t t h e weight of t h e C P S U is g r e a t e r by a specific n u m b e r o f p o i n t s t h a n t h a t o f t h e Social D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y i n S w e d e n . N o r i s t h i s all. H a v i n g assessed t h e r e l a t i v e weight o f all t h e s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e p o l i t y , w e w o u l d also n e e d t o assess t h e p a r t p l a y e d b y t h e l e a d e r within each of the relevant structures. This assessment, t o o , is impossible at present. We m a y be sure that the secretary of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y o f t h e Soviet U n i o n h a s a l a r g e say w i t h i n t h a t p a r t y , w h i l e i n m o s t cases t h e U S p r e s i d e n t h a s relatively little i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n his o w n p a r t y . B u t this d o e s n o t a m o u n t t o a precise a s s e s s m e n t ; n o r a r e t h e r e signs t h a t t h e s e a s s e s s m e n t s will i m p r o v e m a r k e d l y i n t h e foreseeable future. O u r knowledge of the influence of leaders within political p a r t i e s will r e m a i n s o m e w h a t l i m i t e d . T h e i n s t r u m e n t s b y w h i c h w e c o u l d m e a s u r e this k n o w l e d g e a r e n o t clearly d e f i n e d , a s w e h a v e t o rely o n g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n s ; a n d , b e c a u s e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t we u s e a r e so b l u n t , it is very difficult to expect t h a t we shall be a b l e to go beyond simple comparisons. T h e r e will b e s o m e i m p r o v e m e n t s , t o b e s u r e , a s t h e r e h a v e b e e n m a n i f e s t i m p r o v e m e n t s i n o u r k n o w l e d g e o f p a r t y life, o f t h e r o l e o f ' n a t u r a l ' s t r u c t u r e s a n d o f t h e activities o f t h e m i l i t a r y i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e last d e c a d e s . But p r o g r e s s will b e g r a d u a l a n d relatively s l o w ; n e i t h e r t h e p r o c e s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g n o r t h e effort a t b e t t e r
192
o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n will lead t o m o r e t h a n p a r t i a l results i n t h e c o u r s e o f the coming years. The measurement of the impact of leaders W i t h respect t o t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s , i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g raises s o m e difficulties; b u t p r o b l e m s o f c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n a n d operationalization are even m o r e serious. On the one h a n d , o n e can expect to obtain gradually better i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t leaders' goals a n d societal d e m a n d s ; t h e n u m b e r o f c o u n t r i e s i n w h i c h p u b l i c o p i n i o n s u r v e y s will be c o n d u c t e d will i n c r e a s e , a n d it will b e c o m e difficult for l e a d e r s t o resist t h e p r e s s u r e s m a d e b y t h o s e w h o wish t o find o u t w h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n w a n t s . T h e l e a d e r s t h e m s e l v e s , even i n c o m m u n i s t c o u n t r i e s , a r e likely t o b e a n x i o u s t o d i s c o v e r , b y m e a n s o f s u r v e y s , w h i c h policies a r e p o p u l a r o r u n p o p u l a r . T h e y m a y n o t find i t very useful t o k n o w their precise level o f i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n their p a r t y o r w i t h i n t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , b u t t h e y a r e likely t o w a n t t o a s c e r t a i n h o w t h e p o p u l a t i o n r e a c t s t o their policies. T h u s t h e y t h e m s e l v e s will c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g p r o c e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o societal d e m a n d s . On the other hand, problems of conceptualization and operationa l i z a t i o n will r e m a i n . W e m a y b e a b l e t o classify g o a l s a n d d e m a n d s i n t o a n u m b e r of categories, but, although the variables truly have an u n d e r l y i n g c o n t i n u o u s c h a r a c t e r , i t s e e m s difficult t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e t h e m e a s u r e m e n t on a c o n t i n u o u s basis, as with t h e analysis of the role of institutional resources from which leaders c a n benefit. We have identified t w o d i m e n s i o n s , n a m e l y , s c o p e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d e x t e n t o f c h a n g e , i n o r d e r t o assess l e a d e r s ' g o a l s a n d societal d e m a n d s . A n a l y t i c a l l y , w e k n o w t h a t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f l e a d e r s i n t h e affairs o f the n a t i o n can be greater or smaller a n d t h a t t h e c h a n g e that is p r o p o s e d c a n also b e g r e a t e r o r s m a l l e r ; w e k n o w , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e s e a r e real d i m e n s i o n s . I n p r a c t i c e , h o w e v e r , t h e r e a r e n o clear i n d i c a t i o n s a s t o w h a t a ' u n i t ' of c h a n g e or a ' u n i t ' of i n t e r v e n t i o n c a n b e , as is t h e c a s e for p o w e r , w h i c h i s a l s o b a s e d o n u n d e r l y i n g d i m e n s i o n s a n d yet h a s n o t been m e a s u r e d o n a c o n t i n u o u s basis. A s i s well k n o w n , t h i s difficulty h a s b e e n p e r c e i v e d for a l o n g t i m e t o b e o n e o f t h e m a i n d r a w b a c k s e x p e r i e n c e d b y political scientists i n comparison with economists, who can use the continuous variable of m o n e y t o assess t h e e x t e n t o f c h a n g e t h a t o c c u r s w i t h respect t o a l a r g e n u m b e r of indicators. O n e solution has been to b o r r o w from economics t h e c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e o f m o n e y , a n d t h u s t o g i v e m o n e t a r y values t o t h e effect o f p o w e r , c h a n g e o r g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r v e n t i o n . A t p r e s e n t , this s e e m s t o b e t h e o n l y w a y t o p r o c e e d i f o n e w i s h e s t o o b t a i n a c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e . I t i s t r u e , m o r e o v e r , t h a t t h e effect o f p o w e r , o r o f change, or of g o v e r n m e n t a l intervention is to affect the m o n e t a r y value of m a n y characteristics, in particular the b u d g e t s that leaders propose
The future study
of political leadership
193
a n d i m p l e m e n t . Yet t h e r e a r e s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s for t h e a n a l y s i s , since t h e s e m o n e t a r y i n d i c a t o r s g r a s p o n l y a f r a c t i o n i n d e e d , a small a n d varying fraction of the p r o b l e m s that are being measured; in particular, if we use m o n e t a r y indicators, s o m e aspects of governmental i n t e r v e n t i o n a r e p r i v i l e g e d i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r s . T h u s , while i t m i g h t b e p o s s i b l e t o find s a t i s f a c t o r y m o n e t a r y e q u i v a l e n t s t o t h e g r o w t h of g o v e r n m e n t a l intervention in s o m e sectors e c o n o m i c of c o u r s e , b u t a l s o social it is m a n i f e s t l y m o r e difficult to discover m o n e t a r y t r a n s l a t i o n s o f i d e a s o f i n n o v a t i o n i n o t h e r a r e a s . T h e result i s likely t o l e a d , i n m a n y c a s e s , t o m a j o r d i s t o r t i o n s : c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a m e n d m e n t s , changes in the status of certain groups, cultural reforms, regional reorganizations, indeed, some forms of economic restructuring cannot adequately be translated in monetary terms. T h u s , s o l o n g a s t h e r e a r e n o m e a n s o f d i s c o v e r i n g ' u n i t s ' w i t h respect to change and governmental intervention, the determination of leaders' g o a l s a n d societal d e m a n d s will lead a t best t o o r d i n a l m e a s u r e m e n t s . T h e r e will b e i m p r o v e m e n t s , t o b e s u r e : i t will b e p o s s i b l e t o i n c r e a s e t h e n u m b e r o f ' p o i n t s ' o n t h e scale a n d t h e r e b y t o discover a s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f l o c a t i o n s o n t h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e for b o t h l e a d e r s ' g o a l s a n d societal d e m a n d s ; a n d i t will b e p o s s i b l e t o i m p r o v e t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f i m p a c t b y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o u r existing k n o w l e d g e . B u t i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o believe t h a t w e c a n o b t a i n , i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , a t r u l y precise m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e effect o f l e a d e r s , a n y m o r e t h a n w e c a n expect t o b e a b l e t o a c h i e v e a precise m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e jrole o f s t r u c t u r e s i n h e l p i n g l e a d e r s t o m a k e a n i m p a c t o n t h e i r society.
Conclusion
T h e m e a s u r e m e n t of leadership can be i m p r o v e d , but within limits. T h e r e i s a l r e a d y a s u b s t a n t i a l a m o u n t o f precise a s s e s s m e n t a n d even o f q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . S u b s t a n t i a l p r o g r e s s will b e m a d e a s a n d w h e n t h e r e i s a better realization of what can be obtained with the d a t a that are already a v a i l a b l e o r c a n b e collected w i t h o u t a m a s s i v e t a s k , a n d w i t h t h e h e l p o f the conceptual tools that are at the disposal of scholars. We can obtain a g e n e r a l i d e a , i n d e e d a relatively precise i d e a , of t h e o v e r a l l i m p a c t of l e a d e r s ; w e c a n h a v e a t least s o m e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t m a y a c c o u n t for t h i s i m p a c t ; a n d a t least s o m e o f t h e structural resources that are at t h e disposal of leaders can be assessed and compared. N o t o n l y c a n t h e v a r i o u s aspects o f l e a d e r s h i p a l r e a d y b e m e a s u r e d a n d even quantified to some extent, but better information a n d a better e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e relevant v a r i a b l e s will i m p r o v e this m e a s u r e m e n t f u r t h e r . A d m i t t e d l y , a s far a s o n e c a n see, t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f l e a d e r s h i p c a n n o t b e e x p e c t e d t o g o b e y o n d t h e d i s c o v e r y o f relatively c o m p l e x o r d i n a l d i s t i n c t i o n s with respect t o t h e f a c t o r s t h a t p l a y a m a j o r p a r t .
194
L e a d e r s ' g o a l s a n d societal d e m a n d s , t h e weight o f s t r u c t u r e s a n d t h e s u p p o r t t h a t t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s g i v e t o l e a d e r s even t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f rulers h a v e t o b e c o n c e i v e d a s existing a l o n g dimensions on which we can only discover a n u m b e r of discrete points. T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e analysis o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e v a r i a b l e s i s also h a m p e r e d by substantial limitations. B u t w e m u s t b e clear a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s . T h e y d o n o t m a k e t h e analysis o f l e a d e r s h i p i m p o s s i b l e ; t h e y a r e n o t s u c h a s t o m a k e i t u n r e w a r d i n g t o l o o k for r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e i m p a c t o f leaders and the personal a n d institutional factors that appear to account for t h i s i m p a c t . T h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i s n o t fixed, m o r e o v e r : n o t o n l y i s i t likely t h a t i n s t r u m e n t s will b e i m p r o v e d a s efforts a r e m a d e t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e c o n c e p t s , b u t o n e c a n a l r e a d y b e g i n t o see w a y s i n w h i c h l e a d e r s c a n b e classified a n d c o m p a r e d . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e c h a r a c t e r istics o f l e a d e r s will b e c o m e g r a d u a l l y b e t t e r k n o w n . T h e m o r e precise m e a s u r e m e n t s t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y to a c h i e v e a b e t t e r a s s e s s m e n t will constitute a spur t o w a r d s further refinements in the understanding of l e a d e r s h i p itself.
Conclusion
I n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e l a s t few d e c a d e s , views a b o u t p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p have begun to change. They are changing in part because the role of l e a d e r s h i p itself h a s a l t e r e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e m a j o r e m p h a s i s g i v e n , i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d , t o social a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t ; they are changing also because, as a result, leadership has c o m e to be viewed m o r e positively, m o r e constructively, t h a n in the past; a n d they are c h a n g i n g , t h o u g h m o r e slowly, because a close e x a m i n a t i o n of the impact of leaders has m a d e the traditional dichotomy between heroes a n d ' o r d i n a r y ' leaders seem increasingly unrealistic, as increasingly unrealistic as seems the d i c h o t o m y between those w h o b e l i e v e i n t h e ' g r e a t m e n ' t h e o r y o f h i s t o r y a n d t h o s e w h o feel t h a t 'leaders do not matter'. P e r h a p s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e r e s u l t s f r o m t h e fact t h a t , i n o u r societies, leadership h a s c o m e to be concerned principally with t h e i m p r o v e m e n t of social a n d e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s . Of c o u r s e , this role of leadership is neither entirely new n o r wholly exclusive. In the p a s t , t o o , r u l e r s h a v e h a d t o b e c o n c e r n e d , t o s o m e e x t e n t , with t h e e c o n o m y a n d w i t h social life; t h i s h a s b e e n v i e w e d a s f u n d a m e n t a l i n a n u m b e r o f c o u n t r i e s ever since t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . B u t e v e n b e f o r e m e r c a n t i l i s m b e c a m e w i d e s p r e a d , social a n d e c o n o m i c i n t e r v e n t i o n i s m o c c u r r e d , a t least s p o r a d i c a l l y , i n m a n y p o l i t i e s ; c o n s u l s a n d e m p e r o r s h a d t o e n s u r e t h a t sufficient q u a n t i t i e s o f g r a i n w e r e d e l i v e r e d t o R o m e . T h i s e c o n o m i c a n d social r o l e w a s n o t v i e w e d a s a p r i m a r y , let a l o n e p r i n c i p a l , f u n c t i o n o f l e a d e r s , however; m o r e i m p o r t a n t , it was not viewed in the context of a d y n a m i c process of development of society. By and large, for western E u r o p e a n l e a d e r s a t least, u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , the m o s t i m p o r t a n t problems were to m a i n t a i n peace at h o m e a n d to ensure that the country was protected externally. For some, the m a i n t e n a n c e of internal order h a d to be t h e m a i n p r e o c c u p a t i o n ; for others p r o b a b l y the majority the m a i n task was to defend their c o u n t r y a g a i n s t t h e a m b i t i o n s o f o t h e r r u l e r s o r else t o a t t e m p t t o i n c r e a s e t h e size o f t h e i r t e r r i t o r y . Of course, neither of these functions has disappeared in the twentieth century. International relations, peaceful or n o t , c o n t i n u e t o b e a m a j o r p r e o c c u p a t i o n for m a n y l e a d e r s , a n d n o t m e r e l y t h o s e o f t h e l a r g e s t n a t i o n s . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h e feeling r e m a i n s t h a t i n v o l v e m e n t in w o r l d affairs is in s o m e sense m o r e 'exalted' t h a n t h e ' m e r e ' p r e o c c u p a t i o n with w h a t d e G a u l l e , e c h o i n g L o u i s X I V , c a l l e d
196
t h e ' i n t e n d a n c e ' , which covered t h e whole area of social a n d e c o n o m i c a f f a i r s : o n l y a few c o u n t r i e s a n d a b o v e all t h o s e t h a t were shattered by the second world war, namely G e r m a n y and J a p a n w e r e for m o s t o f t h e s u b s e q u e n t d e c a d e s e c o n o m i c ' g i a n t s ' a n d international 'dwarfs'; and even in these countries, the preoccupation of leaders with foreign affairs t e n d e d to g r o w as the m e m o r y of the 1945 d e f e a t g r a d u a l l y f a d e d a w a y . M o r e o v e r , t h e 'flight i n t o f o r e i g n a f f a i r s ' i s n o t m e r e l y t h e r e s u l t o f a feeling t h a t i t b e c o m e s a l e a d e r t o b e a b l e t o d e a l w i t h w o r l d p r o b l e m s , o r i n d e e d t h a t i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o fight c o l o n i a l i s m , imperialism or even c o m m u n i s m on a world front, as N k r u m a h , T i t o , Nasser a n d m a n y other T h i r d W o r l d leaders did. T h e concern with foreign affairs is also an o p p o r t u n i t y , consciously realized or n o t , systematically exploited or n o t , to achieve results on the h o m e front by providing a diversion from the daily preoccupations of citizens, a n d by fostering a sense of n a t i o n a l identity a n d pride in t h e c o u n t r y ' s a c h i e v e m e n t s . ' N i c e little w a r s ' h a v e i n t h e p a s t o f t e n b e e n r e g a r d e d as a means of strengthening leaders at h o m e ; the same aim has been sought in the c o n t e m p o r a r y world by m a n y leaders, even t h o u g h specific m o t i v a t i o n s m a y o f t e n h a v e b e e n c o m p l e x . T h e reason why external and internal purposes have often been m i x e d s t e m s o f c o u r s e i n l a r g e p a r t f r o m t h e fact t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e been as u n a b l e as ever to ensure internal o r d e r a n d m a i n t a i n themselves in office. C o u p s , rebellions a n d guerilla w a r f a r e h a v e affected large n u m b e r s of countries n o t surprisingly, given t h e c r e a t i o n o f s o m a n y n e w s t a t e s , o f t e n w i t h h i g h l y artificial b o u n d a r i e s , during the recent period. T h u s , in a large majority of T h i r d W o r l d c o u n t r i e s a t least o n e l e a d e r h a s b e e n d i s p l a c e d b y a c o u p , a n d i n m a n y repeated disturbances h a v e o c c u r r e d ; several communist states have h a d to quash rebellions by military might, including Soviet might; and in Western countries, although by a n d large regimes h a v e been stable a n d the i m m e n s e majority of leaders h a v e c o m e t o a n d left office i n a r e g u l a r m a n n e r , m a n y o f t h e s e leaders h a v e b e e n c o n f r o n t e d with tense internal situations arising f r o m s t r i k e s o r e t h n i c o r r e g i o n a l d i s c o n t e n t , o f t e n fuelled b y s t u d e n t p r o t e s t . T h e s e , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , r e s u l t e d i n t h e fall o f s e v e r a l leaders, including L . B . Johnson, de Gaulle a n d E d w a r d Heath. Y e t , w h i l e f o r e i g n affairs a n d i n t e r n a l o r d e r c o n t i n u e t o b e subjects o f m a j o r p r e o c c u p a t i o n a m o n g c o n t e m p o r a r y r u l e r s , t h e y h a v e ceased t o b e t h e m a i n f o c u s o f a t t e n t i o n . P e r h a p s m o r e i m p o r t a n t , social a n d e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s a r e a l m o s t universally p e r c e i v e d a s t h e u n d e r l y i n g cause of internal unrest and, indeed, of a substantial proportion of e x t e r n a l t r o u b l e s a s well. Strikes a r e directly t h e result o f e c o n o m i c difficulties, a n d e t h n i c a n d regional d i s t u r b a n c e s a r e a t least i n p a r t t h e
Conclusion
197
result o f a sense o f e c o n o m i c d e p r i v a t i o n a n d social d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a s a r e o t h e r t y p e s o f r e b e l l i o n s , r i o t s a n d even a r m e d i n t e r n a l conflicts. Indeed, whatever the 'root cause' of the internal disturbances that l e a d e r s h a v e t o f a c e , t h e fact t h a t i t i s believed, b y b o t h t h e p u b l i c a n d t h e l e a d e r s , t h a t t h e c u r e h a s t o b e f o u n d b y e c o n o m i c a n d social m e a n s i s a n essential f a c t o r i n p l a c i n g t h e s e m e a n s a t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e f u n c t i o n s t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e t o fulfil. B u t e c o n o m i c a n d social p r o b l e m s a r e n o t m e r e l y a t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n s o f l e a d e r s ; n o r i s t h e lack o f c o n c e r n w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t widely i n t e r p r e t e d a s t h e m a i n r e a s o n w h y l e a d e r s fall. T h e m o s t c r u c i a l p o i n t is t h a t social a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t is v i e w e d as a p r o c e s s w h i c h h a s to t a k e p l a c e at a s u s t a i n e d r a t e if it is to a c h i e v e r e s u l t s , a p r o c e s s t h a t , a t t h e s a m e t i m e , c r e a t e s t e n s i o n s while d e v e l o p m e n t i s t a k i n g p l a c e . T h e s e t e n s i o n s h a v e t o b e o v e r c o m e i f success i s e v e n t u a l l y to be achieved. C o m p a r i s o n s thus have to be m a d e with medicine or even s u r g e r y . T h e p a t i e n t h a s t o u n d e r g o t r e a t m e n t ; t h e c u r e o f t e n entails s u f f e r i n g s , i n d e e d for l o n g p e r i o d s , b e f o r e a n i m p r o v e m e n t i s n o t i c e d . B u t , u n l i k e m o s t illnesses for w h i c h a c u r e h a s b e e n f o u n d , t h e p r o c e s s o f d e v e l o p m e n t entails n o t j u s t s u f f e r i n g s , b u t a l m o s t i n d e f i n i t e p a i n . I n fact, b e c a u s e t h e r e i s n o e q u i v a l e n t t o d e a t h i n t h e c a s e o f societies, t h e illness o f c o u n t r i e s c a n m e a n t h a t little o r n o p r o g r e s s will occur if the 'cure' that has been chosen is not a p p r o p r i a t e . T h u s , socioeconomic development problems resemble those of medicine only i n s o far a s t h e y a r e o f t e n a s i n t r a c t a b l e a s t h o s e o f p h y s i c a l illness; b u t because they can be m o r e prolonged, because words such as ' a g o n y ' or 'collapse' are inapplicable to the b o d y politic, the predicament of p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s i s m o r e difficult t h a n t h a t o f d o c t o r s a n d s u r g e o n s . T h e e m e r g e n c e o f a w i d e s p r e a d desire for social a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d h a s c o n f r o n t e d n a t i o n a l rulers w i t h difficulties t h a t t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s never h a d , e v e n t h o s e w h o , a s e n l i g h t e n e d d e s p o t s o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , s t a r t e d t o uplift t h e i r societies. M o d e r n political l e a d e r s d o n o t c h o o s e t o b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c o n t i n u o u s i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e i r societies: t h e y have t o t a k e this c o n c e r n o n b o a r d o r t h e y m a y n o t s t a y i n office. T h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t e n d e m a n d s t h a t their lot b e i m p r o v e d a n d , even i f t h e y d o n o t , t h e l e a d e r s t h e m s e l v e s believe a n d a r e r e p e a t e d l y t o l d b y o t h e r s t h a t i t i s t h e i r d u t y t o a c h i e v e social a n d e c o n o m i c p r o g r e s s . A l m o s t c e r t a i n l y , this c h a n g e i n t h e p r i n c i p a l r o l e o f l e a d e r s provoked the transformation of attitudes towards leadership that has b e e n n o t i c e a b l e i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e last few d e c a d e s . F o r i f l e a d e r s a r e t o b e essentially c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e ' c u r e ' o f social a n d e c o n o m i c ills, a n d i f t h i s r o l e entails t h e c o n t i n u o u s g u i d a n c e a n d d i r e c t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n , it is simply n o t p o s s i b l e to dismiss l e a d e r s as e i t h e r u n i m p o r t a n t o r d a n g e r o u s , a s m a n y o f t h e classical political t h e o r i s t s
198
d i d , o r a s p l a y i n g a crucial b u t e x c e p t i o n a l p a r t , a s W e b e r ' s m o d e l o f authority suggested. On the c o n t r a r y : leadership has to be viewed as c o n t i n u o u s l y p l a y i n g a p o s i t i v e p a r t i n d e v e l o p i n g society. E f f o r t s h a v e t h e r e f o r e t o b e m a d e t o e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r s d o fulfil t h i s p o s i t i v e r o l e . T h i s e n t a i l s , i n t h e first i n s t a n c e , a p r e c i s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n a l qualities a n d institutional s u p p o r t t h a t are m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e . It is understandable that j u d g e m e n t s on leaders and on leadership s h o u l d h a v e s o o f t e n b e e n n e g a t i v e i n t h e p a s t a n d even t o t h e p r e s e n t day. So m a n y rulers have been tyrants a n d despots that the n a t u r a l r e a c t i o n h a s b e e n t o t r y t o r e d u c e t h e i r p o w e r b y setting u p i n s t i t u t i o n s that acted as m a n y hurdles against encroachments by the 'executive' p o w e r . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s v i e w , t h e p r e v a i l i n g effort w a s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s d i s c o v e r i n g h o w p e o p l e c o u l d e n s u r e their p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t l e a d e r s h i p , n o t t o w a r d s d e t e r m i n i n g h o w l e a d e r s c o u l d b e m a d e best u s e of. T h e f o c u s w a s o n t h e g i r d e r s , n o t o n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e e n g i n e , as l e a d e r s h i p w a s v i e w e d as a fire c o n s u m i n g e v e r y t h i n g in p r o x i m i t y , e x c e p t for t h e d i s t a n t a n d Utopian f u t u r e w h e n r u l e r s might be expected to become 'philosopher-kings'. W e b e r ' s a n a l y s i s h e l p e d t o c h a n g e t h i s a p p r o a c h . I n t h e special c a s e o f societies i n crisis, t h e G e r m a n sociologist s h o w e d t h a t l e a d e r s c o u l d b e t h e c e n t r a l p o i n t o f a n e w l e g i t i m a c y . I n this h e w e n t f u r t h e r t h a n even t h o s e a m o n g t h e classical t h e o r i s t s , w h o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t s o m e exceptional leaders could play a crucial p a r t in helping to bring a b o u t t h e n e w i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e . F o r R o u s s e a u ' s legislator w a s m e r e l y a c a t a l y s t . H e e m b o d i e d t h e views o f t h e p e o p l e , w a s b e t t e r t h a n t h e p e o p l e , p e r h a p s : h i s f u n c t i o n w a s t o m a k e t h e p o p u l a t i o n see t h e light. W e b e r ' s charismatic leader genuinely constructed the polity. He b r o u g h t together w h a t was divided into m a n y fragments a n d w h a t , without him, would have remained in fragments. But W e b e r ' s standpoint was partial, because it was concerned only w i t h t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y p e r i o d s o f crisis d u r i n g w h i c h l e g i t i m a c y h a d b r o k e n d o w n . T o a c c o u n t for t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y s i t u a t i o n o n e h a s t o g o f u r t h e r , a n d view l e a d e r s h i p a s o n e o f t h e key i n s t r u m e n t s b y w h i c h society c a n g r a d u a l l y b e t r a n s f o r m e d b y p r o d u c i n g t h e ' d o c t o r s ' t h a n k s to w h o m t h e 'illnesses' of the country might eventually be cured or at least g r a d u a l l y i m p r o v e d . S o far, this a p p r o a c h t o l e a d e r s h i p h a s n o t h a d its ' g r a n d ' t h e o r i s t , i n t h e w a y t h a t M a c h i a v e l l i c a n b e said t o h a v e theorized a b o u t the traditional usurper and Weber a b o u t the national s a v i o u r . B u t t h e w e l l - k n o w n t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y l e a d e r s , g o o d o r evil, h a v e g r a d u a l l y h e l p e d to determine the profile of such a ruler, a profile i n w h i c h t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t aspect a p p e a r s t o b e a d a i l y c o n c e r n for t h e i m p r o v e m e n t of society, where long-term developments are balanced with the recognition of current problems, a n d where technical a n d e c o n o m i c p r o g r e s s is a s s o c i a t e d with a m a j o r i n t e r e s t in t h e well-being of citizens.
Conclusion
99
I t m a y s e e m u n r e a l i s t i c , a n d i n d e e d p e r h a p s a b s u r d , t o c l a i m t h a t this vision o f t h e i d e a l r u l e r e m e r g e s f r o m t h e ugly ' m i s t a k e s ' t h a t o c c u r r e d in the twentieth century with respect to some leaders. Mussolini, Hitler a n d Stalin a r e n a m e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h excesses o n l y ; s o a r e t h e n a m e s o f some of the dictators w h o emerged in the Third World. But other l e a d e r s h a v e m o r e t h a n c o m p e n s a t e d for t h e s e ' m i s t a k e s ' ; i n a d d i t i o n t o R o o s e v e l t , C h u r c h i l l a n d N e h r u , even s o m e o f t h e m o r e r u t h l e s s l e a d e r s such a s M a o , a n d s o m e o f t h e m o r e h u m a n e ' p o p u l i s t s ' such a s N a s s e r or Bourguiba, Tito or Nyerere, have contributed to the build-up of a composite image, indeed of an 'ideal-type', an ideal-type which the reality o f c o n t e m p o r a r y l e a d e r s o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e s , b u t w h o s e characteristics can be identified. This identification is essential, because i t m a k e s i t p o s s i b l e t o see w h a t p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l t y p e s o f s u p p o r t a r e n e e d e d i f l e a d e r s h i p i s t o fulfil t h e c o n t i n u o u s a n d p o s i t i v e r o l e t h a t social a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t i n d e e d , t h e survival of t h e w o r l d m a n i f e s t l y r e q u i r e . L e n i n o n c e said t h a t t h e e n e r g y o f t h e w o r k i n g class h a d t o b e h a r n e s s e d for t h e r e v o l u t i o n , a n d t h a t t h e p a r t y , like t h e p i s t o n o f a steam engine, was the m e a n s by which this energy could be stored a n d p r o v i d e m a x i m u m p o w e r . A similar r e m a r k c o u l d b e m a d e a b o u t leadership. W h a t is required is t h e discovery of mechanisms by which t h e e n e r g y o f l e a d e r s c a n best b e u s e d t o t h e a d v a n t a g e o f m a n k i n d not so m u c h by building girders or other protective arrangements, but by finding an outlet a n d a direction in which the m i n d , a n d also the e m o t i o n s i n d e e d , t h e w h o l e p e r s o n a l i t y of l e a d e r s c a n m o s t profitably be used. I n s t i t u t i o n a l m e c h a n i s m s r e m a i n i m p o r t a n t , b u t , first, t h e y h a v e t o b e assessed i n a realistic w a y a n d , s e c o n d , t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e o r g a n i z e d s o a s t o b l o c k t h e activities o f t h e l e a d e r s : t h e y m u s t b e g e a r e d t o t h e m o s t efficient use o f t h e r e s o u r c e s t h a t t h o s e l e a d e r s c a n c o m m a n d i n o r d e r t o m a k e a n i m p a c t o n society. T h i s i s w h y i t i s essential t o a n a l y s e the ways in which, as we saw, the position of the leader, the structure and powers of the entourage, the characteristics of the bureaucracy a n d the linkages between leader a n d p o p u l a t i o n can best provide the leader with expert advice, smooth c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d feedback in short, with a general ambience which helps a n d comforts the ruler, rather t h a n w i t h a c l i m a t e o f suspicion a n d w o r r y . Little i s g a i n e d b y c r e a t i n g h u r d l e s w h i c h t h e leader i s a d a m a n t t o o v e r c o m e , o r b y s e t t i n g u p institutions which only block the ruler's goals because they are inefficient. T h e F r e n c h system o f g o v e r n m e n t h a s o f t e n b e e n v i e w e d a s a m o n a r c h y t e m p e r e d b y a n a r c h y ; b u t a n a r c h y d o e s n o t c o m p e n s a t e for m o n a r c h y . T h e monarch does not become m o r e responsible. T h o s e w h o set u p i n s t i t u t i o n s m u s t r e c o g n i z e a n d a c c e p t t h a t l e a d e r s h i p i s
200
n e c e s s a r y , t o use T u c k e r ' s e x p r e s s i o n , t o ' d i a g n o s e ' , t o ' p r e s c r i b e a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n ' a n d t o ' m o b i l i z e ' ( T u c k e r , 1981: 15ff.). T h e institutions must be geared to these purposes indeed, m u s t be o r g a n i z e d i n t h e best p o s s i b l e w a y t o a c h i e v e t h e s e p u r p o s e s . T h u s , the institutions s u r r o u n d i n g the leader must be based on the premise that there is to be trust in the leader, trust in the leader's willingness t o act a s a l e a d e r , a n d t r u s t i n t h e l e a d e r ' s c o m p e t e n c e t o act i n this m a n n e r . F o r t h i s t o o c c u r a n effort m u s t a l s o b e m a d e t o e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r s h a v e t h e q u a l i t i e s r e q u i r e d for t h e j o b . P l a t o called for e d u c a t i o n , b u t a n e d u c a t i o n t h a t w o u l d b e special for t h o s e w h o would have the 'calling' of leadership. The education of leaders d o e s n o t h a v e t o b e b a s e d o n t h i s h i g h l y selective p r o c e s s . W h a t i s needed is that the choice of leaders be based on the recognition that c e r t a i n qualities intelligence, e n e r g y , decisiveness, ability to d e a l with subordinates a n d the p o p u l a t i o n , a n d probably m a n y others a r e r e q u i r e d i f l e a d e r s a r e t o b e effective. H e n c e t h e c r u c i a l i m p o r t a n c e of knowing m o r e a b o u t these qualities, not just in general b u t in specific s i t u a t i o n s ; for w h a t is d e m a n d e d of a s a v i o u r is n o t identical to w h a t is d e m a n d e d of an ' i n n o v a t o r ' or a reformist. We need to understand the personal characteristics, the syndrome of ' t r a i t s ' , t h a t best fit a given l e a d e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t . T h e p u r p o s e o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s i s t o s u p p o r t , o c c a s i o n a l l y t o steer, t h e activities o f l e a d e r s ; b u t t h e s o u r c e o f t h e l e a d e r s ' ' a c t i v i s m ' i s t h e l e a d e r s t h e m s e l v e s . It is t h r o u g h a b e t t e r k n o w l e d g e of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f this ' a c t i v i s m ' t h a t o n e c a n e x p e c t t o o b t a i n g r a d u a l l y a b e t t e r r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e ' i d e a l - t y p e ' o f t h e positive political l e a d e r w h o i s n e e d e d for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o n t e m p o r a r y societies. In s u c h a c o n t e x t , it b e c o m e s a l m o s t as l u d i c r o u s to discuss w h e t h e r n a t i o n s d e t e r m i n e t h e i r l e a d e r o r l e a d e r s m o u l d their n a t i o n s a s i t i s l u d i c r o u s t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r l e a d e r s a r e either ' h e r o e s ' or mere cyphers. T h e traditional dichotomies were based in part on t h e Utopian d e s i r e t o a c h i e v e i n s t a n t m i r a c l e s ; t h e y w e r e r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e s o m e w h a t m o r e realistic i m a g e o f t h e successful w a r r i o r w h o , b y his v i c t o r i e s , g a v e t h e n a t i o n a p r e s t i g e a n d a p o w e r t h a t s e e m e d hitherto impossible to attain. These were the images conveyed by Alexander, Caesar a n d Napoleon, t h o u g h the contributions of these 'heroes' also m a r k e d l y mortgaged the future of their nations. As long as leadership w a s viewed primarily in terms of war and peace, and t h u s a s a p o k e r g a m e i n w h i c h t h e w i n n e r w o u l d t a k e all i f his luck w a s , i n d e e d , v e r y u n u s u a l i f n o t m i r a c u l o u s , t h e r e w a s a t least s o m e logic in a n a l y s i n g t h e effect of l e a d e r s in t e r m s of a d i c h o t o m y . O f c o u r s e , e v e n i n t h i s case t h e d i c h o t o m y w a s e x a g g e r a t e d : t h e r e n e v e r w a s a w a r t o e n d all w a r s . T h e r e w e r e o n l y s o m e w a r r i o r s w h o
Conclusion
201
w e r e luckier o r b e t t e r a b l e t o m o b i l i z e m o r e r e s o u r c e s t h a n o t h e r s . N o t only did these very lucky warriors usually end up in catastrophe, as did Alexander, C a e s a r a n d N a p o l e o n , but m a n y other generals w e r e o n l y m o d e r a t e l y successful o r h a d a v a r i e t y o f successes a n d r e v e r s a l s . T h u s t h e r e i s i n reality n o m o r e r o o m for a d i c h o t o m y i n t h e field o f w a r a n d p e a c e t h a n t h e r e i s i n t h e i n t e r n a l field. I n i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s , h o w e v e r , t h e ' r a n k i n g s ' a r e m o r e clearly m a r k e d , i n p a r t b e c a u s e t h e l e a d e r s t h e m s e l v e s h a v e very different goals, which indeed m a y change over time, a n d in part because their impact depends on the extent to which the p o p u l a t i o n is 'receptive' to these goals. This 'receptivity', in turn, depends on the m o o d and conditions of the n a t i o n a n d on the external circumstances within which these leaders operate. T h u s , the question of the impact of leaders cannot be viewed in the form of the sharp contrasts that ' r o m a n t i c ' d i c h o t o m i e s , s o m e w h a t simplistically, h a v e typically p a i n t e d : t h e r e a r e , i n reality, g r a d a t i o n s a n d s t a g e s . An assessment of the impact of leadership cannot therefore be m a d e without a detailed knowledge of both the leaders' 'inclinations' a n d the characteristics of the e n v i r o n m e n t . This is why it is p r i m a facie u n r e a l i s t i c t o believe t h a t s u c h a n i m p a c t i s e i t h e r ' g r e a t ' o r ' n o n - e x i s t e n t ' . T h i s is also w h y it is u n r e a l i s t i c to believe either t h a t t h e l e a d e r a l o n e c a n s h a p e t h e p o l i t y o r t h a t t h e effect o f t h e l e a d e r ' s policies, i n d e e d t h e policies t h e m s e l v e s , a r e m e r e l y t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . W h a t even a c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s h o w s i s t h a t l e a d e r s v a r y m a r k e d l y i n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e y affect t h e p o l i t y . T h i s e x t e n t c a n a l r e a d y b e assessed i n b r o a d t e r m s ; m o r e precise m e a s u r e m e n t s will n o d o u b t g r a d u a l l y b e m a d e , a s o n e e x a m i n e s m o r e closely a n d c o m p a r a t i v e l y t h e specific c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f l e a d e r s to society, namely, the goals they p u r s u e w h e n they are in p o w e r . T h e s e g o a l s c a n b e c o m p a r e d , since w h a t i s r e l e v a n t for t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s i s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h rulers a i m a t c h a n g i n g the status q u o , in breadth or in depth or, indeed, in both breadth and d e p t h . T h u s t h e c o u n t r i e s o f t h e w o r l d a r e r u l e d b y l e a d e r s w h o wish to be managers or revolutionaries, saviours or innovators, or indeed wish t o h o l d o n e o f a n infinite n u m b e r o f p o s i t i o n s i n t h e s p a c e determined by variations in scope of involvement a n d variations in extent of change. A c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n also i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e m a n d s differ f r o m o n e society t o a n o t h e r , even t h o u g h t h e r e a r e f u r t h e r divisions w i t h i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f each c o u n t r y . L e a d e r s a r e t h u s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h citizens w h o m a y b e satisfied b y a n d l a r g e w i t h t h e s t a t u s q u o o r w h o m a y wish to see c h a n g e s i n t r o d u c e d , t h e s e c h a n g e s b e i n g of a widely diverse m a g n i t u d e . For instance, the people m a y be concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a or a small n u m b e r of a r e a s of
202
g o v e r n m e n t ; a t t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e , t h e y m a y b e intensely w o r r i e d a b o u t t h e w h o l e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l , social a n d e c o n o m i c s y s t e m ; a n d t h e r e i s a n infinity o f i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n s . T h e s e views, t o o , c a n b e l o c a t e d o n a t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e w h i c h parallels t h e t w o dimensional space on which leaders' goals are placed. By comparing the position of leaders with the changes that have occurred a m o n g the population during the period of their t e n u r e , o n e c a n discover t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e s e l e a d e r s h a v e p l a y e d a p a r t i n a l t e r i n g society. A l t h o u g h i t i s n o t yet p o s s i b l e t o d r a w m o r e t h a n t h e b r o a d c o n t o u r s o f t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s , o n e c a n a l r e a d y see t h a t i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o expect t h e m t o b e a b l e t o m a k e a l a r g e a n d s u s t a i n e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f society u n l e s s t h e s i t u a t i o n i s ' r i p e ' . L e a d e r s a n d the environment are related in a 'systemic' m a n n e r ; thus, what has to b e assessed i s h o w far a l e a d e r i s a b l e , given t h e n a t u r e o f t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e p o l i t y t h a t h e o r s h e r u l e s , t o alter t o s o m e e x t e n t t h e c h a r a c t e r of the d e m a n d s , by accelerating or slowing d o w n m o v e m e n t s of o p i n i o n t h a t exist i n society. But the recognition that leaders s o m e w h a t modify the environment w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e c o n f r o n t e d also m e a n s t h a t t h e qualities a n d r o l e of an individual leader should be j u d g e d n o t by the extent to which, for i n s t a n c e , l a r g e r e f o r m s a r e i n t r o d u c e d , b u t b y t h e i m p a c t h e c a n m a k e given a p a r t i c u l a r ' p r e d i s p o s i t i o n ' o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . Effective l e a d e r s m a y t h e r e f o r e b e f o u n d i n every t y p e o f society. They need not be those w h o appear to be 'heroes', as these m a y , on t h e c o n t r a r y , benefit f r o m a s i t u a t i o n t h a t i s f a v o u r a b l e o r m a y i n t r o d u c e policies t h a t d o n o t survive t h e m a n d m a y b e r e s c i n d e d o r bypassed under subsequent leaders. T h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s t o d a y , i n m o s t c o u n t r i e s a t least, i s felt primarily in internal matters. But both the ambitions of leaders and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t result i n a n i n v o l v e m e n t i n e x t e r n a l m a t t e r s , w h i c h m a y s o m e t i m e s b e c r u c i a l t o t h e survival o f t h e n a t i o n . T h e r e a r e t h e r e f o r e also l e a d e r s ' g o a l s a n d societal d e m a n d s w i t h r e s p e c t t o foreign a f f a i r s , a n d t h e s e a r e r e l a t e d t o i n t e r n a l d e m a n d s p r i m a r i l y b y t h e n e e d o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t o feel t h a t t h e c o u n t r y i s p r o t e c t e d a n d r e s p e c t e d . T h u s , societal d e m a n d s with respect t o e x t e r n a l m a t t e r s m a y b e very l i m i t e d , a l m o s t n o n - e x i s t e n t , where there is c o n t e n t m e n t with the place of the c o u n t r y in the world; b u t t h e l e a d e r m a y b e c o n f r o n t e d with a s t r o n g p r e s s u r e for policy c h a n g e i f t h e c i t i z e n s , b y a n d large, h a v e a n a c u t e sense t h a t their national pride is h u r t , or if the country is subjected to warnings or attacks on t h e p a r t of other nations. The c o m b i n a t i o n of internal and external d e m a n d s complicates the calculus of leaders' goals and p o p u l a r r e a c t i o n s , b o t h b y creating p r o b l e m s for r u l e r s a n d b y o f f e r i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s . T h e internal effect o f a l e a d e r m a y also b e
Conclusion
203
increased or decreased because of an improvement or a deterioration i n t h e feelings o f c i t i z e n s a b o u t t h e s t a t u s o f t h e n a t i o n i n t h e w o r l d . O n this p o i n t t o o , h o w e v e r , t h e i m p a c t o f l e a d e r s m u s t b e m e a s u r e d i n finite a m o u n t s , s i n c e , i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f cases a t least, results a r e n e i t h e r m i n u s c u l e n o r v e r y l a r g e , especially o v e r t i m e . W e h a v e t h e r e f o r e t o b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y a w a r e o f t h e fact t h a t , b y a n d l a r g e , political l e a d e r s p l a y a significant b u t b o u n d e d r o l e i n society. W e h a v e t o a b a n d o n t h e p r a c t i c e o f m a k i n g r a p i d a n d 'radical' judgements separating the great from the inept; we have to l o o k carefully a t t h e l a r g e g r o u p o f l e a d e r s w h o h a v e s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e , given t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e o f their a c t i o n s a n d t h e e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s t h e y face. I n t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , i t b e c o m e s essential to k n o w m o r e a b o u t t h e psychological characteristics of leaders and especially a b o u t t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e s u i t e d t o given s i t u a t i o n s , as it is a l s o essential to d i s c o v e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t s which 'orchestrate' the potential impact of leaders by helping to t r a n s f o r m g o a l s i n t o policies a n d b y i m p r o v i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d f e e d b a c k f r o m t h e citizens. T h i s i s w h y t h e d e t a i l e d s t u d y o f t h e i m p a c t o f political l e a d e r s a n d o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f political l e a d e r s h i p i s m o r e t h a n m e r e c u r i o s i t y a b o u t the behaviour of the m e n a n d w o m e n w h o rule the world: it is directly a n d i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d t o t h e a t t e m p t t o e n s u r e t h a t political leadership improves in the generations to come.
Bibliography
Aberbach, J.D., R.D. Putnam and B.A. Rockman (1981) Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Alexander, R.J. (1962) Prophets of Revolution: Profiles of Latin American Leaders. New York: Macmillan. Bakes, P.B., and O.G. Brim, Jr (ed.) (1983) Life-span Development and Behavior \o\. 5. New York: Academic Press. Barber, J.D. (1968) The Lawmakers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Barber, J.D. (1977) 77i<? Presidential Character, (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barkan, J.D., and J.J. Okumu (1979) Politics and Public Policy in Kenya and Tanzania. New York: Praeger. Bass, B.M. (1981) StogdilTs Handbook on Leadership. New York: Free Press. Bensman, J., and M. Givent (1975) 'Charisma and Modernity: The Use and Abuse of a Concept', Social Research (Winter), 42: 570-614. Benze, J.G., Jr (1981) 'Presidential Skills', Presidential Studies Quarterly, (February) 11: 470-8. Berger, P.L. (1963) 'Charisma and Religious Innovation: The Social Location of Israelite Prophecy', American Sociological Review (December), 28: 9 4 0 - 9 . Bialer, S. (1981) Stalin's Successors: Leadership, Stability and Change in the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press. Blake, R.R., and J.S. Mouton (1982) 'Theory and Research for Developing a Science of Leadership', Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3). Blau, P. (1963) 'Critical Remarks on Weber's Theory of Authority', American Political Science Review (June), 57: 3 0 5 - 1 6 . Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley. Blondel, J. (1980) World Leaders. London: Sage. Blondel, J. (1982) The Organization of Governments. London: Sage. Bogardus, E.S. (1934) Leaders and Leadership. New York: D. Appleton-Century. Borgatta, E.F. (1964) 'The Structure of Personality Characteristics', Behavioural Scientist (January), 9: 8 - 1 7 . Breslauer, G.W. (1982) Krushchev and Brezhnev as Leaders: Building Authority in Soviet Politics. London: Allen & Unwin. Bretton, H. (1966) The Rise and Fall of Kwame Nkrumah: A Study of Personal Rule in Africa. New York: Praeger. Brim, O.G., and J. Kagan (1980) Constancy and Change in Human Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Broder, D. (1980) The Changing of the Guard. New York: Penguin. Browne, C.G., and T.S. Cohn (1958) The Study of Leadership. Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers. Bunce, V. (1981) Do New Leaders Make a Difference? Executive Succession and Public Policy under Capitalism and Socialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Burke, P.J. (1971) 'Task and Social-Emotional Leadership Role Performance', Sociometry (March), 34: 2 2 - 4 0 . Burns, J. McGregor ( 1963) Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. Burns, J. McGregor (1973) Presidential Government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Burns, J. McGregor (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Bibliography
205
Carter, L., W. Haythorn and M. Howell (1950) 'A Futher Investigation of the Criteria of Leadership', Journal of Applied Social Psychology (April), 45: 3 5 0 - 8 . Cartwright, D., and A. Zander (eds) (1960) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson. Cartwright, J.R. (1978) Political Leadership in Sierra Leone. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Cartwright, J.R. (1983) Political Leadership in Africa. New York: St Martins Press. Castles, F. (1982) The Impact of Parties. London and Beverly Hills: Sage. Clapham, C. (1969) 'Imperial Leadership in Ethiopia', African Affairs (April), 68: 271. Clayton, R., and W. Lammers (1978) 'Presidential Leadership Reconsidered: Contemporary Views of Top Federal Officials', Presidential Studies Quarterly (Summer), 8: 2 3 7 - 4 5 . Cleaves, P. (1974) Bureaucratic Politics and Administration in Chile. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, D.C. (1972) 'The Concept of Charisma and the Analysis of Leadership', Political Studies (September), 20: 299-305. Collier, D. (ed.) (1979) The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cronin, T.E. (1975) The State of the Presidency. Boston: Little, Brown. Dahl, R.A. (1961) Who Governs? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Daly, W.T. (1972) The Revolutionary: A Review and Synthesis. London and Beverly Hills: Sage. Davis, J. (1929) 'A Study of 163 Outstanding (Russian) Communist Leaders', American Sociological Review, 24: 4 2 - 5 5 . d'Entreves, E. (1981) Aquinas: Selected Political Writings. Tolowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble. Dogan, M. (1975) The Mandarins of Western Europe. New York: Halsted. Downton, J.V., Jr (1973) Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process. New York: Free Press. Dye, T.R. (1971) The Measurement of Policy Impact. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press. Edinger, L.J. (1964) 'Political Science and Political Biography: Reflections on the Study of Leadership', Journal of Politics (May and August), 26: 4 2 3 - 3 9 and 6 4 8 - 7 6 . Edinger, L.J. (ed.) (1967) Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies: Studies in Comparative Analysis. New York: John Wiley. Edinger, L.J. (1975) 'The Comparative Study of Political Leadership', Comparative Politics (January), 7: 253-69. Eisenstadt, S.N. (1963) The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical Bureaucratic Societies. New York: Free Press. Erikson, E.H. (1959) Young Man Luther. New York: W.W. Norton. Erikson, E.H. (1969) Gandhi's Truth. New York: W.W. Norton. Etzioni, A. (1965) 'Dual Leadership in Complex Organizations', American Sociological Review (October), 30: 688-98. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1940) The Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Eyestone, R. (1970) The Threads of Public Policy: A Study in Policy Leadership. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Fagen, R.R. (1965) 'Charismatic Authority and the Leadership of Fidel Castro', Western Political Quarterly (June), 18: 2 7 5 - 8 4 . Farrell, R. B. (ed.) (1970) Political Leadership in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Chicago: Aldine.
206
Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler, F.E., and M.M. Chemers (1975) Leadership and Effective Management Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman. Fishbein, M., E. Landy and G. Hatch (1969) 'Consideration of Two Assumptions underlying Fiedler's Contingency Model for Prediction of Leadership Effectiveness'. American Journal of Psychology, 82(4): 4 5 7 - 7 3 . Forrester, D.B. (1970) 'Indian State Ministers and their Roles', Asian Survey (June), 10: 472-82. Friedland, W. H. (1964) 'For a Sociological Concept of Charisma', Social Forces, (October), 43: 18-26. Friedrich, C. J. (1961) 'Political Leadership and the Problem of Charismatic Power', Journal of Politics (February), 23: 3 - 2 4 . Geertz, C. (ed.) (1963) Old Societies and New States. New York: Free Press. George, A . L . , and J.L. George (1956) Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study. New York: Dover Press. Gerth, H.H., and C.W. Mills (eds) (1958) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Gibb, C.A. (1954) 'Leadership', pp.877-920 in Lindzey Gardner (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology: Special Fields and Applications, Vol. II. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley. Glassman, R. (1975) 'Legitimacy and Manufactured Charisma', Social Research (Winter), 43: 6 1 5 - 3 6 . Goldman, M., and L.A. Fraas (1965) 'The Effects of Leader Selection on Group Performance', Sociometry (March), 28: 8 8 2 - 8 . Gonzales, E. (1974) Cuba Under Castro: The Limits of Charisma. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gouldner, A.W. (ed.) (1965) Studies in Leadership. New York: Russell and Russell. Greenstein, F.l. (1967) 'The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away Underbrush', American Political Science Review (September), 61: 6 2 9 - 4 1 . Greenstein, F.l. (1969) Personality and Politics. Chicago: Markham. Groth, A.J. (1970) 'Britain and America: Some Requisites of Executive Leadership Compared', Political Science Quarterly (June), 85: 2 1 7 - 3 9 . Gruder, W. (1971) 'Career Patterns of Mexico's Political Elite', Western Political Quarterly (September), 24: 4 6 7 - 8 2 . Gulembiewski R.T. (1961) 'Three Styles of Leadership and Their Uses', Personnel (July/August), 38: 3 4 - 4 5 . Gurr, T.R. (1970) Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press. Haddad, G.M. (\911) Revolutionsand Military Rule in the Middle East: The Arab States. New York: Speller. Halal, W.E. (1974) 'Toward a General Theory of Leadership', Human Relations, 27(4): 401-16. Hamblin, R.L. (1958) 'Leadership and Crisis', Sociometry (December), 21: 322-35. Hare, A . P . (1957) 'Situational Differences in Leader Behavior', Journal of Applied Social Psychology (My), 55: 132-4. Hargrove, E.C. (1966) Presidential Leadership Personality and Political Style. New York: Macmillan. Heady, B. (1974) British Cabinet Ministers. London: Allen and Unwin. Herrmann, M.G. (ed.) (1977) A Psychological Examination of Political Leaders. New York: Free Press. Hetzler, S. A. (1955) 'Variations in Role Playing Patterns Among Different Echelons of Bureaucratic Leaders', American Sociological Reveiw (December), 20: 7 0 0 - 5 .
Bibliofini/ilnHill, W. (1969) 'The Validation and Extension of Fiedler's Theory of Lettdci Effectiveness', Academy of Management Journal (March), 12: 3 3 - 4 7 . Hirschman, A . O . (1963) Journeys Toward Progress. New York: Twentieth
(CHIMIN
Fund. Hocart, A.M. (1970) Kings and Councillors: An Essay in the Comparative Anatom v oj Human Society. Chicago University Press. Hoffman, S. (1967) 'Heroic Leadership: The Case of Modern France', in L.J. Edingei (ed.), Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies. New York: John Wiley. Hollander, E.P. (1964) Leaders, Groups and Influence. London: Oxford University Press. Hollander, E.P. (1978) Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships. New York: Free Press. Hook, S. (1955) The Hero in History. Boston: Beacon Press. House, R.J., and M.L. Baetz (1979) 'Leadership: Some Empirical Generalizations and New Research Directions', Research in Organisational Behavior. 1. Hudson, M.C. (1977) Arab Politics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Hunt, J.G., and L.L. Larsen (eds) (1979) Crosscurrents in Leadership. Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press. Huntington, S.P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Inkeles, A., and D.H. Smith (1974) Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Jackman, R.W. (1976) 'Politicians in Uniform: Military Governments and Social Change in the Third World', American Political Science Review (December), 70: 1078-97. Jackson, R.H., and C G . Rsberg (1981) Personal Rule in Black Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kautsky, J.H. (1969) 'Revolution and Managerial Elites in Modernizing Regimes', Comparative Politics (July), 441-67. Kellerman, B. (1984a) The Political Presidency. New York: Oxford University Press. Kellerman, B. (1984b) Leadership: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kenneth, F. (ed.) (1975) Militarism in Developing Countries. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Kipnis, D. (1958) 'The Effects of Leadership Style and Leadership Power Upon the Inducement of an Attitude Change', Journal of Applied Social Psychology (September), 57: 173-80. Korten, D.C. (1962) 'Situational Determinants of Leadership Structure', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6: 2 2 2 - 3 5 . Koslin, B., and M. Moos (1951) 'Political Leadership Re-examined: An Experimental Approach', Public Opinion Quarterly (Fall), 563-74. Krieger, L. (1970) Kings and Philosophers, 1689-1789. New York: W.W. Norton. Lacouture, J. (1970) The Demigods: Charismatic Leadership in the Third World. New York: Alfred Knopf. Laird, R.E. (1966) 'Some Characteristics of the Soviet Leadership System: A Maturing Totalitarian System', Midwestern Journal of Political Science (February), 10: 29 38. Lande, C.H. (1965) Leaders, Factions and Parties: The Structure of Philippine Politics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Southeast Asia Monograph, no. 6. Lasswell, H . D . (1960) Psychopathology and Politics. New York: Viking Press (liist published 1936). Lasswell, H . D . , D. Lerner and C.E. Rothwell (1952) The Comparative Study of Elites. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press.
208
Leach, E.R. (1954) The Political Systems of Highland Burma. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lee, M.T. (1968) 'The Founders of the Chinese Communist Party: A Study in Revolutionaries', Civilizations, 13: 11327. Leighton, A. (1945) The Governing of Men. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lemarchand, Ren (ed.) (1977) African Kingship in Perspective: Political Change and Modernization in Monarchical Settings. London: Frank Cass. Malloy, J.M. (1977) Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. University of Pittsburgh Press. Marak, G.E., Jr (1964) 'The Evolution of Leadership Structure', Sociometry (June), 27: 174-82. Marcus, J.T. (1961) 'Transcendence and Charisma', Western Political Quarterly (March), 14: 2 3 6 - 4 1 . Mazlich, B. (1976) The Revolutionary Ascetic. New York: Basic Books. Mazlich, B. (1981) 'Leader and Led: Individual and Group', Psychohistory Review (Spring) :214-37. Mazlich, B. (1984) 'History, Psychology and Leadership', in Kellerman (1984b). Mazrui, A.A. (1970) 'Leadership in Africa: Obote of Uganda', International Journal (Summer), 25(3): 5 3 8 - 6 4 . McClelland, D. (1975) Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington. McFarland, A . S . (1969) Power and Leadership in Pluralist Systems. Palo Alto: University of California Press. McKenzie, R.T. (1955) British Political Parties. London: Heinemann. McKinlay, R.D. and A.S. Cohan (1975) 'A Comparative Analysis of the Political and Economic Performance of Military and Civilian Regimes', Comparative Politics (October), 8: 1-30. McKinlay, R.D. and A . S . Cohan (1976) 'Performance and Instability in Military and Nonmilitary Regime Systems', American Political Science Review (September), 70: 850-64. Micaud, C.A. (1969) 'Leadership and Development: The Case of Tunisia', Comparative Politics (July), 1: 4 6 8 - 8 4 . Mitchell, T.R. (1970) 'Leader Complexity and Leadership Style', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116: 166-74. Moos, M., and B. Koslin (1952) 'Prestige Suggestion and Political Leadership', Public Opinion Quarterly (Spring), 16: 7 7 - 9 3 . Morris, R.T., and M. Seeman (1950) 'The Problem of Leadership: An Interdisciplinary Approach', American Journal of Sociology (September), 56: 152ff. Neustadt, R. (1960) Presidential Power. New York: John Wiley. Nice, D.C. (1984) 'The Influence of War and Party System Aging on the Ranking of Presidents', Western Political Quarterly (September), 4 4 3 - 5 5 . Noland, R.L. (1966) 'Presidential Disability and the Proposed Constitutional Amendment', American Psychologist, 21. Nordlinger, E.A. (1970) 'Soldiers in Mufti: The Impact of Military Rule upon Economic and Social Change in the Non-Western States', American Political Science Review (December), 64: 1131-48. Odetola, O. (1982) Military Regimes and Development. London: Allen and Unwin. O'Donnell, G.A. (1973) Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism. Berkeley, Cai.: Institute of International Studies. Ohl, C M . (1981) 'An Exploratory Investigation of House's 1976 Theory of Charisma as Revealed in the Speeches of American Charismatic Leaders', Florida State University Dissertation Abstracts International (March), 41: 9-a.
BtblioKKiphv
JOV
Olson, M. (1982) The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven, ( 0 1 1 1 1 1 uli I Press. Paige, C D . (1972) Political Leadership. New York: Free Press. Paige, C D . (1977) The Scientific Study of Political Leadership. New Yoi k I l*n Pareto, W. (1963) The Mind and Society (4 vols). New York: Dover Press (In H published 1916). Perlmutter, A. (1981a) Modern Authoritarianism: A Comparative Institutional \imlv\i\ New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Perlmutter, A. (1981b) Political Rulers and Military Rulers. London: Frank I Ml Perrucci, R., and M. Pilisuk (1970) 'Leaders and Ruling Elites: The Interorganlzatlonal Bases of Community Power', American Sociological Review (DecernInII). IS 1040-57. Pressman, J., and A. Wildavsky (1973) Implementation. Berkeley: University "I California Press. Rabow, J., F.J. Fowler, Jr, D.L. Bradford, M.A. Hotelier, and Y. Shibnya (1966) 'I lie Role of Social Norms and Leadership in Risk-Taking', Sociometry (March), 29: 16 27. Rappoport, A.S. (1910) Mad Majesties. New York: Brentano. Ratnam, K.J. (1964) 'Charisma and Political Leadership', Political Studies (October), 12: 341-54. Rejai, M. (1969) 'Toward the Comparative Study of Political Decision-Makers', Comparative Political Studies (October), 2: 3 4 9 - 6 0 . Rejai, M. and K. Phillips (1979) Leaders of Revolution. London and Beverly Hills: Sage. Rejai, M. and K. Phillips (1983) World Revolutionary Leaders. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Renshon, S.A. (1984) 'Assessing Political Leaders: The Criterion of Mental Health', in Kellerman (1984b). Robins, R.S. (ed.) (1977) Psychopathology and Political Leadership. New Orleans: Tulane University Press. Roche, J.P. (1955) 'The Bureaucrat and the Enthusiast: An Exploration of the Leadership of Social Movements', Western Political Quarterly (June), 8: 2 4 8 - 6 1 . Rose, R. and E.N. Suleiman (eds) (1980) Presidents and Prime Ministers. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Runyan, W.M. (1982) Life Histories and Psychobiographies: Explorations in Theoryand Method. New York: Oxford University Press. Rustow, D.A. (ed.) (1970) Philosophers and Kings: Studies in Leadership. New York: George Braziller. Sayles, L.R. (1979) Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schapera, I. (1956) Government and Politics in Tribal Societies. London: C A . Watts. Schwartz, B. (1983) 'George Washington and the Whig Conception of Heroic Leadership', American Sociological Review (February), 48: 18-33. Schweitzer, A.R. (1974) 'Theory and Political Charisma', Comparative Studies in Society and History (March), 16: 150-81. Searing, D . D . (1969) 'Models and Images of Man and Society in Leadership Theory', Journal of Politics (February), 31: 30-1 Selassie, B.H. (1974) The Executive in African Governments. London: Heinemann. Selznik, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Harper and Row. Shack, W . A . , and P.S. Cohen (eds) (1979) Politics in Leadership Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shils, E. (1965) 'Charisma, Order, and Status', American Sociological Review (April), 30: 199-212.
1
210
Shils, E. (1968) 'Charisma', in Encyclopaedia ofthe Social Sciences. London: Macmillan. Shogan, R. (1982) None of the Above. New York: New American Library. Sills, D. (1968) International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 9, 'Leadership', pp. 9 1 - 1 1 3 . Smith, G. (ed.) (1971) 1000 Makers of the Twentieth Century. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. Stewart, L.H. (1977) 'Birth Order and Political Leadership', pp. 2 0 6 - 3 6 in Herrmann (1977). Stogdill, R.M. (197'4) Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York: Free Press. Stogdill, R.M., and A . E . Coons (eds) (1957) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. Suleiman, E.N. (1984) Bureaucrats and Policy-Makers. New York: Holmes and Meier. Swearingen, R. (ed.) (1971) Leaders of the Communist World. New York: Free Press. Thiselton, T.F. (1903) Royalties in All Ages. London: John C. Nimmo. Tonnies, F. (1955) Community and Association (English edition). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Toth, M. A. (1981) The Theory of the Two Charismas. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Tucker, R.C. (1968) 'The Theory of Charismatic Leadership', Daedalus (Summer), 97: 731-56. Tucker, R.C. (1973) Stalin as Revolutionary 1879-1929. New York: W.W. Norton. Tucker, R.C. (1977) 'Personality and Political Leadership', Political Science Quarterly (Fall), 92: 3 8 3 - 9 3 . Tucker, R.C. (1981) Politics as Leadership. Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press. Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society, (3 vols). New York: Bedminster Press. Wildavsky, A. (1969) The Presidency. Boston: Little, Brown. Wildavsky, A. (1975) Perspectives on the Presidency. Boston: Little, Brown. Wildavski, A. (1984) The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader. University of Alabama Press. Willner, A.R. (1970) 'Perspectives on Military Elites as Rulers and Wielders of Power', Journal of Comparative Administration (November), 2: 2 6 1 - 7 6 . Willner, A.R. (1984) The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Willner, A.R., and D. Willner (1965) 'The Rise and Roles of Charismatic Leaders', Annals 358 (March), 7:7-88. Wishart, J.K. (1965) Techniques of Leadership. New York: Vintage Press. Wittfogel, K.A. (1957) Oriental Despotism. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Index
Aberbach, J.D., 79 Absolute (authoritarian) presidencies, 163, 179 Absolute systems, 29 Accession to power, 21, 29, 35, 37, 64, 74, 110, 111, 145, 152, 182, 186 Active vs. passive leaders, 27, 126, 127, 187, 200 Adams, 126 Adenauer, 14, 89, 90, 144, 157, 160, 166 Adjusters, 95, 101, 112 Administration, see Bureaucracy Africa, 76, 90, 175 South of Sahara (Black Africa), 27, 74, 75, 160, 178 Age, 117, 186 Alexander the Great, 91, 200, 201 Algeria, 77 Allport, 129 Amin, 74 Authoritarianism (authoritarian leaders), 3 1 , 7 5 , 102, 158, 163, 165, 166, 177 Autobiographies, 115, 121 Barber, J.D., 27, 28, 38, 1 2 6 - 8 , 146, 183, 190 Bass, B.M., 40, 130-4 Belgium, 158 Biographies, 115, 120-4, 126 Bismarck, 10, 70, 89, 90, 102 Blondel, J., 9, 85, 117, 152, 153, 158-60, 186 Bokassa, 74 Borgatta, E.F., 133 Boumdienne, 77 Bourguiba, 75, 76, 102, 199 Brezhnev, L., 14, 22, 144 Britain, 13, 21, 38, 69, 110, 118, 126,
141, 145, 164, 183 Bunce, V., 142 Bureaucracy, 8, 25, 32, 37, 43, 68, 71, Approaches, 1, 1 0 - 3 5 , 3 6 - 8 0 , 76, 8 1 , 9 5 , 139, 140, 142, 148-55, 163, classical political theory, 4 1 - 5 , 6 5 - 7 , 86, 164, 167-73, 177, 179, 180, 184, 190, 197, 198 192, 199 economics, 47 Burns, J.M., 1,2, 10, 2 0 - 2 , 27, 35, 39, 114 history, 39, 41 institutional, 37, 46 Cabinets 29, 167, 184 (see also Prime leaders-do-not-matter-thesis, 18, 19, ministerial systems) 23, 27, 48, 195 philosophy of history, 47 psychology, 3 8 - 4 1 , 115, 116, 119, 121, 126, 128-30, 133-6, 186, 190 psychopathology, psychoanalysis, 121-4 sociology, 37, 41, 47, 48, 116, 124 social anthropology, 40 Apter, D . , 49 Aquinas, 66 Argentina, 78, 117, 178 Aristotle, 4 1 , 4 5 , 6 3 , 65 Asia, 75 Asquith, 119 Ataturk, K., 75, 90 Atlantic Area (the 'West'), 10, 18, 52, 67, 74, 75, 77, 109, 141, 159, 171, 173, 180, 187, 191, 196 Australia, 159, 164 Austria, 107 Cambodia, 74 Canada, 159 Cardenas, 90 Career, see Accession to power Carter, 127, 140 Cartwright, J.R., 114 Castro, 59, 80 Ceasar, 200, 201 Central African Republic, 74 Centralization, 25, 101, 169 Chamberlain, 119 Charismatic leaders, 21, 24, 38, 39, 4 8 - 6 2 , 135, 140, 198 (see also Weber) Chief Executives, 37, 65, 154, 164 China (Popular Republic), 75, 89, 110, 172 Chile, 7 4 , 9 1 , 103 Churchill, 11, 18, 48, 8 8 - 9 1 , 119, 134, 136, 144, 166, 199 Civil service, servants, see Bureaucracy Cleavages, 103, 111-13, 169, 196 Colbert, 68
212
Effective vs. ineffective leaders, 132, 135, 136, 202 Effectiveness, success, 2, 72, 78, 117, 122, 123, 137, 144, 145, 148, 164, 167, 171 Egypt, 22 Eisenhower, 127, 140, 144 Eisner, K., 55 Emperor Charles V, 91 England, 68 (see also Britain) Enlightened despotism, 68, 70, 70 Entourage, see Subordinates Environment, influence of, 3 - 5 , 7, 11, 1 5 - 1 9 , 2 3 - 5 , 29, 30, 33, 34, 40, 43, 4 5 - 7 , 51, 52, 80, 81, 85, 9 6 - 1 1 4 , 119, 128, 130, 134-6, 142, 144, 201, 202 Equatorial Guinea, 74 Erikson, E.H., 147 Ethiopia, 103 Ethnic background, 118, 186 Europe, 95, 155 Central, 69, 89, 105 Continental, 68, 158, 164, 177 Eastern, 163 North-Western, 14 Western, 109, 156, 161, 165, 195 Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 79 Execution of laws, 66, 67 Experience, training, 142, 143 Family, early childhood, 118, 145, 146 Ferry, 70 Fiedler, F.E., 40, 135, 136, 140, 141 Finland, 158 Foreign affairs, 6 2 - 7 , 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 83, 84, 88, 91, 92, 95, 9 8 - 1 0 0 , 104-6, 111, 155, 195, 196, 202 Founders of new states, regimes, 60, 102, 158, 161, 163, 180, 183 France, 12, 13, 22, 35, 44, 46, 6 8 - 7 0 , 74, 89, 91, 92, 101, 104, 110, 158, 160, 163, 171, 178, 183, 199 Franco, 103, 144 Frederic of Prussia, 69 Friedrich, C.J., 49, 55, 57 Gabon, 75 Gandhi, 122, 147 Germany (Dem. Rep.), 172 Germany (Fed. Rep.), 13, 14, 17, 55, 107, 111, 157, 160, 183, 196 George, A.L. & J.L., 38, 146, 147
Collective leadership, 165, 166 Colonialism, 77 Columbia, 163 Comforters, 101, 103, 105, 106, 112 Commonwealth, 156, 157, 158, 161 Communist systems, 18, 23, 52, 70, 117, 158, 161, 163, 166, 168, 170-3, 179, 186, 188, 191, 192, 196 Comparative study, framework, 8, 11, 12, 17-19, 26, 27, 80, 82, 120, 186, 190 Comte, A., 47 Conflicts, 25, 37, 6 0 - 2 , 167 internal, 30, 63, 72, 109, 119 external, 8, 30, 6 3 - 8 , 7 1 - 2 , 73, 104-12, 118, 141, 196, 200, 202 Conservative leaders, 3 2 - 4 , 83 Constitutional presidencies, 6, 159, 179, 183 Coups, see Succession, irregular Cromwell, O., 10 Dahl, R . A . , 4 1 Definition, of leadership, 2, 3, 11-17 components of, 16, 50 conceptualization, 181, 189-94 mobilization, 16, 17, 62, 200, 201 diagnosis, 16, 17, 200 prescription of course of action, 16, 17, 200 De Gaulle, 12, 14, 78, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 135, 136, 157, 160, 195, 196 Demographic characteristics, 11, 37, 38, 117-20, 130, 131, 133, 134, 136, 137, 144-6, 182, 184, 185 Demands, see Public Support d'Entreves, E., 66 De Valera, 157 Development, see Socio-economic change Disraeli, 70 Dogan, M., 79 Downton, J.V., 60 Dual leadership, 156, 183, 184 Duration, 9, 29, 51, 85, 152, 154, 156-9, 182-5 fixed term, 159-62 continuity, 15, 64 stability, consolidation, maintenance, 64, 74 Eden, 141 Educational background, 43, 116, 117, 120, 145, 146, 186, 200 Educational policy, 69, 70
Index
Ghana, 157 Gibb, C . A . , 4 0 , 41, Goals, 25, 29, 34, 63, 8 0 - 1 0 1 , 107-14, 116, 122, 125, 141, 155, 160, 162, 164, 167, 168, 170, 172, 1 8 7 - 9 , 1 9 2 - 4 , 201, 202 Gomulka, 22 Good government, 6 5 - 7 Gorbachev, 14 Great Britain, see Britain Great Depression, 70, 72 Great leaders, 1 0 - 1 5 , 18, 34, 92, 94, 95 Greece, 22, 157 Greenstein, F.L, 38, 129, 138, 146 Grenada, 77 Groups, 25, 5 3 , 9 5 , 101, 111, 148, 151, 153, 155, 163, 173 ethnic, 174-7, 179, 185 interest, 46, 175-6 religious, 174-7, 179, 185 tribal, 174-6, 178, 179, 185 Guyana, 157 Heads of Governments as distinct from Heads of State, 156, 157 Heady, B., 126, 186, 190 Heath, 196 Hegel, 47 Heredity, 117, 183 Hermann, M.G., 40, 133 Heroes, 10, 11, 19-26, 47, 64, 66, 82, 86, 87, 93, 109, 120, 124, 195, 202 Hierarchal government, 165 (see also Collective leadership) Hitler, 11, 22, 48, 86, 90, 91, 95, 122, 199 Hobbes, 3, 41, 43, 44, 63, 65, 66 Hoffmann, S., 114 Holland, 68 Hollander, C P . , 40 Huntington, S.P., 49 Ideal leadership, 17, 44, 199, 200 Ideal types of leadership, see Weber Ideology, see Goals Impact, 4, 5, 6, 11, 1 8 , 2 3 , 2 6 - 8 , 4 8 , 50, 51, 127, 136-47, 161, 162, 164, 168, 173, 181, 182, 185, 186, 192-3, 199, 201-03 (see also Role of leaders) Implementation, 33, 81, 85, 98, 100, 140, 150, 153, 154, 169-72 (see also Bureaucracy) Imposition, coercion, repression, 3 0 - 3 4 , 75
213
Internal affairs, 6 2 - 7 , 84, 88, 91, 92, 98, 100-12, 141, 195, 196, 201, 202 India, 117 Innovators, 95, 101, 103, 106, 112, 200, 201 Informal bodies, 175, 177 (see also Groups, Parties) Institutional arrangements, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 25, 2 7 - 3 0 , 34, 45, 46, 52, 85, 115, 123, 148-51, 153-80, 182, 199 Institutionalization, see Institutional arrangements International environment, 77, 9 8 - 1 0 1 , 105-7, 109, 112, 113 (see also Conflicts, external, and Foreign Affairs) isolation, 3 2 - 4 Iran 52, 90, 102 Ireland, 157 Italy, 17, 67, 158, 183 Ivory Coast, 75, 157 Jackson, R., 27, 29, 74 Janda, K., 9 Japan, 105, 109, 110, 183, 196 Jefferson, 126 Joan of Arc, 104 Johnson, 76, 78, 196 Jordan, 52 Karamanlis, 157 Kaunda, 59 Kellerman, B., 1, 2, 39 Kennedy, J.F., 22, 63, 127, 136, 164 Kenya, 75 King, R., 147 King of Morocco, 52, 77 King of Jordan, 52 Khaddafi, 59 Kruschev, 14 Lasswell, H . D . , 38, 121 Latin America, 74, 161, 183, 188 Law-making, 66, 67 Leach, E.R., 79 Legislatures, assemblies, 37, 38, 122, 126, 155, 157, 159, 163, 164, 175, 177, 186 Legitimacy, 50, 51, 54, 55, 64, 65, 198 Lenin, 10, 2 1 - 3 , 89, 91, 199 Limited presidencies, see Constitutional presidencies Lincoln, 11 Lloyd George, 119
214
Locke, 4 1 , 4 2 , 4 5 , 6 5 - 7 Noland, R.L., 147 Longlasting leaders, 85, 105, 144, 158, 161 Non-political leadership, 1, 40, 55, 56 Louis XIV, 68, 195 North Korea, 117, 166 Luther, 122, 147 Nyerere, 59, 199 Lycurgus, of Sparta, 10, 35, 42, 66, 67 Occupational background, 116, 117, 120, Machiavelli, N., 36, 4 1 - 5 , 63, 64, 67, 198 186 Macias, 74 Operationlization, 15, 5 7 - 6 0 , 88, 181, Macmillan, 22 189, 192 Maddison, 126 Opinion polls, 187, 189, 192 Oppositions, 29, 31, 76, 173 Managers, office-holders, 'mere' policymakers, 10, 12, 13, 19-26, 9 2 - 5 , Ostrogorski, 38 100, 101, 105, 106, 112, 143, 187,201 Paige, G . D . 1, 2, 9, 28, 29, 36, 39, 50 Mao Tse-tung, 10, 23, 86, 87, 89, 91, Palme, 166 103, 199 Paraguay, 34 Marx, K., 45 Pareto, W., 2 1 , 4 0 , 47 Mazich, B., 22, 23, 39 Parliamentary systems, 29, 158, 161, 163, McKenzie, R.T., 38 165, 166 Measurement, 40, 181-94 Parliaments, see Legislatures Media, 25, 32 Parties, 16, 21, 25, 35, 38, 46, 1 4 8 - 5 1 , Mercantilism, 68, 195 155, 158, 159, 163, 166, 167, 172, 173, Mexico, 178 176-80, 184, 186, 199 Michels, R., 38, 47 Paternalistic leaders, 8 9 - 9 1 , 93, 103 Middle East, 76 Ptain, 91 Military, 75, 152, 153, 163, 165, 177, Peel, 69 179, 183, 185, 191 Peron, 136 Ministerial posts, ministers, 126, 141, Personal characterstics, 19, 25, 28, 165-7 (see also Entourage) 115-47, 121, 181, 182, 198, 200 (see also Mitterrand, F., 35 background) Models, 8, 80, 121 Personality, role of, 2 , 4 - 6 , 8, 21, 25, Monarchies, monarchs, 6, 13, 42, 43, 66, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 45, 85, 124, 125, 68, 89, 117, 120, 152, 1 5 5 - 8 , 161, 163, 128-47, 166, 167, 1 8 0 - 2 , 186, 194, 199, 165, 177, 179, 183, 199 203, Montesquieu, 35, 4 1 , 42, 45, 65 components, traits, 115, 121, 124-36, 137 Morocco, 52 conceptualization, definition, 115, 116, Mosca, G., 38, 47 124-9 Moses, 89, 104 measurement, 189, 190 Mussolini, 199 types, 121, 1 2 4 - 8 Napoleon, 10, 2 2 , 4 6 , 47, 86, 87, 95, 200, Personalization, 61 (see also Charismatic 201 leadership) Nasser, 59, 77, 78, 90, 136, 196, 199 Personal rule, 48, 74 National identity, 1 0 8 - 1 1 , 196, 202, 203 Peru, 178 Nationbuilding, 175 Peter the Great, 68 Nationalism, 32 Phillips, K., 11, 118, 124, 186, 190 Philosopher-kings, 43, 198 'Natural' political structures, 1 5 1 - 4 , Pinochet, 91 173-5, 179, 185, 191 Nehru, 199 Plato, 4 1 , 4 3 , 44, 6 3 , 2 0 0 Neustadt, R., 38, 39 Plutarch, 20, 120 New leaders, 142 Pol Pot, 74 Nixon, R., 122, 127 Popularity, 61, 62, 65, 71, 77, 111, 134, Nkrumah, 59, 78, 136, 1% 135, 141, 160, 178, 180, 187-9
Index
Populist leaders, 90, 91, 93, 95, 106, 199 Portugal, 157, 158 Position, see Resources Positive vs. negative leaders, 27, 126, 127, 187 Power(s) of leaders, 2 - 4 , 1 4 - 1 7 , 37, 42, 44, 148, 149, 156, 177 power to appoint, dismiss other leading positions 148, 149, 1 5 2 - 5 , 157, 158, 162-5 (see also Entourage) Presidents, 11, 13, 14, 17, 29, 37, 38, 118, 126, 140, 146, 156, 157, 159 Presidential systems, 13, 14, 29, 37, 38, 41, 148, 161, 163, 165, 179, 191 (see also Absolute presidencies, Constitutional presidencies) Prestige, status, 149, 152, 154-6, 161, 171 Prime ministers, 11, 21, 22, 37, 118, 126, 141, 156-9, 166, 167, 179 (see also Dual leadership) Prime ministerial systems, 29, 161, 163, 179, 183 Progressive leaders, 32, 34, 84, 91 Protectors, 93, 94, 101, 106, 113 Public support, rejection, 7, 8, 16, 25, 3 0 - 4 , 36, 43, 5 1 - 4 , 56, 58, 6 0 - 2 , 64, 71, 74, 99, 108, 134, 139, 140, 142, 148-55, 164, 168-70, 172, 173, 177-9, 184, 187, 189, 191, 192, 197, 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 - 3 Putnam, R.D., 79 Rappoport, A . S . , 122 Rational, legalistic bureaucratic leaders (rule), 21, 24, 5 0 - 3 , 56, 60, 135 Reactionary leaders, 90, 91 Reagan, 77, 94, 140 Reformers, 95, 103, 106, 113, 200 Regime, see Institutional arrangements, Personalization Regional, geographic background, 120, 186 Rejai, M., 1, 11, 118, 124, 186, 190 Religious background, 118, 120, 186 Religious bodies, groups, 174-7, 179, 185 Renshon, S.A., 147 Repression, see Imposition Resources, 3 - 6 , 25, 2 8 - 3 0 , 181, 182, 199, 201 institutions, 155, 180-3, 192, 198, 200, 203 legal position, 5, 6, 13, 14, 17, 148, 149
215
measurement, 190-3 Results, see Impact Retirement, see Succession Revolutionary ideologies, 91, 103, 106 Revolutionary leaders, 11, 21, 33, 35, 75, 77, 89, 93, 103, 106, 111, 113, 118, 124-6, 186, 190, 201 Ricardo, 47 Robespierre, 86, 87 Robins, R.S., 147 Rockman, B.A., 79 Role of government, see Impact Roles of leaders, 2, 3 6 - 8 0 , 138 Romania, 166 Rosberg, C, 27, 29, 74 Rose, R., 79 Roosevelt, F.D., 11, 21, 22, 48, 109, 126, 136, 199 Roosevelt, T., 55 Rousseau, 35, 41, 42, 44, 45, 65, 66, 198 Routes to leadership, see Accession to power Runyan, W.M., 147 Sahara, 77 Saviours, 88, 9 0 - 3 , 102, 104-6, 112, 135, 198, 200, 201 Schapera, I., 79 Schmidt, 166 Schweitzer, A., 57 Scope of activities, 7, 8, 15, 34, 35, 45, 80, 93, 94, 175, 179, 181, 188, 192, 193 Secretaries of communist parties (in power), 14, 183, 191 Seligman, L., 1 Senghor, 76 Sex, 117, 186 Shah of Iran, 52, 90, 102 Shared leadership, 156, 165 (see also Dual leadership) Shils, E., 49 Sills, D . , 1 , 4 0 , 4 1 Shogan, R., 63 Soares, 157 Social background, 25, 116, 117, 145, 146, 186 Socialization, 11, 95, 119, 144, 146 (see also Background) Social movements, 39 Socio-economic change, 62, 68, 73, 103, 170, 172, 195, 197-9
216
Tito, 196, 199 Tonnies, F., 53 Traditional leaders (rule), 24, 5 1 - 3 , 60 Traditions, 7, 8, 149, 1 5 1 - 3 , 155 Transfer of power, see Succession Transforming leaders, 20, 21, 27, 35, 89, 9 1 - 3 , 103, 105, 106, 111 Transactional leaders, 20, 21, 27, 35 Trudeau, P., 166 Tucker, R.C., 1, 16, 20, 39, 49, 147, 200 Tunisia, 102 Turnover, see Duration Truman, H., 126 Typologies, 12 (see also, Presidencies, Prime ministerial systems, Dual leadership, Monarchies, Long leaders, Military) Tyrants, 11,20, 2 3 , 8 6 , 87, 198 Uganda, 74 United States, 17, 37, 38, 39, 46, 66, 74, 100, 109, 117, 118, 122, 126, 140, 146, 159, 161, 164, 165, 169, 180, 183, 191 Venezuela, 163 Voltaire, 44 War leaders, 18 Washington, 11, 126 Weber, 21, 24, 35, 37, 38, 40, 4 7 - 6 2 , 88, 135, 198 Western Europe, see Atlantic Area Wildavsky, A., 41 Willner, A.R., 54, 5 7 - 6 0 , 79 Wilson, H., 21 Wilson, W., 38, 122, 147
Socio-economic environment, 30, 32, 33, 47, 48, 71, 7 5 - 7 , 169, 170 (see also Cleavages, Conflicts) Socio-economic policy (-making), 62, 6 8 - 7 7 , 1 9 5 , 196 Solon, of Athens, 2, 66 Sorensen, T., 63 South & South-East Asia, 188 Southern Hemisphere, 73 Sovereigns, see Monarchs Soviet Union (Russia), 14, 23, 39, 68, 70, 74, 107, 109-11, 163, 191, 1% Specialization, 93, 163 Sri Lanka, 117, 157 Stalin, 11, 14, 48, 86, 87, 103, 109, 122, 147, 163, 191 Stewart, L., 118, 119 Stogdill, R.M., 1 , 2 , 4 0 , 130-3 Stroessner, 34 Subordinates, 6, 9, 16, 68, 71, 8 0 - 1 , 139, 142, 149, 151-4, 162, 164, 167, 179, 180, 184, 199 advisers, personal staff, 162-4, 184 ministers, 71, 81, 1 6 2 - 4 , 184, 186 Succession, 110, 152 irregular, 110, 158, 161, 196, 197 (see also Military) regular, retirement, 66, 67, 158, 161, 196 Sukarno, 59, 78 Suleiman, E.N.B., 79 Sweden, 159, 183, 191 Switzerland, 29, 100, 156, 164, 166, 167 Taiwan, 117 Thatcher, 18, 77, 95, 100 Third" World, 18, 29, 38, 39, 46, 49, 5 7 - 9 , 69, 70, 7 4 - 6 , 90, 102, 110, 156, 157, 169-74, 183, 188, 196, 199 Thiselton, T.F., 122 Titles of leaders, 148, 157
Yugoslavia, 156
Zambia, 157

Political Leadership: Towards A General Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Leadership: Towards A General Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Towards a General Analysis

ISBN i B039 8036-1 I Ilnn ol Congrill Catalog Card Number 87-060197

148 181 195 204 211

1 What is political leadership and how can it be assessed?

What is political leadership?

What is 'real' leadership?

What is political leadership?

What is political leadership?

What is political leadership?

What is political leadership?

The unwarranted dichotomy between 'heroes' and 'mere' office-holders

What is political leadership?

What is political leadership?

Towards a general classification of political leadership

What is political leadership?

Leadership and imposition

What is politicai leadership?

The role of political leadership past and present

The role of political leadership

The traditionally limited scope given to leadership in political science

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

Political leadership three types of authority

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

The role of political leadership

3 A conceptual assessment of the impact of political leaders

A general classification of leaders' goals

The broad framework of environmental influence on leadership

SAVIOURS (Moses, Churchill, De Gaulle)

PATERNALISTS/ POPULISTS (Bismarck, Stalin, Shah, many Third World)

IDEOLOGUES (Mao, Lenin, Hitler)

MODERATE SCOPE (aspect of a system)

'REDEF1NERS' (JFK, Reagan, Thatcher)

SPECIALIZED SCOPE (policy area)

MANAGERS (ministers who administer dayto-day problems)

ADJUSTERS/ TINKERERS (ministers who modify an aspect of a policy)

INNOVATORS (new policy: i.e. land reform)

discover the ways leadership c a n serve nations in the m a n n e r m o s t profitable to their p o p u l a t i o n s .

4 The influence of personal characteristics on political leadership

The analysis of personal factors in political leadership

Psychology and the general analysis of the personal components of leadership

How do or might impact of leaders?

5 The influence of institutions on political leadership

The influence of institutions

The influence of institutions

The influence of institutions