essay on an political leader

The character of American democracy: Values-based leadership

Subscribe to governance weekly, jill long thompson jlt jill long thompson board chair and ceo, farm credit administration; former member of the u.s. house of representatives.

November 12, 2020

During the Watergate investigation, President Richard Nixon’s supporters would often argue that because they agreed with his policy positions, they could overlook his ethical and moral shortcomings. At that time a member of the U.S. House, Earl Landgrebe from my home state of Indiana, took this position to the extreme when he said, “Don’t confuse me with the facts” because he had made up his mind and would continue to support the president.

We hear a similar sentiment expressed today by supporters of President Donald Trump as they support his continuing claims that the election was fraudulent. This reflects a belief by some that ethical leadership is not important, or even relevant, so long as elected officials advance policies with which they agree. This kind of thinking is a threat to our democracy and our country.

Democracy is a form of government built on a foundation of ethical principles and it cannot survive unless those principles are honored and protected. Values matter because how we adopt laws is as important as the laws we adopt, and all of us are charged with protecting the self-governing principles that are the foundation of our great nation. Unethical leadership can undermine the democratic process, and even democracy itself.

Values-based leadership is essential to preserving and protecting democratic principles and there are at least three widely recognized moral virtues that are central to ensuring the governing process is democratic: truthfulness, justice, and temperance.

Truthfulness

When leaders lie, it is usually because the facts are not on their side and they do not want others to know the truth. They think the lie benefits them personally, usually at a cost to the rest of us. According to The Washington Post, The Fact Checker determined in August of this year that President Trump had made 22,000 false and misleading claims since taking office.

These untruths hurt our democracy because when our leaders deceive us, it becomes more challenging for the public to learn the facts. And that makes it more challenging for citizens to provide meaningful input. This undermines the all-important role of the citizenry in the policy-making process and it will most likely lead to the adoption of policies that are flawed because decisions based on falsehoods are usually bad decisions.

I came of age when the nation was deeply divided over our involvement in the Vietnam War and I very much wanted to believe that our political leaders were telling us the truth and that the anti-war protesters were wrong. But by the time I had completed my freshman year of college, critical content of the Pentagon Papers had been leaked to the press, confirming the very criticism the protesters were raising. Had the citizenry been told the truth, the course of history could have been changed for the better.

And today, we have lost tens of thousands of lives to COVID-19 that could have been saved had President Trump stated to the public what he said in his interviews with Robert Woodward.

Justice exists only when there is fairness in the process of governing. It requires those in leadership positions to consider the varied interests of all and to protect equality of participation. There must also be transparency.

Voter suppression of any kind is unjust and a threat to democracy. For example, how we draw congressional district maps influences the fairness of our elections. When congressional districts are construed in ways that concentrate voters of one political party in a smaller number of districts than is representative of the actual number of voters in that party, it can result in one party receiving a larger share of seats than votes.

As an example, in 2016 Republican candidates running for the U.S. House received 49.9 percent of the votes cast, while Democratic candidates received 47.3 percent of the votes cast. But Republicans won 55.2 percent, and Democrats won 44.8 percent of the seats in the House. In other words, Republicans got a “seats bonus.” Such gerrymandering suppresses the voices of voters across the country and clearly undercuts the most basic democratic principle of political equality.

Temperance is also central to democratic leadership. In democracy we do not each get our way, but we must respect the right we all have to work with our fellow citizens and address our challenges in a way that moves us forward as a people. Respect for the rights of others is essential. Good leaders do not divide and conquer, but rather, they bring people together through the democratic process. We are all in this together and we must all work together for the greater good of our nation.

Democracy is a principled form of government in which we all matter, and values-based leadership is central to preserving and protecting this great democratic experiment we call the United States of America.

Jill Long Thompson is a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, former Under Secretary at U.S.D.A., and former Board Chair and CEO at the Farm Credit Administration. She is a visiting scholar with the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University Bloomington and has authored a book, The Character of American Democracy, published by Indiana University Press on September 15, 2020. The opinions expressed in this essay are hers and do not necessarily reflect those of Indiana University.

Related Content

Elaine Kamarck

September 24, 2019

Michael Hais, Doug Ross, Morley Winograd

February 1, 2022

April 3, 2018

Campaigns & Elections Presidency

Governance Studies

Center for Effective Public Management

Kurtis Nelson, Darrell M. West

September 12, 2024

Michael E. O’Hanlon

Rashawn Ray, Gabriel R. Sanchez, Kathryn Dunn Tenpas

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, ai and advanced technologies in the fight: combatant command and service collaboration, a new cold war: congressional rhetoric and regional reactions to the u.s.-china rivalry, what are the impacts of gps jamming and spoofing on civilians.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

A New Political Leadership for the Twenty-First Century

Photo: RAUL ARBOLEDA/AFP/Getty Images

Table of Contents

Report by Marcos Peña

Published December 8, 2021

Available Downloads

• Download the Full Report 121kb
• Download the Spanish Report 154kb

Rethinking the Personal Dimension of Politics

This work comes from a personal search. In December 2019, after 16 years in public office, I finished my job as chief of cabinet of ministers for President Mauricio Macri’s administration in Argentina. At 42 years old, and after many years of being at the political forefront, I was drained and decided to step back a bit to be able to have perspective and process the lived experience.

I had the invaluable collaboration of Alberto Lederman, an Argentine consultant on leadership and organizations, for that process. He is a wise man who taught me a lot on the importance of the human and personal dimension of leadership. I learned many of the ideas that I write in this paper from him, his experience, his perspective, and from the many conversations we have had in the past three years. He also helped me understand that in order to help others you must take care of yourself.  

At first, I organized the task by writing about and reviewing the political process that had taken us from the creation of a new local party in 2003 in the city of Buenos Aires to governing the country. What had we learned? What had gone well and what hadn’t? What were the innovations that we were able to implement and what were the changes that were not achieved? Finally, I wanted to try to understand clearly why we could not win the reelection, frustrating a transformation process that had generated great hope in the country and in the region.

As I progressed with that task, I did more personal work, trying to better understand what I had felt and lived in those years. I wanted to avoid remaining trapped in the intensity of what I had experienced, as I saw it happen many times to those who held an important position and remained stuck in that experience.

One of the lessons learned took place when I asked people I had worked with to help me take a closer look at things I had to work on or that stood out. I had nearly 50 conversations asking feedback on a more personal level, and what struck me was how emotional issues and interpersonal bonding always came up. What each one took away from the shared experience were hopes, enthusiasm, frustrations, disagreements, joy, and sadness. Of course, political, managerial, or ideological discussions also arose, but they were always within the framework of what they experienced on a personal level.

What I learned confirmed that there was something worth exploring further. I began to work more systematically to understand the personal and human dimensions of leadership. I was finding valuable people and tools that could be useful for other leaders who would face challenges like those I had faced. And I saw that there was a different perspective of the world of leadership to explore—different from the more rational one in which I had been trained, first as a graduate student in political science, then as a politician. That process outlined the path that led to this paper.

The Personal Dimension of Politics

In general, the formation of a politician is rational, and he tends to omit his personhood as his career progresses. This omission takes him away from a more comprehensive look at himself, generating potential mental, physical, and emotional health problems that end up amplifying self-reliance and the difficulty of making emotional connections.

As you grow in your political career and assume more tasks, a defense mechanism is triggered that takes you to survival mode, a state that each person lives differently, but that generally puts you on the defensive—more disconnected from emotions, less able to empathize with other people. Living in permanent conflict, defending positions, making decisions, and receiving criticism and attacks leads to an addictive model where tactical operations become the habitual drug.

In general, the formation of a politician is rational, and he tends to omit his personhood as his career progresses.

Added to this complicated dynamic are the trappings of fame and public exposure. Being well known in a hyper-communication society like the one we live in is something that has an impact on the individual and their family. It is neither neutral nor natural. It restricts your freedom, it has an impact on the people around you, and it redefines relationships. In short, it increases loneliness and unleashes those defense mechanisms. But nobody prepares you for that. It is an omitted phenomenon, even though it would seem to be quite obvious that by dedicating oneself to politics, one ends up becoming well known.

Political science in general does not focus on understanding fame and how it impacts a person. It is also something that has changed significantly in recent years with the advancement of digital communication. Let’s think about how smartphones have become widespread in the last 10 years, giving rise to platforms such as YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram or platforms such as Netflix and Spotify that did not exist until relatively recently. That led me to try to better understand other worlds where similar phenomena occur, such as the worlds of sports and entertainment. I found many parallels, many similar situations, and many metaphors that could help me better understand the challenges I had experienced. But it also allowed me to see how the new communications reality is impacting these worlds, since today’s artists and athletes also receive demands from society that they have not been prepared for.

Understanding the world of sports provides insight into what it takes to perform at the highest levels, even in other fields. Looking at the political experience from the person’s perspective—the individual’s perspective—and not just from the ideological, intellectual, or institutional perspective allowed me to see that there were many tools available that were not being leveraged and that could be very useful. I also saw that there were new realities that required new approaches.

I also looked for experiences in the business world, where there are many biographies and a large amount of content dedicated to rethinking how human capital is organized and how it is developed. It is clearly seen there how the old vertical and pyramidal corporate model is being overcome by a more horizontal and collaborative leadership. Today’s most dynamic companies invest time and resources thinking about these issues, something very difficult to find in the world of politics.

Another Pandemic: A Crisis of Leadership and Representation

In parallel, I was fortunate to be able to work with political leaders from several Latin American countries, generally helping them on issues of strategic communication and electoral campaign management—issues that I have been working on for many years.

That regional perspective allowed me to see firsthand the loneliness and lack of tools that many young and emerging leaders experience across the continent. The muscles that end up being overdeveloped are narcissism and self-sufficiency—not as a defect, but as a survival tool. They are all overwhelmed, trying to lead with a very weak political institutional framework, like boats in the middle of a rough sea.

There was little point in asking them to think strategically, to design a more horizontal and empathetic leadership, to allow for team building, or to think long term, because they were basically trying to survive from day to day.

In moments of euphoria when they had been doing well in their circumstances, their self-sufficiency increased; in moments of decline and crisis, depression and paralysis were enhanced. But this is not an individual problem; it is more structural in nature. Often, this goes unnoticed because the problem of leadership is not usually looked at from a broader perspective, amplifying the feeling that it is something that only affects one’s own country.

The Covid-19 pandemic acted as an accelerator for this trend, exponentially increasing complexity and uncertainty and making the task much trickier due to the difficulty of drawing a roadmap and due to the impact on the individual’s day-to-day life. In addition, the explosion of the virtual world strengthened the trend toward a life without intermediation and with fewer meeting spaces, where it is more difficult for us to find ourselves.

This also exposed how limited our national and international institutions have become in tackling global issues. As Yuval Noah Harari suggests in his book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century , we must think of institutional solutions that can face global issues more effectively than our current solutions. Think of “the connection between the great revolutions of our era and the inner life of individuals.” That is why he recommends meditation. Think of the global and the personal as two scales for the twenty-first century.

Updating Political Leadership

Barbara Tuchman asked how good human beings are at leading us in her book March of Folly , telling us: “A remarkable phenomenon throughout history beyond place or period is the execution of policies from governments that are contrary to their own interests. Humanity, it would seem, performs worse on government than on almost any other human activity. In this realm, wisdom, defined as the exercise of judgment based on experience, common sense, and available information, is less operative and more thwarted than it should be.”

Historically, political leadership was embodied by people who based their power on not being equal to the rest of human beings. Kings, emperors, and chiefs alike were characterized by being superhuman—beings who bordered on the divine or who were chosen by the deities. The architecture of power reflects that distance, which hid and alienated the leader from his subjects. It was a vertical and highly personalistic power.

Over time, that type of leadership was questioned, and a more rational—and, in some parts of the world, more democratic—leadership was sought, although we still see personalist and populist charismatic leaders persist today. We also see leaders who are deified and who did not have this characteristic but who, after their death, are taken to the cult of personality, distancing them from their human condition.

In the book In Sickness and in Power , David Owen shows us the reality behind this deification, narrating in medical-professional detail the mental and physical health problems that the great leaders of the twentieth century had, especially the so-called Hubris Syndrome . He defines it as a temporary disorder suffered by people with power, characterized by the exaltation of the ego, excessiveness, contempt for the opinions of others, loss of contact with reality, and other problems that lead to self-destruction.

This conception of leadership also has another very complex side effect: it scares many people away from the possibility of becoming leaders. If you think that to be a leader you must be a chosen one, somebody superior from the rest, then it’s probable you will exclude yourself from that category. Understanding that the heroes, the founding fathers, and the great leaders of humanity were and are as human as everyone else is key.

In Latin America, this vertical tradition was combined with the culture of the caudillo, which combines religious elements with a power based on being the incarnation of the people. That leadership style always had dramatic aspects of sacrifice and of express omission of oneself for the “love of the people.” The leader never retires; he is always willing to sacrifice longer for the people. It does not occur to him to train new people and he can justify corruption or any abuse of power in his redemptive mission.

This tradition coexisted with a more liberal political culture, which promoted a leadership more attuned with that of the Saxon countries: institutional and republican. The difficulty many of these leaders have is that they tend to have a technocratic or bureaucratic background, but little capacity to connect emotionally with the population. A leader’s training may be intellectual, and his experience may come from management, but that does not necessarily give him the tools for emotional bonding.

In Latin America, this vertical tradition was combined with the culture of the caudillo, which combines religious elements with a power based on being the incarnation of the people. That leadership style always had dramatic aspects of sacrifice and of express omission of oneself for the “love of the people.”

Both are vertical models, and if we look at the last decades in the region, we will see them competing with different levels of success depending on the country. But over time, a crisis of representation has grown in much of the continent. Societies that have radically changed the way they connect, consume, and inform themselves must choose between political leaders who continue to try to replicate outdated formulas and emerging leaders who are unprepared or opportunistic, building on people’s resentment and disenchantment.

Resentment and disenchantment exacerbate the problem, since many see political leaders at best as a privileged group unable to solve problems and at worst as corrupt individuals who take advantage of and abuse power. So, any remuneration is going to be too high, any leisure is going to be seen as superfluous, any weakness as inability. It is a model destined to fail because nothing good can come out of that dynamic.

The crisis of political representation is not a problem of demand—understood as what citizens expect from leaders—but rather a problem stemming from the difficulties of the leaders. That is why we should rethink the leadership model. We need to prepare our politicians not only in ethical and moral values and in management capabilities, but also in understanding the world. We must also help them to fully know themselves; take care of themselves; and prepare mentally, emotionally, and physically for the hyper-demanding task of ruling without losing touch with their humanity, thus reducing the risk of Hubris Syndrome.

In this context of volatility, uncertainty, and complexity, we should look at the human dimension, seeing empathy and an emotional bond with the population as a basic and necessary condition. That requires moving away from caudillista, messianic, charismatic, or technocratic leadership models. Awareness of your humanity and connection with others is a path that helps prevent the evils of abuse of power or bad rulers. In ancient Rome, the Caesars had a slave whose task was to whisper in their ear that they were mortal. Since the existence of man, there has been insight into how power impacts the individual, how to prevent the madness of power, and how to ensure good rulers.

We should also think of a more collective and group dimension to leadership, understanding that we should not expect a single person to effectively manage so much complexity. We should look at the models of groups, teams, and orchestras, where there is someone who leads more like a coordinator of a team of peers, not as a messianic leader. This leadership model can lead us to a breakthrough in thinking of ways for the electoral political supply to rest not on a single person, but rather on teams that put shared work as a value before society.

Political leadership should be designed in such a way as to reduce the risks of self-sufficiency, of the group mentality that usually surrounds personalistic leadership, and of unsustainability due to the concentration of risks assumed by those who excessively become the decisionmakers. This will make room for the emotional component that reduces the dehumanization produced by the wear and tear of the exercise of power.

The institutional design of the state and political organizations is old and obsolete, making it difficult to think about this different type of leadership. The very architecture of government buildings reflects a culture not even from the twentieth century, but often from the nineteenth century or earlier. All the symbols of power that continue to be used, especially in the international relations protocol, are in dissonance with a world that has advanced to another place. The current leadership model is pompous, vertical, cold, and distant. Presidents spend many hours and days in ceremonies that are often seen by citizens as archaic and somewhat ridiculous dances.

That is why it becomes so important to think about how to help leaders get out of that model. Otherwise, it is very difficult to maintain a connection from that place to a society that lives in another time and in another world.

Who Takes Care of Political Leaders?

As the crisis in representation and political parties escalates, there is no institution today that is well positioned to work on the training, development, and care of the human capital dedicated to political leadership.

Civil society organizations, academic institutions, foundations, and think tanks that work to support political training have a specific approach, which is important in that it provides tools, but it cannot replace day-to-day or long-term strategies.

It would not be enough for a player of any elite sport to take a clinic for a couple of weeks a year to train and educate himself, nor would it help him if his training only took place during his four years at a university. There’s no question in worlds such as high-performance sports that for a person to perform at their maximum potential, certain things are required in addition to their talent and will: training, taking care of their physical body, working on their mental health, having a team that accompanies the athlete, and using technology that allows for performance evaluation. The team is led by a coach who is accompanied by specialists in various disciplines, such as nutrition, physical preparation, psychological support, and technology.

There is none of that in politics today because we do not conceive of it as a high-performance activity and because there are no institutions prepared to carry out this task.

That leads one to wonder why the health of leaders is still a taboo subject. In all countries, there has been a push to request affidavits of candidates’ net worth and assets, but the need to have affidavits of their mental and physical health is rarely considered. A soccer player must have a medical checkup before joining a club, but a minister joins a government without anyone knowing if he is healthy or has any illnesses. A leader’s health is thought to be a matter of privacy, but all other areas of his life are expected to be transparent and public. What does that tell us about how we conceive of leadership? What impact would it have for a politician to acknowledge that he suffers from problems with alcoholism, anxiety, eating disorders, insomnia, or panic attacks? Would it distance him from the general public, or would it connect him with the reality that a large part of society experiences?

If we do not prepare and support our leaders, we cannot expect to have good results. One must wonder why there is so much investment, technology, and science devoted to training and caring for people who are dedicated to other tasks that have much less impact on our society, but we do not do the same with the people who take on the task of political leadership.

Some may argue that this training task is the responsibility of each person who wants to run for a leadership position, and that this selection will be done through elections. But I contend that it is a serious mistake to think that coming to power is sufficient evidence of one’s ability and preparation.

The citizen chooses among people who are willing to enter politics and who combine virtues and abilities, but who will never be able to embody all of them. In addition, each citizen prioritizes different criteria when choosing. For some, the most important thing is that a political leader be a person of integrity; for others, that they have management skills; for others, that they be a person sensitive to their problems; or perhaps, simply, that they channel a citizen’s anger or resentment.

But even if one assumes that the selection method is effective for choosing the most suitable people to lead, leaders come to power through elections with weak political parties, rules and institutions riddled with political struggles, and a skeptical citizenry with unresolved high demands. They will take their public position with lower salaries than the ones they could have in the private sector, with high personal and family exposure, with the certainty of having legal problems in the future—sometimes even running the risk of going to jail—and with too few tools to meet the demands made upon them. It is natural, then, that in this context the leader does not perform at his best and that defense mechanisms are built to survive.

Therefore, it is an issue of efficiency, which leads us to think that politicians should be trained and supported in a different way. It does not make sense to think that we can have good results in our societies without it. It is like thinking that we will win a soccer world cup or a gold medal in the Olympic games without all the preparation and the coaching and training of these athletes.

The intention of this work is not to close the debate by proposing a comprehensive solution. It seeks to alert us to the problem so that we become aware and work creatively, thinking of possible solutions. We cannot think that we will have healthy leadership with leaders who are not healthy themselves, and it is impossible to think that they will be if they do not have the tools and the help to go through the experience of handling power.

Expanding the Toolbox

The following are nine dimensions that should be included in a political leader’s toolbox. Not intended to be exhaustive academic research on each topic, the objectives of this section are: (1) that it serves as a foundation on which to build a syllabus, whose objective is to create awareness and provide concrete tools that can become habits; (2) that it provides a self-examination reference tool for those in a leadership role to use; and (3) that it becomes the basis of a permanent initiative, thinking about the design of support teams that can support the leaders at each stage of their career.

All these issues feed and complement each other and offer different ways to help leaders be more connected with their humanity and with their emotions and, thus, be more effective in their role and more sustainable in the long term.

• The Emotional Side: Mental Health

It is essential to work on self-awareness, mental health care, connection with emotions, and psychological support in an activity as demanding as politics. Without this work, the chances of being a healthy and sustainable person after many years in leadership tasks are almost nil. Exhaustion and burnout, depression, panic attacks, or more complex disorders haunt anyone who is exposed to so much stress.

Interestingly, though the way power sickens has been studied throughout history, there are not many cases of political leaders who have recognized that they suffer or suffered from mental health problems. This is an anachronism in a time where there is a growing awareness of the importance of mental health among the general population and where it is no longer a taboo, but something that everyone must take care of.

But beyond the possible diseases or disorders that a politician can live with, it is necessary to work on self-awareness to understand those things that impacted, shaped, and conditioned their lives.

According to Alberto Lederman, an Argentine business management expert: “All leaders have some trauma. I don’t know one that doesn’t. My theory, in short, is that lust for power is a trauma response. Because, just as not everyone needs to get high, not everyone is interested in power. You must have a biographical trauma to do certain things. You must have motive, compelling reasons to aspire to power, to want to make history, to seek prominence. If there is no conflict, there are no demands for redress.”

As discussed before, preventing the effects of Hubris Syndrome is key, and for that, awareness and professional help are required. Working with a mental health professional is a basic necessity for someone who is in a context of permanent stress.

In addition, there are other factors to consider, such as the impact of stress on our capacity for emotional bonding. Aggravated by permanent conflict, exposure, and personal attacks, the mind acts in self-defense by closing itself off. This decreases empathy just when it is needed most—when one is exercising a political leadership role in a government or in some other political office.

There is also abundant evidence on the usefulness of meditation as a practice that helps in self-knowledge, connection with the present, mental health, and reduction of stress and anxiety, among many other benefits.

Neuroscience has advanced in recent decades, and it can provide us with important self-awareness tools to know how our brain works, how it interacts with the rest of our body, and how it is affected by the stress context in which we move.

The spiritual and religious dimension also constitutes an important element to consider. It is important to understand how it shapes our beliefs and values, our thought process, our self-knowledge practices, and our relationship with transcendence. Although it is a more private dimension, omitting it from the analysis implies leaving out a dimension that occupies an important part of people’s lives.

• The Body: High Performance

It is known that the body needs to breathe, sleep, eat, and train in order to perform at its best. However, most of us don’t know how to do these things well, and what we do know is often put aside in times of high demand.

The case of political leaders is more dramatic, as Pepe Sánchez— former NBA basketball player and Olympic medalist, who is today dedicated to thinking about well-being and high performance—says, “The human body is not prepared to make so many decisions and be in a context of persistent stress.” 1

There is even the myth that the best politician is the one who sacrifices himself by sleeping little and eating poorly for the well-being of the people. It goes along the same lines that a good leader is one who totally neglects himself—even a premature death consecrates him in his sacrifice for the people.

The view of political leaders taking care of their bodies becomes even more necessary when you consider that the athlete has a career limited by age, but the political leader has a much longer career. There is enormous opportunity for improvement in strengthening the entire training system, as the political experience is a longer one and therefore provides more time for learning and training. Today, we can learn from the many experiences of high-performance athletes who have prolonged their competitive lives.

Sánchez explains:

In sports we not only compete against rivals, but we also compete with stressors. My experience was that once I achieved all my sporting goals, I felt a great void. The big question is why am I doing this? You block your emotions and your vulnerability. And that happens to many high achievers, from different disciplines. They also block what happens in their bodies and their emotions; they only rely on their brain. We must train them to take a more comprehensive look at themselves. In addition, every leader should have a toolbox that includes breathing techniques, daily movement, rehydration, how to eat out, and the subject of sleep. 2

Technology today has made it more accessible than ever to have permanent measuring instruments that keep us in touch with our physical performance. Even so, it is interesting to think that it is not only about leaders doing physical activity occasionally, but also about understanding that they must be in their best shape for what is an activity of enormous physical exhaustion. Relying on professionals for support in this process is also key, because as with the mental and emotional elements, self-sufficiency can lead us to want to solve it ourselves.

The support of doctors, nutritionists, physical trainers, kinesiologists, and other specialties is important if one wants to avoid voluntarism and wants to take advantage of scientific knowledge and advances that continue to develop.

This is a subject that knows no age, gender, or physical condition limits. We all have a body, and it needs to be at its best to be effective in leadership.

• Expression: Presence and Communication

Politicians often receive specific training on expression or rhetorical techniques for going up on stage to give a speech or going on a television interview. This is based on the premise that a leader goes on stage a few times a day or a week, and then “turns off” the communication mode to continue with their rational tasks. But today, the political leader is in permanent communication mode—always exposed—and for that, he needs to prepare differently.

We can learn a lot about the emotional dimension of communication from the knowledge that has developed in the artistic world. Isabelle Anderson, a specialist in training leaders in performance, says: “You have to acquire skills to handle your expressions and your body. Many just imitate what they think is right since they did not receive any tools. This generates something disingenuous that threatens connection.” 3 It is also known that a large part of communication is transmitted through vocal and physical expression, not just words.

Anderson continues:

By analyzing human behavior, I understood that authentic presence is what resonates with any audience. But presence needs energy to reach that audience. We must teach leaders that we communicate not only with words but with the energy of presence, and this can be trained. The problem is that many people climb up the ladder without the proper training and mental preparation to communicate; so, they end up appearing either contracted and less than their best selves, or imitating others and seeming fake. All this sadly prevents sincere, authentic communication. 4

This approach envisions that there must be an alignment between what one is, what one does, and what one says. It is no use thinking that one can dissociate and act out a character with the level of exposure we see today. This also requires training techniques practiced daily, as is done in physical training.

• Back to Nature: Rewilding

The day-to-day life of contemporary leaders takes place in an urban context, generally within government buildings or offices; while traveling by car, helicopter, or airplane; in brief outdoor activities; or in event rooms—in most contexts, often surrounded by security agents.

This greatly limits the contact leaders can have with nature, and therefore the connection with their own natural dimension. As much as we forget, human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and we need to be in contact with nature.

Nature helps a leader in many ways: contact with animals boosts empathy, spending time in nature gives us perspective and makes us humbler, and it connects us with something greater than ourselves.

Tomás Ceppi, a high mountain guide, says: “You don’t get the sense of security that nature gives you anywhere else. It is a pure and transparent relationship.” 5 This interesting mountaineering metaphor can teach us a lot about leadership—from the need to have a guide who has already made the journey and can help us through it, to the extreme teamwork in which your life depends on what your partner does, to the need to prepare yourself in lower experiences before climbing high peaks, to the challenge of going down once you have reached the top, among many others. Ceppi also highlights the need to understand what your motivation is when facing such a challenge.

Everyone can find the way they best like to connect with nature. Some will choose to garden or raise pets; others will seek to climb Aconcagua’s summit or other extreme adventures. In between, there are endless options. But the important thing is to be able to reflect on the need to have systematic contact with nature, not only as a place to relax or to take vacations, but also as a place to develop empathy, humility, and perspective.

• The Avatar: Managing Character and Fame

Being famous does not come naturally and generates various impacts one should try to prepare for. The separation between the person and the character one projects is one of the greatest challenges that someone faces when they become well known. How you handle that separation will depend a lot on how you can handle criticism and attacks, but also praise and idolatry.

The more national the figure one projects, the more their experience resembles that of the most well-known celebrities, be they artists, athletes, or other popular figures. However, there is little awareness that success in political activity will lead you to become famous, and that being famous will come with loss of freedom, impact on families and your inner circle, and constant stress caused by being seen by others.

Studying and learning about the experiences of non-political personalities who have gone through the phenomenon of fame can help to manage this situation and help when processing the emotional, psychological, and practical impact that fame brings. From this point, strategies can be learned to remain in touch with reality, such as preserving intimate spaces at times when it seems necessary to open it all up all the time, as well as working with children and family to help them manage the exposure, among many other necessary tools to manage fame’s impact.

• Connecting to Our Virtual World: Digital Nutrition

As Pablo Boczkowski explains in his book, Abundance: On the Experience of Living in a World of Plenty , living in an era with an abundance of content is a challenge that generates stress and conditions our lives, especially due to the impact generated by the use of the smartphone as a kind of prosthesis of our body.

Using a nutrition analogy and our body’s diet, the cell phone is today a portal to our digital life. This digital being coexists with our biological being, but the difference is that since it is a much more recent phenomenon, how its use impacts individuals has not been studied in depth.

What we digitally consume on our cell phones (or through other screens), both in quantity and quality, affects us mentally and emotionally. Given the addictive nature of digital platforms, we are very exposed to consuming a poor-quality digital diet, investing hours of the day on them.

Social networks and digital newspapers are our main source of information, and there are no curators to help us define criteria for use.

WhatsApp and other digital messaging services put us in a state of permanent demand and force us to be connected to the screen, receiving notifications from different hierarchies all the time and participating in multiple conversations even while we are physically together. In addition, it allows direct and unlimited contact with a huge number of people who expect contact without intermediaries and without delay. Before, you could send letters to a political leader, then emails, but always with a waiting period and a possible filter, which made the demands easier to manage for the leaders. Not anymore in today’s world.

The abundance of content generates another stressor for us since we have to choose from an infinite pool of worldwide content without necessarily having clear criteria.

When in a senior leadership position, this problem can become dramatic since it is entirely up to the leader how he will use his cell phone. Often, it can end up working as an antianxiety agent, and thus end up enhancing disconnection and stress.

• Perspective: Widening the Gaze

The human brain uses sight as a reference to manage vital functions. When our visual field is reduced, the alert mode is activated because our ability to detect threats is reduced. On the contrary, when the visual field is widened, our breathing and heart rate decrease due to a decrease in danger.

In terms of our day-to-day life, if we are constantly focused on the very short term, or on the hyper-local 20 centimeters that separate us from our screen, that lack of perspective becomes a permanent stressor and our thinking skills are dulled.

Visual perspective can be trained, but it can also be worked on from the content we consume through different dimensions.

One dimension has to do with looking at other realities; seeing what is happening in other countries; ideally traveling, but if not, at least consuming content that shows us we can find solutions to problems that we think are exclusively our own, but that exist everywhere; and reading about global perspectives. These are all ways of broadening our strictly local perspective.

Timewise, both history and the future broaden our horizon and give us perspective. History, because it connects us with human nature, the challenges of power that transcend the ages, the repetition of phenomena, and the overcoming of problems. The future, because it determines the horizon. It shows us those phenomena that are to come, those that are transforming society and life, and the problems we will face that have not yet been solved.

A second dimension has to do with the issues and disciplines outside of our familiar scope. We are in a world of specialization, and it usually generates microclimates that prevent us from seeing other realities occurring in parallel to our own.

A third dimension has to do with the different social and generational realities. The fragmentation of our public conversation makes it difficult to see social situations that are out of our reach due to a generational, social, or geographic issue.

All these dimensions are ways of taking perspective, but it is very important to have a permanent discipline to be in contact with them, because our natural tendency will always be to return to our microclimate.

• The Collective: Teams, Coaches, Bands, and Orchestras

A team is the most effective way to contain egos and put them to work according to a common goal. One of the sports coaches who has developed the most concepts about teamwork, Phil Jackson, says that “good teams become great teams when their members are willing to sacrifice the ‘me’ for the ‘us’.” However, this illustration is rarely used in politics, or it is used as an expression of desire or a rhetorical device.

We can not only learn from the sports world, but also from the artistic world, where both orchestras and music groups of different genres are examples of shared work experiences in which individuals merge to achieve a common sound.

In both groupings, there is leadership and there is a support structure. They are not always successful, but almost always when they are not, it is because there isn’t an appropriate distribution of responsibilities and revenues.

A grouping will be healthy, as Jackson says, when all the parts are integrated into a whole, without losing individuality, but agreeing on a common identity and functioning.

The role of the coach or conductor has also changed over time. Today, we are beginning to understand that the vertical and authoritarian role of years past is no longer effective, and that it no longer connects with the new generations that demand a closer, horizontal, and personalized bond.

Teams also show us counterexamples, where egos and individualities tolerate each other, but clearly convey that there is no such sense of shared belonging. The similarities with the realities of political forces are very clear when viewed from this lens.

In sports, the coach plays an important role, as does the producer with artists. The role of political advisers may come to mind in association with politics, but it is not the same. Politicians’ advisers and personal staff concentrate on matters related to strategies, public policies, communication, or management, among other topics. But it is not their task to deal with the leader in his personal dimension.

• Sustainable Strategies: Think about Promotions and Demotions, Long Term

Many political careers are thought of in terms of how to move up in the hierarchical power structure, many with the ultimate dream of occupying the presidency of their country. The problem with this strategy is that what is thought of as a linear path is in fact more like a mountainous path, with hills and valleys, but above all, with great uncertainty regarding what may happen in the future.

When organizing ourselves once we arrive at the next position or we reach the highest position that we want to occupy, we lack a sustainable strategy to make a significant contribution in our lifetime. The most descriptive example of this happens with former young presidents, who finish their term and face the emptiness of not knowing what else to do and the “Chinese vase syndrome” that makes you feel that you do not know where to place yourself. On the other hand, it also happens with politicians who never retire, fighting until the end of their lives for the leading role, thus blocking the path for new generations.

Another common problem is the vacuum generated by the loss of power after having held an important position, not only in terms of adrenaline, but also sometimes in terms of economic sustainability. There is a clear risk of depression, especially if that person does not work on himself or receive adequate support.

The exercise of thinking about a leadership career in a different way from that of the classic ascension on the ladder of power helps us visualize the importance of having a shatterproof strategy, of taking care of oneself more, and of keeping perspective—so as not to go blind into a career without knowing the next steps, or so as not to become dependent on structures that end up squelching our enthusiasm, leaving us wondering why we do what we do.

Thinking of a career plan also helps us to think about a diversity of experiences and objectives, alternating periods of greater power with others of greater personal development. And it also helps every seasoned leader think that part of his task is to mentor new generations. This is something else to do after a political career besides getting caught up in the logic of the ego or the sense of irrelevance that can come with the loss of power. It is in people with experience that we can find future coaches of emerging leaders, thus ensuring the intergenerational handoff that we lack today.

Ideally, this would be part of the task of political institutions—mainly political parties—but for that, clarity is needed from their own leaders as to the need to invest time and resources in their seedbeds in a professional way.

This paper seeks to make an effective contribution to how we think about democratic political leadership and also to share personal insight as a politician so that other politicians and leaders can use it as a reference and think about how much they are taking care of themselves. Doing so can contribute to finding solutions for the legitimacy crisis that our democracies are experiencing due to a disconnect with social expectations and demands. This paradigm shift is already occurring in other fields of society, and taking it to the political arena will make the task of those in charge of solving the great problems we face more effective.

Leadership should be more human, more collaborative, more group oriented, more connected with emotions, and humbler in order to be effective. For leadership to be more effective, we should create professional structures dedicated to training, supporting, and caring for political leaders. Although it seems incredible, today there is nothing resembling such a professional structure. Political party crisis left that role vacant. We also lack full awareness of the extremely high physical, mental, and emotional demands that political activity has. Undoubtedly, it is an activity that can be thought of in relation to other high-performance activities, such as those of elite athletes. At the same time, handling fame and the demand to constantly communicate brings leaders closer to the lifestyle of the most popular artists. This reflection can also be useful for anyone who plays a leadership role in society, even if they are not engaged in politics.

Thinking about the human dimension of political leadership changes the perspective on what it means to be a leader today. It requires new insight on how this new leadership is built, how it is sustained, and how it is supported. It leads us to analyze the opportunities our democracies have to overcome their crises.

We also should rethink what tools leaders need and how to have more enduring strategies for the development of human capital. If the rest of human activities have advanced scientifically and technologically in terms of both personal care and training for high performance, we can learn a lot from them and enrich the traditional toolbox of values, integrity, ideas, and management skills.

Marcos Pe ña is an independent consultant with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

This report is made possible through general support to the Americas Program.

This report is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2021 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Please consult the PDF for references.

Marcos Peña

Programs & projects.

+91 9848321284

Political Marketing

Political Leadership: What Defines Good Political Leadership?

Jun 16, 2020

The two-party system in the United States is an exciting way to look at the qualities of good political leadership. What defines good political leadership? This post will explore what makes up influential leaders in both parties.

What defines good leadership? There are several points on the topic. Some argue that it is about being able to have a vision and implement that vision effectively.

In contrast, others believe it is about having the strength to stand out for what you believe in. These two aspects of leadership can sometimes contradict each other, but when they work together, they create an unstoppable force seen in some of history’s most influential leaders.

Detailed Concepts of Political Leadership

Political leadership is the act of leading a political organization, whether it be local or global. The leader should have complex concepts and strategies to lead his people toward success.

Political leaders should focus on building a solid foundation, and embracing new technologies and opportunities is essential.

Leadership is the activity of guiding, directing, or motivating people to help them achieve specific goals.

If you wish to be a leader, it’s essential to understand the intricacies of politics. Otherwise, you won’t have the necessary understanding of how things work in your country.

Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders

• Great leaders are willing to take risks
• They have a strong sense of justice
• They are self-aware and know their strengths and weaknesses
• They set an example for others to follow with integrity, honesty, and compassion in all they do
• Franklin Roosevelt was a strong leader who had experience leading the country
• Hitler was an authoritarian dictator who wanted to control all aspects of society
• Gandhi believed in non-violent protest and led India to independence from British rule
• A leader’s character is revealed through their actions
• Leaders are constantly under pressure to make decisions that will affect the lives of many people
• The way a leader interacts with other people can show what kind of person they are, including how they treat subordinates, opponents, and friends
• A good leader is confident in their beliefs and willing to take risks
• A good leader knows how to delegate tasks and responsibilities
• A good leader has a vision for the future that they are passionate about
• A good leader listens to opposing viewpoints before making decisions
• Good leaders can unite people with different backgrounds when faced with adversity

What are the Characteristics of a Good Leader?

A good leader can motivate their followers to complete a task they would not do independently.

Great leaders are honest, ethical, and competent. Their subordinates and peers also respect them.

A good leader is intelligent, ambitious, and creative. They’re also social, so they can easily communicate with their followers.

A good leader is honest, polite, and professional.

A Quick Guide to Working on Modern Political Campaigns

When working on a modern political campaign, many things can be done. This article will review some of them and advise you on doing your best work.

The following is a guide to what you need to do to work on modern political campaigns.

An essential part of political campaigns is to decide which issues are most relevant to voters. This might not seem easy, especially if the candidate has little political experience or previous office-holding.

The most significant thing to remember about working on a campaign is being passionate about the candidate’s position. If you’re not, the work will seem like an uphill battle.

There are several factors to consider when running a modern political campaign. The most important one is having an effective team of campaigners that can get the job done right.

Working on modern political campaigns is both challenging and rewarding. It involves hours of grunt work for little money, but you can learn much about the world and how it works.

What Defines Good Political Leadership?

The quality of a confident leader is not defined by gender, age, or education. It’s defined by whether they can uplift the people and country that depend on them.

Today we’re going to be talking about what defines good political leadership.

Political leaders must have a broad world perspective, including understanding their people.

Good political leadership is a combination of morals and competence.

The actions of great leaders often define good leadership. For example, Nelson Mandela was a leader who fought for equal rights and overcame many obstacles.

What defines good political leadership? Your opinion may be different than mine. When I think of a leader, I want them to have integrity and empathy for those they lead, as well as an understanding that listening is just as essential as speaking up.

There’s also the matter of intellect- do you want someone who can make quick decisions or slow down and plan? The list goes on, and what should define good leadership in your mind is how it aligns with yours.

If we see eye-to-eye on these qualities, we could work together to shape the future through better policymaking and more open conversation. Reach us today to find out more about our Political Leadership Consulting services!

One way to get in touch is by filling out our online form on this site or give us a call at +91 9848321284. Let’s work together today!

Subscribe To Receive The Latest News

Curabitur ac leo nunc. Vestibulum et mauris vel ante finibus maximus.

Add notice about your Privacy Policy here.

Related Posts

AI-Driven Ad Creatives for Politics

AI-Driven Constituent Engagement Tools for Political Campaigns

AI-Driven Predictive Analytics for Political Campaigns

Generative AI and the Challenge of Political Polarization

Use basic attention token to maximize political strategy impact.

Call me +91 9848321284

[email protected]

Must the president be a moral leader?

Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington

Disclosure statement

Michael Blake receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

University of Washington provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

The best presidents – including figures such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington – are celebrated not only as good leaders, but as good men. They embody not simply political skill, but personal virtue.

Why, though, should anyone expect a president to demonstrate that sort of virtue? If someone is good at the difficult job of political leadership, must they demonstrate exceptional moral character as well?

Character and democracy

Voters disagree about the extent to which the president must demonstrate moral leadership. Scholars who study political ethics disagree as well.

Those who insist that the president must be virtuous often begin with the thought that a person in that office will face new and unanticipated problems during his or her term. A president whose decision-making is informed by a consistent character, will, in the face of new challenges, rely upon the lessons that have built that character .

As scholar James David Barber wrote, the best way to understand a president’s likely responses to a crisis is to understand what that president values most highly.

Abraham Lincoln, for instance, consistently and publicly referred to the same set of moral values throughout his life – values centered on a deep, while imperfect, belief in the moral equality of people. These principles provided him with guidance throughout the horrors of the Civil War.

A president whose decisions are not grounded in the right sort of ethical values may be less well-equipped to respond well – and, more importantly, might be frighteningly unpredictable in his or her responses .

Other political ethicists have emphasized the ways in which democracies can fall apart in the absence of personal virtue . Conservative thinkers, in particular, have argued that political institutions can only function when all those who participate within them are capable of compromise and of self-government . Rules, to put it simply, don’t work unless people governed by those rules care about them and voluntarily choose to abide by them.

If this is true of citizens, it is even more true of the president, whose opportunities to damage the system through unprincipled actions are so much greater .

Vice and efficiency

These arguments have been met with powerful objections. Political philosophers – including, most prominently, Niccolò Machiavelli – have argued that the nature of political life requires a willingness to demonstrate habits of character that would ordinarily be understood as vices . The good leader, insisted Machiavelli, is morally right to do what is usually taken as wrong. He or she must be cruel, deceptive and often violent.

The philosopher Arthur Applbaum refers to this as role morality. What a person is right to do, argues Applbaum, often depends upon the job that person is doing . The good lawyer, for instance, may have to bully, browbeat or humiliate hostile witnesses. That is what a zealous defense might require. Machiavelli notes simply that, in a hostile and brutal world, political leaders might have similar reasons to do what is usually forbidden.

Modern philosophers such as Michael Walzer have continued this line of reasoning. If the world is imperfect, and requires a politician to lie, cheat or otherwise do wrong in the name of doing good, then there is sometimes a moral reason for the politician to do that wrong .

George Washington, for example, was quite happy to engage in deception, if that deception would help protect the United States. He consistently sought to deceive his adversaries about his intentions and his resources – and, importantly, sought to deceive his own subordinates, reasoning that a lie must be believed at home for it to be useful abroad .

A president who refused to engage in this sort of deception, argues Walzer, would be choosing to keep his or her conscience clear, instead of providing some genuine and concrete help to others. Walzer’s conclusion is that a good political agent must often refuse to be a good person. It is only by sometimes doing what is ordinarily wrong, that the politician can make the world better for all.

Virtue, vice and the presidency

These ideas have, of course, been a part of many long-standing debates about presidential morality. Henry Kissinger, for instance, defended the Nixon administration’s decision to seek the firing of the special prosecutor, based upon the need for that administration to present itself to the Soviet Union as both powerful and unified .

It was not necessary, Kissinger wrote later, that the American leadership displayed personal virtue. It was enough that their decisions enabled a society in which the American people were capable of demonstrating that virtue .

More recently, many evangelical supporters of President Trump have used the Biblical story of Cyrus the Great , an ancient Persian king, to explain their continued support for the president. Although Cyrus was not himself Jewish, he chose to free the Jews held as slaves in Babylon . Evangelical leader Mike Evans noted that that Cyrus, like Donald Trump, was an “imperfect vessel,” whose decisions nevertheless made it possible for others to live as God wished them to.

So, too, some evangelicals argue that President Trump’s own seeming lapses of virtue might not disqualify him from the presidency – so long as his decisions enable others to lead lives exemplifying the virtues he does not always show himself.

Effective vice

These debates – between those who seek a president who models ethical virtue, and those who would regard that desire as misguided at best – are likely to continue.

One thing that must be acknowledged, however, is that even the best defenses of presidential vice cannot be taken to excuse all forms of moral failure.

Machiavelli, and those who follow him, can at most be used to defend a president whose vices are effectively able to create a more ethical world for others. Not all sorts of wrongdoing, though, can plausibly be thought to have these effects.

Some vices, such as an outsized confidence, or the will to use violence in the name of justice, may be defended with reference to the ideas of Machiavelli or Walzer.

Other ethical failings, however – such as a vindictive desire to punish perceived enemies – often seem less likely to lead to good results. This sort of failure, however, appears to be common among those who have sought the presidency. It is a failure, moreover, that does not depend upon party affiliation.

In recent years, for example, both Lyndon Baines Johnson and Richard Nixon took particular delight in humiliating and degrading their political adversaries. Both, perhaps, might have been better leaders, had they been more reflective about when and how to wrong.

In presidential politics, all parties might at least agree on this much: If there is sometimes a reason to seek an ethically flawed president, it does not follow that all ethical flaws are equally worth defending.

• Citizenship
• Donald Trump
• Abraham Lincoln
• George Washington
• Henry Kissinger

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

Head of Research Computing & Data Solutions

Community member RANZCO Education Committee (Volunteer)

Director of STEM

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > American Political Science Review
• > Volume 44 Issue 4
• > The Study of Political Leadership

Article contents

The study of political leadership.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Politics by leadership is one of the distinguishing features of the twentieth century. If the eighteenth century enunciated popular sovereignty and direct democracy as a major theme in democratic thought and the nineteenth century was concerned with the challenge of stratification and group conflict, then twentieth century trends have made us sensitive to the role of leadership. The search for the values of security and equality have led to changes in the character of politics. If one were to delineate this newer pattern of a politics by leadership , it would include the following: (1) the shift in the center of conflict resolution and initiative from parliamentary bodies and economic institutions to executive leadership; (2) the proliferation of the immediate office of the chief executive from its cabinet-restricted status to a collectivity of co-adjuting instrumentalities; (3) the tendency toward increased centralization of political parties, with the subordination of the victorious parties as instruments for the chief executive; (4) the calculated manipulation of irrationalities by political leadership through the vast power-potential of mass communications; (5) the displacement of the amateur by the professional politician and civil servant; (6) the growth of bureaucracy as a source and technique of executive power but also as a fulcrum which all contestants for power attempt to employ; (7) the growth of interest groups in size, number and influence, with the tendency toward bureaucratization of their internal structure; (8) the changing role of the public that finds its effective voice in a direct and an interactive relation with the chief executive.

Access options

1 Kirchheimer , Otto , “ Changes in the Structure of Political Compromise ,” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science , Vol. 9 , pp. 264 –89 ( 1941 ) Google Scholar .

2 On the leadership political trends, see Finer , Herman , The Future of Government ( London , 1946 ), Ch. 1 Google Scholar ; Barker , Ernest , Reflections on Government ( London , 1942 ), pp. 123 ff. Google Scholar ; Jennings , W. Ivor , Cabinet Government ( London , 1942 ) Google Scholar ; Weber , Max , “Politics as a Vocation” in Gerth , H. H. and Mills , C. Wright (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology ( New York , 1946 ), pp. 77 – 128 Google Scholar ; Herring , E. Pendleton , Presidential Leadership ( New York , 1940 ) Google Scholar ; Friedrich , Carl J. , Constitutional Government and Democracy ( New York , 1946 ), Ch. 18 Google Scholar .

3 For the growing literature on “constitutional dictatorship,” see Watkins' , Frederick M. essay, “The Problem of Constitutional Dictatorship,” in Friedrich , C. J. and Mason , Edward S. (eds.), Public Policy ( Cambridge , 1940 ), pp. 324 –79 Google Scholar ; Rogers , Lindsay , Crisis Government ( New York , 1934 ) Google Scholar ; Rossiter , Clinton L. , Constitutional Dictatorship ( Princeton , 1948 ) Google Scholar .

4 Studies of large-scale organizations indicate that formal centralization may in fact result in the devolution of authority to elements that are away from the center; thus formal centralization may well result in decentralization in terms of effective influence. This decentralization to other elements of leadership in the structure does not do violence to a conception of politics by leadership, but is quite consistent with it.

5 On England, see Fyfe , Hamilton , “ Democracy and Leadership ,” Nineteenth Century and After , Vol. 129 , pp. 465 –76 (May, 1941 ) Google Scholar ; on France during the Popular Front regime, see Rogers , Lindsay , “ Personal Power and Popular Government ,” Southern Review , Vol. 3 , pp. 225 –42 ( 1937 – 1938 ) Google Scholar .

6 See Brecht , Arnold , “ Constitutions and Leadership ,” Social Research , Vol. 1 , pp. 265 –86 (May, 1934 ) Google Scholar . F. A. Hermens stresses the role of P. R. as a major deterrent to leadership in Democracy or Anarchy ( Notre Dame , 1941 ) Google Scholar .

7 On this general theme see the stimulating essay by Salomon , Albert , “Leadership and Democracy,” in Ascoli , Max and Lehmann , Fritz (eds.), Political and Economic Democracy ( New York , 1937 ), pp. 243 –54 Google Scholar .

8 We may note the resurgence of demands for “cabinet government” in America as an expression of this desire to institutionalize executive leadership. (Institutionalization may result in generating the “myth” of the leader although the capacities of the man are not in accord with the myth.)

9 Mannheim , Karl , Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction ( London , 1940 ) Google Scholar ; Fromm , Erich , Escape from Freedom ( New York , 1941 ) Google Scholar .

10 See the interesting study by Merton , Robert K. , Mass Persuasion ( New York , 1947 ) Google Scholar . On bureaucratization and leadership generally, see Michels , Robert , Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ( Eden , and Paul , Cedar trans.; Glencoe , 1949 ) Google Scholar , together with the writings of Gaetano Mosca and Max Weber.

11 A question asked by Adams , Brooks in The Law of Civilization and Decay ( New York , 1943 ) Google Scholar .

12 The writer is engaged in preliminary research on the men of the “inner circle” of presidential leadership, in which this question, among others, is explored.

13 Joseph A. Schumpeter addresses himself to this question of reformulation of the conception of democratic politics in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy ( 2d ed.; New York , 1947 ), Chs. 21–23 Google Scholar . Schumpeter stretches his “theory of competitive leadership” too far in relegating the public to a mass-passivity status, and he does not go far enough in considering extra-governmental group factors in politics.

14 Locke's chapter “Of Prerogative” in his Second Treatise of Civil Government showed appreciation of the necessity of executive leadership in the democratic state.

15 See Schmitt , Carl , Staat, Bewegung, Volk ( Hamburg , 1935 ) Google Scholar ; Huber , Ernst Rudolf , Verfassung ( Hamburg , 1937 ), pp. 90 ff Google Scholar ; Williamson , René de Visme , “ The Fascist Concept of Representation ,” Journal of Politics , Vol. 3 , pp. 29 – 41 (Feb., 1941 ) Google Scholar ; Faguet , Émile , The Cult of Incompetence ( Barstow , Beatrice trans.; New York , 1911 ), among others Google Scholar .

16 Illustrative are the following: Laski , Harold J. , “ The Personnel of the English Cabinet, 1801–1924 ,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 22 , pp. 12 – 31 (Feb., 1928 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Heinberg , John G. , “ The Personnel Structure of French Cabinets ,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 33 , pp. 267 –78 (April, 1939 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Sorokin , Pitirim A. , “ Leaders of Labor and Radical Movements in the United States and Foreign Countries ,” American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 33 , pp. 382 – 411 (Nov., 1927 ) Google Scholar ; (for a summary of many such studies, Sorokin , Pitirim A. , Social Mobility [ New York , 1927 ]) Google Scholar ; Mason , John Brown , “ Lawyers in the 71st to 75th Congress ,” Rocky Mountain Law Review , Vol. 10 , pp. 43 – 52 (Dec., 1937 ) Google Scholar ; McKinney , Madge M. , “ The Personnel of the Seventy-seventh Congress ,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 36 , pp. 67 – 75 (Feb., 1942 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Ross , J. F. S. , Parliamentary Representation ( London , 1948 ) Google Scholar ; Brockway , Marion , A Study of the Geographical, Occupational, and Political Characteristics of Congressmen (M.A. thesis, University of Kansas , 1934 ) Google Scholar ; Bourgin , Frank P. , Personnel of the American Senate (M.A. thesis, Claremont College , 1933 ) Google Scholar . Consult especially Smith , Bruce Lannes , Lasswell , Harold D. , and Casey , Ralph D. , Propaganda, Communication and Public Opinion ( Princeton , 1946 ) CrossRef Google Scholar , for references to many studies on the social recruitment of political leadership.

17 See Lippit , Ronald , “ Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Autocratic and Democratic Atmospheres ,” American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 45 , pp. 26 – 49 (July 1939 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; and also Bavelas , Alex and Lewin , Kurt , “ Training in Democratic Leadership ,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , Vol. 37 , pp. 115 –19 (Jan., 1942 ) CrossRef Google Scholar . For other studies in small group leadership, see Pigors , Paul , Leadership or Domination ( Boston , 1935 ) Google Scholar ; Whitehead , Thomas N. , Leadership in a Free Society ( Cambridge , 1936 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Redl , Fritz , “ Group Emotion and Leadership ,” Psychiatry , Vol. 5 , pp. 573 –96 (Nov., 1942 ) CrossRef Google Scholar ; Merei , Ferenc , “ Group Leadership and Institutionalization ,” Human Relations , Vol. 2 , pp. 23 – 40 (no. 4, 1949 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

18 Lippit, loc. cit.

19 Lewin never committed this error. See “The Special Case of Germany,” in his post-humous Resolving Social Conflicts ( New York , 1948 ) Google Scholar and note its kinship to Mary P. Follett's emphasis upon primary groups as the base of a dynamic citizenry. (Her collected papers appear as Dynamic Administration [ New York , 1942 ] Google Scholar .) See also Lindsay's , Alexander Dunlop The Essentials of Democracy ( Philadelphia , 1929 ) Google Scholar .

20 Political scientists, in developing our comparatively rich literature on urban political machines, long ago recognized the influence of primary contact relationships. See, for example, Forthal , Sonya , Cogwheels of Democracy ( New York , 1946 ) Google Scholar ; Salter , J. T. , Boss Rule ( New York , 1935 ) Google Scholar ; Peel , Roy V. , The Political Clubs of New York City ( New York , 1936 ) Google Scholar .

21 The literature of this group is abundant and is largely summarized in Mayo , Elton , The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization ( Boston , 1945 ) Google Scholar . The most significant work for a theoretical treatment of leadership is Barnard , Chester I. , The Functions of the Executive ( Cambridge , 1946 ) Google Scholar .

22 Political scientists should find much of relevance to their interests when the study of personal ascendancy in economic development, viz., business entrepreneurship, is advanced. See the following three papers, which were presented at the annual meeting of the Economic History Association, 1946, and which may be found in Supplement VI of the Journal of Economic History , entitled The Tasks of Economic History (1946): Cole , Arthur H. , “ An Approach to the Study of Entrepreneurship ,” pp. 1 – 15 Google Scholar ; East , Robert A. , “ The Business Entrepreneur in a Changing Colonial Economy, 1763–1795 ,” pp. 16 – 27 Google Scholar ; Destler , Chester McArthur , “ Entrepreneurial Leadership among the ‘Robber Barons’: A Trial Balance ,” pp. 28 – 49 Google Scholar .

23 See the penetrating treatment by Barnard , Chester I. , The Dilemmas of Leadership in the Democratic Process ( Princeton , 1939 ) Google Scholar . One is tempted to ask whether these dilemmas are “abnormal” or whether they are not virtues of democracy.

24 Physique and Character ( Sprott , W. J. H. trans., from the 2d rev. ed.; New York , 1931 ) Google Scholar .

25 Lebensformen ( Halle , 1924 ) Google Scholar .

26 (Chicago, 1930). One of the significant virtues of Lasswell's work is that he has consistently viewed the leadership phenomenon in terms of its power and policy implications and in terms of a broad context of an empirical political theory.

27 Power and Personality ( New York , 1948 ), p. 20 Google Scholar .

28 Ibid. , p. 21.

29 See the forthcoming volume by my colleague, David Riesman, on the theme of politics and character structure in America.

30 The relational concept of leadership was elaborated some time ago by sociologists, notably Max Weber, Robert Michels, Georg Simmel and C. H. Cooley. See Knickerbocker , Irving , “ Leadership: A Conception and Some Implications ,” Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 4 , pp. 23 – 40 (Summer, 1948 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

31 Stogdill , Ralph M. , “ Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature ,” Journal of Psychology , Vol. 25 , p. 66 (Jan., 1948 ) Google Scholar PubMed .

32 The term is used by Redl, loc. cit.

33 Human Nature and the Social Order ( New York , 1902 ), p. 294 Google Scholar . Chester I. Barnard, in addition to his contributions in other works cited, carefully analyzes this relational aspect of leadership in his chapter on “The Nature of Leadership,” in Organization and Management ( Cambridge , 1948 ) Google Scholar .

34 See her Leadership and Isolation ( New York , 1943 ) Google Scholar and her “ Leadership—A Dynamic Re-definition ,” Journal of Educational Sociology , Vol. 17 , pp. 431 –33 (Mar., 1944 ) CrossRef Google Scholar . For an interesting application of these methods to discover “political leadership,” see the note by Loomis , Charles P. , Ensminger , Douglas and Woolley , Jane , “ Neighborhoods and Communities in County Planning ,” Rural Sociology , Vol. 6 , pp. 339 –41 (Dec., 1941 ) Google Scholar ; also Murphy , Albert J. , “ A Study of the Leadership Process ,” American Sociological Review , Vol. 6 , pp. 674 –87 (Oct., 1941 ) CrossRef Google Scholar .

35 Jennings , , Leadership and Isolation , p. 204 Google Scholar . See also Pigors, op. cit. , p. 16.

36 U. S. Office of Strategic Services , Assessment of Men; Selection of Personnel for the Office of Strategic Service ( New York , 1948 ) Google Scholar .

37 It should be emphasized that such a conception of politics entails no value presuppositions as to the inferiority of the public. It is not elitism. On the contrary, such an approach recognizes the vital and sustained role of the public in political direction.

38 It may be somewhat paradoxical to our notions that political influence is directly correlated with the degree of organization of interests, but if the relatively isolated are identified with the “white collar” floating vote, their isolation makes them most influential politically.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 44, Issue 4
• Lester G. Seligman (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1951291

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Vanguard News

• Top Stories
• Edo Decides
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy

March 1, 2021

On political leadership: A review essay

By Ladipo Adamolekun

The central argument in The Myth of the Strong Leader . Political Leadership in the Modern Age by Archie Brown (2014) is that the strong-weak leader dichotomy contributes little to our understanding of political leadership. This argument is a recurrent theme in Brown’s discussion of four categories of political leadership identified in the book: (i) redefining, (ii) transformational, (iii) revolutionary, and (iv) totalitarian/authoritarian.

As a preamble, Brown offers a longish list of the “attributes” or “desiderata” of a political leader: integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy, and boundless energy.

He also provides a mix of leadership styles, notably, dominating/domineering, collegial/collaborative, collective, inclusive, and dictatorial/authoritarian. In successive chapters on the four categories of leadership, he highlights both the key leadership attributes and the leadership styles of the different political leaders he uses as examples. Drawing on the insights provided in this well-researched book with examples selected from many countries across the continents, I conclude the review essay with three takeaways that I consider relevant to Nigeria.

Redefining Leadership

According to Brown, a redefining political leadership is one that succeeds in “stretching the limits of the possible in politics and radically altering the political agenda.”  His three major examples are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson of the United States of America (USA) and Margaret Thatcher of Britain.

President FD Roosevelt successfully lifted America out of the Depression of 1933 through his New Deal programme that radically changed the country’s economic and social systems. Regarding President LB Johnson, he redefined citizenship for many hitherto deprived Americans through championing the successful passage of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, 1965.  In Britain, Thatcher’s 11-year-long premiership (1979-1990) was characterised by radical changes in British economic and social policies.  As an apostle of privatisation, she ensured that about two-thirds of state assets were sold off.  She also reversed almost all the pillars of the welfare state introduced by Britain’s post-World War II government and maintained by successive governments up to 1979. The only notable exception is the National Health Service that assures free health care at the point of delivery for British citizens.

Transformational Political Leadership

Brown’s examples of political leaders that promoted transformative changes include Charles de Gaulle of France, Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union/Russia, Deng Xiaoping of China, and Nelson Mandela of South Africa.  Charles de Gaulle who ruled France from 1958 to 1969 changed the country’s political system. Specifically, he created a semi-presidential system of government that produces “a combination of effective governance and democratic accountability. And he resolved the Algerian crisis by accepting the need for decolonisation; Algeria became independent in 1962.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991), led transformative change that was encapsulated as perestroika (a programme of economic, political, and social restructuring)and g lasnost (promotion of openness and transparency in government institutions and activities). In particular, his political restructuring resulted in the abandonment of Marxism-Leninism and its replacement with competitive elections as the source of political legitimacy. His transformative foreign policy that paved the way for democratization in central and eastern Europe resulted in two landmark consequences: the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The latter was clearly unintended but Brown passes it as an achievement because it happened peacefully.

Deng Xiaoping, paramount leader of China from 1978 to 1989, led the transformation of the Chinese economic system that resulted in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty within a decade. This was achieved through the abandonment of collectivization in agriculture and the return to peasant household farming. He replaced the existing state-controlled (command) economy with a market economy and opened the country to foreign direct investment thereby integrating China into the world economy.

Finally, Nelson Mandela was a transformative leader as demonstrated by the key role he played in ensuring a definitive end to South Africa’s evil apartheid system and his lead role in the peaceful transformation of the country’s political system into a democracy. His one term in office (1994-1998) was followed by two democratic successions in his lifetime.

Revolutionary Leadership

Brown makes a distinction between revolutionary leaders who successfully carry out revolutions that produce systemic change and those who fail to dislodge existing power holders. His list of successful revolutionary leaders includes Vladimir Lenin of the Soviet Union, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) of Turkey, Mao Zedong of China, and Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Lenin led the Russian revolution of 1917 that removed the country’s last Tsar and founded the Soviet state.  His regime was established on a new ideological legitimacy (baptised Marxism-Leninism) that involved the transformation of the economy through the nationalisation of banks and industry.  In Turkey, Ataturk radically changed the ideological foundation of the state by replacing the traditional political and religious authorities after establishing the country as a republic in 1923. He also carried out a cultural revolution through the introduction of secular rule, secularization of education, and emancipation of women.

Related News

• Okpebholo most qualified to lead Edo State - VP Shettima
• Akwa Ibom PDP kicks off LG election campaigns
• Political Reward System in Nigeria: From the perspective of an outside observer

Mao Zedong, the acknowledged leader of Chinese communists since the 1930s, led the long revolutionary war in China for close to two decades to a victorious end. In 1949, he declared the People’s Republic of China. And in Cuba, Fidel Castro led the revolution of 1958-1959 that overthrew the existing regime. His government proceeded to create a fundamentally different political system and a new society. In 1963, he merged his revolutionary movement with the country’s Communist party, and ruled for close to 50years under Communist economic and political institutions.

Totalitarian and Authoritarian Leadership

Brown considers totalitarian and authoritarian political leadership as a continuum with mildly authoritarian, authoritarian and highly authoritarian at one end, and totalitarian, highly totalitarian, and extreme totalitarian at the other end. His main examples include Josif Stalin of the Soviet Union, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Mao Zedong of China.

Stalin succeeded Lenin as Soviet Union’s pre-eminent leader and by the early 1930s, he had become a one-person ruler with the Communist Politburo (executive) a mere rubber stamp.  He removed other prominent players in the 1917 revolution either through expulsion or execution after “show-trials” between 1936 and 1938. His totalitarian rule is noted for the compulsory collectivization of agriculture that resulted in famine during which millions of Soviet peasants died,

Hitler became German chancellor in 1933 when his National Socialist (Nazi) party emerged as the largest single party in the parliament. And he became president the following year. His ideology of a racially pure and powerful greater Germany had anti-Semitism as its centrepiece. From eliminating Jewish influence in Germany, he proceeded to eliminating Jews themselves. He led Germany’s economic recovery from the Depression of the 1930s and proceeded to develop the country’s military might. Then, he embarked on territorial expansion that led to the Second World War which he lost. He shot himself in his Berlin bunker in 1945.

Mao Zedong ruled China from 1949 to 1976 and his totalitarian rule was marked by the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). The former was a plan of forced agricultural collectivization and rural industrialisation that resulted in economic contraction, famine, and millions of deaths. And the latter, a violent socio-political purge that was intended to rid Chinese communism of remnants of capitalist and traditional elements only resulted in damaging the country’s economy and traditional culture and cost millions of lives.

Conclusion: Three Takeaways Relevant to Nigeria

My three takeaways that are relevant to Nigeria are: (i) desirable leadership attributes; (ii) desirable leadership styles; and (iii) urgent need for a redefining political leadership at the centre.

Desirable Leadership Attributes

The fourteen leadership attributes provided by Brown are integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy and boundless energy.

I consider the following four as the most crucial: integrity, intelligence, courage, and vision. And I strongly commend them to incumbent Nigerian political leaders at all levels, to aspiring political leaders, and to the Nigerian voter.  I would dare to assert that any incumbent leader who does not possess at least three of these attributes is very likely to be adjudged a bad performer at the end of his/her tenure; any leader who possesses all four attributes is very likely to be adjudged a good performer;and an incumbent leader who possesses all four and two or more others from the fourteen is likely to emerge as a very good performer.  The aspiring Nigerian political leader is invited to undertake a rigorous self-assessment and determine whether or not she/he is fit to contest for a political leadership position.  And it would be desirable if, henceforth, Nigerian voters pay more attention to the leadership attributes of contestants for political leadership positions before casting their votes.

Desirable Leadership Styles

The leadership styles highlighted by Brown and listed in the Introductory paragraph are:

dominating/domineering, collegial/collaborative, collective, inclusive, and dictatorial/authoritarian. In his concluding chapter, “What Kind of Leadership is Desirable?”, Brown strongly endorses a collegial leadership style. Since collaborative, collective and inclusive are, in varying degrees, variations of collegial leadership style, what he rejects are dominating/domineering and dictatorial/authoritarian leadership styles. I share his preference and I commend it to both incumbent and aspiring political leaders in the country. Nigeria experienced dictatorial/authoritarian leadership style during close to 30 years of military rule and it is no exaggeration to assert that the vast majority of Nigerians would not like a return to that era.   Regarding dominating/domineering political leadership style, Brown’s position is that while a political leader can use it to achieve some good results for the society, it is possible to achieve the same good results through collegial leadership. I share and recommend this viewpoint to both incumbent and aspiring political leaders in the country.

 Urgent Need for a Redefining Political Leadership at the Centre

My final takeaway is a clear choice among the four categories of political leadership summarised in this review essay.  It is my considered opinion that what Nigeria needs at this juncture in her national development is a redefining political leadership at the centre. None of our four post-military rule leaders qualifies to be included in this category.  President Obasanjo (1999-2007) and President Buhari (incumbent since 2015) are neo-military rulers , an unsurprising consequence of their strong military culture that has trumped any desire to respect democratic norms. And while Yar’Adua’s rule (2007-2010) was undermined and cut short by ill health and death, Jonathan (2010-2015) lacked the leadership attributes needed to provide redefining political leadership. The redefinition that Nigerian politics needs today – devolution/restructuring to re-establish a true federation – is awaiting a redefining political leadership to champion and accomplish it.

Professor Ladipo Adamolekun writes from Iju, Akure North, Ondo State.

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.

What it takes to be a Political leader and important qualities of a Good Leader

Management is doing things right; Leadership is doing the right things.

– Peter Drucker

Mark Skousen says, “We shall never change our political leaders until we change the people who elect them.” Hence its important as citizens to elect the right leader who can create transformation.

But surprisingly today’s politicians say, “They are going to do one thing while they intend to do another. Then they do neither what they said nor what they intended.”

What it takes to be a good political leader?

A good political leader is one who is capable to take decisions, determined to work for the betterment, has the willingness to manage & rectify issues and importantly stand up for what is right. A political leader should not be worried about his/her position, power and authority. He should always work for the growth of the society and should value his citizens. Every political leader should inherit the skills and research capabilities to think and act towards future growth. A successful leader, should have five major virtues: Discipline, Trustworthiness, Courage, Humaneness, Intelligence.

Of all the leadership roles, political leaders are always on top of everyone’s mind because they are in the news always for one reason or the other. Around the world there are many aspiring political leaders but unfortunately, there are few leaders who live up to the ethics and principles. 

“The future lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great public is interested more in Government than in Politics.”

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

To better understand leaders visit

Click here.

In India, most of the political leaders lack the basic and important leadership qualities such as accountability, transparency, availability and integrity. Some of these leaders even indulge in corruption and other illegal activities. In the present generation the word “ political leaders ” has a negative opinion on the citizens, which is not a surprise. However, the present developments show us that the upcoming young leaders are following the leadership ideals. We are seeing some positive changes in Indian politics, which is welcoming.

Having responsible politicians in the governing body is important as they are the decision makers of the country, state and other public affairs. They have the power to manage, distribute the economic resources, build relationships with stakeholders and make decisions that can have a great impact on the well-being of a nation. As a responsible citizens we expect our politicians to focus more on long-term plans for the wellness of the nation than the short-term plans. 

Responsibility is one of the most important leadership qualities. Most political leaders point fingers at other leaders rather than taking the responsibility upon them. Leaders should acknowledge other leaders contribution towards society. They should accept their own faults/ failures /mistakes and should always work towards their betterment.

A leader who is honest, accountable and takes responsibility for his/her own decisions and actions has the quality to become a great leader.

“Not all civil servants admire strong political leadership. But if you want to change things for the better, you need strong political leadership”. – Harriet Harman

Important Qualities of a good political leader:

• He/she must be capable of making tough and brave decisions for better future of public.
• He/she should have the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said rather than just tell what people like.
• He/she should work for people’s well-being rather than fighting for their better political positions.
• He/she must listen to the people and represent them faithfully.
• He/she should be loyal to the people he/she represents. And he/she should be loyal to other leaders so that they can work together and face problems together.
• Regardless of political parties and opinions, one should work with a range of other peoples to achieve the greatest good for the general public.
• He/she should resist themselves from various temptations of the political arena.
• He/she should be humble and down to earth. He/she should consider that he is just a leader and not owner of the people he represents.

Importance of leadership in society:

• Leadership is instrumental for social change. Overcoming social problems or modernizing and abolishing social norms has been impossible without the right kind of leadership.
• Leaders work for goodness of society, respect their people’s voice, creates a positive and happy society, and keep these people motivated and inspired.
• Leadership will emphasize the importance of education, picking the right career, working hard and focusing on performance.
• Some communities and societies are often remembered by their leaders and its exceptional social phenomenon that one leader can’t shape the future of the general public. They make them feel closer to each other and strengthen their bonds.
• Leader has a capable of visualize the people needs from different angles and plan things accordingly. This would enable proper distribution of development and ensure productive results.

www.myleaders.in

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

What Makes a Great Leader?

The coronavirus pandemic has tested leaders across the globe. Which do you think have risen to the moment?

By Jeremy Engle

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

Now, more than ever, we need strong and effective leadership from our politicians and public health officials during this global crisis.

In your opinion, what makes a person a great leader? Courage? Trustworthiness? Empathy?

How much do you value hands-on life experience — and the ability to get things done?

How much do you appreciate strong character — and the integrity to do what’s right instead of what may be popular?

How much do you admire effective communication — and the power to inspire and unify through words and actions?

The Times video “ The Leader We Wish We All Had ” looks at the leadership style of Dr. Amy Acton, an Ohio Health Department official, who has earned praise for her daily briefings on the pandemic.

The Leader We Wish We All Had

A look at the style of dr. amy acton, who has earned praise for her daily briefings on the pandemic..

“This is no small thing that we are doing together. It is so incredibly hard to have shut down our lives the way we have. I am absolutely certain you will look back and know that you helped save each other.” This is Dr. Amy Acton, director of the Ohio Department of Health. Trademark lab coat, emphatic hand gestures, and a knack for metaphors. “It’s like Swiss cheese. So I want you to picture a hurricane. When you have a fire on your stove and you have your kitchen extinguisher, you’ll want to get it quick.” You may not have seen her press briefings. But in Ohio, they’ve become a daily ritual, catapulting her from unknown local official to cult icon. “Hi, my name is Amy Acton. Any questions?” “Dr. Amy is going to help us fight out the coronavirus.” In her youth, Dr. Acton overcame neglect and homelessness on her way to being crowned homecoming queen. And last year, she became the first doctor appointed to run Ohio’s health department. Under her, Ohio has become a leader in responding to Covid. It declared a state of emergency with just three confirmed cases, and it was the first state to shut down schools. Later that same week, some governors were still proudly eating in packed restaurants. And Dr. Acton issued a stay-at-home order affecting more than 11 million people when the death toll was still just three. So how did Dr. Acton do it? To find out, we watched more than seven weeks of press briefings, and we noticed themes that, well, let’s just say other leaders should pay attention to. First up, she empowers us. Take a look at this clip from the day Dr. Acton issued that stay-at-home order. “I don’t want you to be afraid. I am not afraid. I am determined. But I need you to do everything. I want you to think about the fact that this is our one shot in this country. All of us are going to have to sacrifice. And I know someday we’ll be looking back and wondering, what was it we did in this moment?” Of her 65 words there, 12 are pronouns. Her repeated use of “I” tells us she’s in it with us. She’s taking ownership. Her use of “you” makes the audience feel a connection with her, even though we’re watching from home. Toward the end, she switches from singular to collective pronouns, signaling that she’s just like us, and we’re in it together. She’s in charge, yet she’s made us feel like the heroes. “There are everyday heroes everywhere. We know that not all heroes wear capes. You’re heroic when you stay at home and watch your neighbor who’s a nurse’s child. I know you’re all donning those capes in big ways and small ways. Please help us. Thank you.” Ohioans were inspired. Not just to stay at home, but to spread her messages to each other. Another theme of Dr. Acton’s briefings is brutal honesty. And to understand this one, we have to take you back to mid-April. People were getting restless, wondering when things would get back to normal. “So I do hope no one at home thinks like, it’s wide open, May 1, going back to life as normal. The rules have changed, and they’re not going to be quite the same. Life will be different for quite some time to come, and maybe in some ways that are permanent.” She’s preparing us for the long haul, even if it’s not what we want to hear. “It’s really hard to hear that, but we are not going back to six months ago. That’s not the reality we all face.” This is something she does a lot, actually. Setting up bad news with a warning. “Ohioans, you know, I know that’s hard to take. I know that’s a hard truth for people, because we want there to be a right answer and a right way. And I know this is a deep breath we all must take.” Dr. Acton is also honest about what she doesn’t know. “We have to be very clear and transparent with you. All of these numbers are a gross underestimation, and we have no real idea of the prevalence of this infection yet.” A lot of leaders just avoid talking about uncertainty. But when Dr. Acton repeatedly says, “We don’t know.” It’s actually calming to hear her admit what we all feel deep down, that we just don’t have the full story. And finally, Dr. Acton sees vulnerability as a strength. After watching dozens of hours of briefings, there was one word we kept hearing over and over. “Please just acknowledge and give a name to what you’re going through. Acknowledge it with each other. And so I just want to acknowledge that these are still really tough times. This is wearing on all of us, and I just want to acknowledge that. I just want to acknowledge that all of us are feeling this. It’s such an unprecedented time.” Hearing Dr. Acton acknowledge our harder emotions forces us to face them head on. Stuffing down fear and sadness just causes more stress, and may make us act more selfishly instead of empathizing with each other. “And you’ll have days when you’re anxious. But don’t kill yourself over that. Please know and forgive yourself and try again.” And take a look at what she does here. “Every day I go through stages of grief. I go through, you know, denial. I go through a little anger. I go through a little bargaining. I don’t have to wear this. I might not need it. This isn’t true. I get a little down.” When she tells us she’s struggling too, we feel seen, and heard and less alone. And maybe that’s all any of us want right now. In a pandemic, the words our leaders choose can save lives. As of the end of April, Ohio had recorded fewer than 1,000 Covid deaths. By comparison, neighboring Michigan suffered more than 3,000, even though Ohio has a bigger population and had its first case three weeks earlier. Of course, other factors help explain this. But Dr. Acton convinced millions of Ohioans to stay at home. Not by ordering them, but by inspiring them. “People at home, you are moving mountains. You are saving lives. Again, I get emotional talking about this, because this is no small thing that we are doing together. It is so incredibly hard to have shut down our lives the way we have. I am absolutely certain you will look back and know that you helped save each other in this state. The impact is profound. Please, at home, don’t stop.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What Can Improve Democracy?

1. politicians, changing leadership and political parties, table of contents.

• How politicians can improve
• Calls for systemic reform
• For many respondents, fixing democracy begins with the people
• It's difficult to please everyone
• Economic reform and basic needs
• No changes and no solutions – or at least no democratic ones
• Road map for this research project
• Politicians
• Changing leadership
• Political parties
• Government reform
• Special interests
• Media reform
• Economic reform
• Policies and legislation
• Citizen behavior
• Individual rights and equality
• Electoral reform
• Direct democracy
• Rule of law
• Ensuring safety
• The judicial system
• Codebook development
• Coding responses
• Collapsing codes for analysis
• Characteristics of the responses
• Selection of quotes
• About Pew Research Center’s Spring 2023 Global Attitudes Survey
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Appendix C: Codebook
• Appendix D: Political categorization
• Classifying parties as populist
• Classifying parties as left, right or center
• Acknowledgments

In the vast majority of the 24 countries surveyed, politicians are the most common subject of proposals to improve democracy. Some call for different types of people to enter the political arena, while others simply want their current politicians to perform better. Many want their leaders to pay closer attention to and respond more appropriately to constituents’ needs.

“The members of the legislature are stupid, so I want them to improve.” Woman, 20, Japan

While not top of mind in most places, people sometimes argue for a total change in leadership . This includes removing incumbent heads of state and instating a preferred politician. In Poland, where the survey took place before the October election which removed the then-ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) , this was the top change people thought would improve democracy.

Respondents also look beyond the people in politics to focus on political parties . This issue is particularly salient in the Netherlands, where parties are the second-most mentioned topic, though they rank in the top five in South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the U.S. Many requests center on changing the number of political parties – some want more and some want fewer. Others want to see a change in how parties interact, with calls for less fighting and more cooperation. A number of these responses specifically address the behavior or strength of the opposition party.

In nearly all countries surveyed, politicians rank first among the 17 topics coded. In countries where politicians are not the top issue, they still rank in the top five.

Suggestions for improving democracy by way of politicians come in many forms.

Some would like to see different people in politics, or more representation . Others focus on the qualities of politicians, such as honesty or empathy, but also their skillset and general competence . Still others ask that politicians change their behavior, both when working with each other and when working with constituents, emphasizing responsiveness .

Representation: Changing who is in politics

“If politicians were ordinary people who were on public transport, who used the means and the laws that they later apply.” Woman, 41, Spain

One group of suggestions involves changing the types of people involved in politics . For some, politicians are too dissimilar from their constituents, and “ordinary citizens should be able to enter” the government instead. As one Australian woman explained: “If ordinary people were elected to Parliament instead of big, official people, our country would probably be a better place to live. Ordinary people know how hard it is to get jobs, live below the poverty line and raise families on the low sums that the Australian government allows Centrelink to pay out each fortnight.” Another man in Nigeria put it more plainly: “They should give somebody like me a chance of ruling in Nigeria.”

“Wealthy people in government are not helpful in democracy because they don’t understand what it’s like to work in unionized jobs and not be able to afford necessities.” Woman, 41, UK

Some people focus specifically on the wealth of political leaders , calling for “fewer rich wealthy people” in the government. In Nigeria, one woman said, “They should allow the poor people to rule.” A man in Argentina said there should be “more poor people who can reach important positions.” And one Canadian man suggested “having more people from the upper-middle class, or people who have to work and earn their income, know what it’s like to pay taxes, and understand how difficult it is to survive in our world.”

Others say that “youth should take part in politics.” Younger politicians are viewed as a conduit for change and new ideas while “old ones don’t care anymore.” As one woman in South Africa pointed out, the “youth are the ones who are in line with the community issues.” Many respondents think younger people should be more involved in politics for their own sake: “Young people must create their own future.” A 30-year-old Argentine man said, “Let the young people get involved in politics, as they are the future and will change the country.” And respondents sometimes emphasize that younger people need to be prepared before entering politics, as one man in India said: “Youth should take part in politics, and training the leaders is the solution.”

“We want young blood or women to take over as our government.” Man, 34, South Africa

More women entering politics is another suggestion for improving the functioning of democracy. One woman in Sweden said, “More women in power, and then I think we will have a good political system.” A Japanese man echoed this call, saying one way to improve democracy is “to increase women’s participation in politics by making more than half of the members of Parliament women.” And a man in Spain said, “Simply, in this country, if instead of men there were more women in power, the country would do so much better.”

Still others call for people of different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds to be in politics. One man in South Africa asked for “a better balance of races in Parliament,” and a woman in Brazil proposed “racial quotas for politicians.” In the Netherlands, one woman suggested more representation of different “cultures, diaspora groups, origins and backgrounds. Because if you look at photos of the cabinet, you see a whole group of White people, which is not objective when you talk about the different cultures and backgrounds in the Netherlands.”

Specific backgrounds come up in some responses. In Australia, one man highlighted how “Indigenous people need to have more say in government,” and a woman in the U.S. shared a similar sentiment, saying, “As a matter of fact, this is Native land, and us Natives should be in charge, not other races.” An Israeli man proposed “more Arab Knesset members so they have more influence on decisions.” Kenya sees similar calls for “leaders from all tribes” to be elected, and a man in India requested that members of Parliament “be from all the castes.”

Competence: Changing politicians’ qualities

“Political leaders should be improved.” Man, 61, South Korea

Many suggest improving the overall quality of politicians . “If the leader is good, there will be improvement,” explained one man in India. These calls are often straightforward, as in the case of a Mexican woman whose singular request was for “better politicians.” Some suggest basic requirements for holding political office, like one man in Japan who said, “We need politicians who have common sense and can think logically.” This sentiment is shared in Kenya, where one respondent suggested that democracy would be improved if “competent leaders” were elected.

Politicians need extroversion, knowledge and experience from foreign countries, integrity and a democratic spirit.” Man, 49, Greece

In some cases, respondents set even higher bars for their politicians, specifically asking that they be “knowledgeable people” or “experts on key policy issues.” One Hungarian woman explained that “experts would pass responsible laws.” For one woman in Spain, the coronavirus pandemic illustrated the importance of having experts on an issue decide “everything that has to do with that issue. For example, during COVID, the people who decided were a doctor and an expert.” Others are more reluctant to have experts govern outright and would just like politicians to listen more to experts or have more advisers.

People also want to see changes in the personal character of politicians:

“It will improve when we get a strong and determined leader who puts the issues and problems of people first.”

– Man, 36, South Africa

“More decisiveness from the politicians. I think it’s weak now; they don’t dare to make decisions and they are like civil servants.”

– Woman, 66, Netherlands

“All political people are very bad. All political persons should be honest.”

– Man, 32, India

“To have trustworthy and honest authorities who can give an account of what they do and where they do their jobs.”

– Man, 67, Mexico

“I think they need to behave less like children, learn what people want and be less self-interested. And learn how to tell the truth. And not avoid answering questions.”

– Woman, 76, UK

“For politicians to stop going for a win for their party and egos, and instead to focus more on what’s best – for the short and long term – for the country.”

– Man, 65, U.S.

Responsiveness: Changing politicians’ behavior

Politicians’ conduct is another subject of people’s suggestions. They want politicians to take their responsibilities more seriously and show “more interest in the work they are asked to do.” In Australia, one woman wanted “fewer ‘charismatic’ leaders and more serious and committed candidates.” Another Australian thought politicians need to have a greater sense of responsibility because “saying ‘I don’t know’ or ‘it isn’t my responsibility’ loses the respect of the electorate.” One man in the U.S. plainly stated that democracy needs “serious elected officials, not crazy ones like you have now in the GOP.”

Others are concerned about making sure politicians “say what they mean and do what they say,” especially when it comes to keeping promises made during campaigns . One man in France said politicians must “avoid saying things that will never be done, lying just to get elected.” In Sweden, a respondent asked for “less fishing for votes with false promises.” In several cases, people specifically called for repercussions “if election promises are not carried out.” One man in Australia suggested that politicians “should be forced to stand down” if they do not “honor their promises.” The sentiment is shared in Japan, where one man said that “those who have not worked to carry out their campaign promises” should be prevented “from running for the next term.”

“The government should listen to the voice of the people, because the voice in the inside is not the voice of the lower level. People’s complaints in the lower level are seldom taken.” Woman, 39, Indonesia

One oft-repeated request is for politicians to listen more closely to their constituents . Many feel that democracy “is not working because politicians have their own agenda and are not listening to anybody.” In the Netherlands, one man explained that “the ordinary man in the street is not really listened to” and “not much” comes of what they ask for. People instead call for politicians to “pay attention to what facilities the people are not getting” and understand that they are meant to be “pro-people.” One Kenyan man said democracy would improve “if elected leaders represented people as the people want and represent the problems they are facing.”

People also highlight specific groups in the country that politicians should pay special attention to . In Japan, several said politicians need to “hear more women’s opinions” and be more attentive to the needs of young people. In other instances, people want politicians to hear “more opinions from poor people.” One Israeli respondent emphasized “taking the opinions of Arabs into consideration,” and a woman in Brazil stressed the need for politicians to better understand “the homeless people.” Other groups that are highlighted include the elderly, LGBTQ people, religious groups and refugees. (For more on what people said about individual rights and equality, read Chapter 4 .)

Still, some think that politicians need to “place less emphasis on the wants of minority groups.” In Australia, some painted these groups as “noisy” or “loud” and said politicians should listen to the “silent majority” instead. Other respondents in both Australia and the U.S. even name specific groups they think are receiving undue attention, such as “Aboriginal people,” women and “illegal immigrants.”

Instead of improving the quality of their politicians, some want to remove the current governing parties or heads of state . This issue appeared in the top five topics cited in Poland, Hungary and South Africa. In most other countries surveyed, though, it does not rank in the top 10.

In about half the countries surveyed, those who do not support the governing party or parties are more likely to mention changing their political leadership than those who do support these parties. (For more information on how we classify governing party supporters, refer to Appendix D .)

In Hungary, for example, where changing leadership is the third-most mentioned suggestion for improving democracy, 12% of those who do not support Viktor Orbán’s governing coalition of Fidesz and the Christian Democratic People’s Party (KNDP) mention changing leadership, compared with 1% of those who do support these parties.

Calls to put someone else in power, particularly in Poland

Across the 24 countries surveyed, Poles particularly stand out for the emphasis they placed on changing leadership – Poland is the only country where the issue ranked first. The survey was conducted in spring 2023, prior to the October 2023 parliamentary elections that ousted the governing right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) .

“As long as PiS is in power, there will be no democracy in Poland.” Man, 24, Poland

Polish responses about how to improve their democracy centered squarely on changing the governing party: “Removing PiS from power,” said one Polish man. “PiS should lose the election,” echoed a Polish woman.

Poles who do not support PiS are more likely to mention changing leadership than those who do support PiS (17% vs. 4%, respectively, though PiS supporters were overall less likely to provide a response). Younger Polish adults are also more likely to mention changing leadership than those ages 40 and older. Indeed, in the October election, turnout among the youth was unusually high .

While Poles focused on removing the particular party in power, people in other countries sometimes emphasize the need to put different people or parties into office . “The government should be changed. The Congress Party government should come to power,” said one man in India. “Raila Odinga should be granted leadership,” said a woman in Kenya, naming the leader of the opposition. And a South African man suggested that “the African National Congress give other parties a chance to govern the country, and Cyril Ramaphosa step down as a president.”

“A change of government at the next election would improve democracy. The Conservatives have been in power for too long.” Woman, 53, UK

In other countries, too, calls to change leadership prioritize removing someone currently in power as opposed to installing someone else. Some respondents name the current head of state as who they would like to see out of office. One Brazilian man said, for example, “Get President Lula and his gang out of power.” Or, as one woman in Canada put it: “If we could get Justin Trudeau out of leadership, then I would be happier with democracy.”

Rebuilding leadership from the ground up

“The legislature has a lot of problems – it needs to be improved, starting with a new election of lawmakers.” Man, 65, South Korea

Some requests to change leadership are not specific to a person or party, but rather focus on bringing in a fresh slate of politicians . “Fire everyone and start fresh,” said one woman in the U.S. An Argentine woman echoed this view: “Take out the current politicians, reform and formulate new laws, and start from scratch.”

Several of these calls to rebuild target the legislature. A man in Greece said, “all 300 members should leave the Parliament. The structure of the Parliament should change radically.” A woman in Spain suggested, “I would carry out a purge in the useless Senate.”

“The established order must be replaced: a new generation with more women and people from the business world. There are too many people who have only been in politics. That is an unhealthy situation.” Woman, 53, Netherlands

A few focus less on a specific leader, party or institution and more generally on the need for change. One Italian man said, “In order to improve democracy in this country, it would take a coup d’etat. We need to reset all privileges and start over in full respect of people.”

People sometimes target political parties when making suggestions for improving democracy. The issue is particularly salient in the Netherlands, where parties are the second-most mentioned topic. Parties are a top-five issue in Spain, Sweden, South Korea and the U.S. In most other countries surveyed, parties rank in the top 10.

Some proposed changes relate to the number of political parties. Other suggestions are related to how parties act, both on their own and with other parties.

“Get rid of all the political parties, we need a redo.” Woman, 39, Canada

More political parties

Some want to see more political parties, as with a respondent in Kenya who wanted “the use of a multiparty system” and one in Greece who thought “more political parties in the Parliament” would improve democracy.

Some express a simple desire for more options to choose from . For example, a man in Canada found “very little difference between the NDP (New Democratic Party) and Liberal” now that the Liberal Party, which “used to be centralist,” has “moved to the left.” In South Korea, also dominated by two parties, a man said having “at least three parties to contest the elections” would help improve the country’s democracy. Similarly, one woman in the U.S. wanted “more parties, more points of view.”

“That no large coalitions exist and we therefore have more than three parties.” Woman, 57, Germany

In other cases, people see the existing parties as too polarized and want additional parties to represent centrists . A man in the U.S. said, “There truly needs to be a relevant third party that would represent the middle-of-the-road ideology between Republicans and Democrats.” This sentiment is echoed in Australia, where one woman thought democracy “works well, but it’s the party room that buggers it up.” This would be fixed if the “extreme wings” of parties became “parties of their own as most people vote for a moderate view,” she said.

Some see the creation of more parties as an opportunity to introduce new ideas . A British man said democracy would improve “if some new parties came to the United Kingdom with some fresh blood and fresh ideas, instead of the same people. The old parties are not so interested in the people living in the UK. They only care about their own pockets and their own ideas.” Suggestions for new parties sometimes focus on the inclusion of young people as a way to bring about different ideas. One Greek woman emphasized that “political parties should be created by young people with new ideas.”

Fewer political parties

Some suggest reducing the number of political parties would create more simplicity . In Nigeria, one man said that “with too many parties, things will go wrong.” A Canadian man held a similar view, saying, “the number of parties should be limited to three: left, center and right. I believe it would lead to less chaos.”

In Mexico, some highlight the monetary cost of having a large number of parties : “There should be fewer parties so that the payroll is less expensive,” said one Mexican woman. Another man thought there should only be two political parties because the current number of parties results in “a lot of money spent.”

“Fewer parties. No party has a clear policy. It’s just a moderate Swedish soup. And if someone tries to stand out, they never succeed.” Woman, 52, Sweden

People in the Netherlands, where political parties are the second-most mentioned issue, also note how “democracy is being muddled by smaller parties.” One woman explained: “I think it is too fragmented, therefore more difficult to form coalitions, and therefore more difficult to govern.” Another woman called for “fewer political parties. Otherwise you will become entirely ungovernable because many compromises have to be made. Too many parties leads to uncertainty among voters.”

There is no clear consensus on the ideal number of political parties to have in a country . For example, in the Netherlands, one man suggested that there “be seven to eight parties at most” while another suggested “a three-party system.” Still others want no parties at all, as in the case of a man in Japan: “Dissolution of all political parties. We will create a system in which even members of Parliament are not bound by political parties and are involved in politics based on their individual ideas.”

“By creating a two-party system like America’s. Then they can better keep the promises made.” Man, 40, Netherlands

Although some Americans would like to see more parties or a multiparty system, people in other countries sometimes point to the two-party system in the U.S. as ideal . An Italian man said, “We should have a democratic system like the American one: a presidential system, two parties that you can identify with. In Italy, there are too many parties. In America everything is perfect, but in Italy it is not possible.” A Japanese man suggested that “it would be better to have two major political parties like America. Now, there are various small political parties, and they are not united.”

Less conflict between parties

“Stop the constant opposition policies, like when a party is in favor of one thing, the rival party has to be against it.” Man, 19, Spain

Many think democracy would improve if political parties stopped fighting with each other . A French man explained that parties “spend their time fighting among themselves. It is not favorable for the French. They discuss and don’t make any real progress on the subjects.” In neighboring Italy, one man similarly took issue with “party squabbling,” and in Spain, a respondent wanted a “decrease in aggressiveness and hostility between parties.” This sentiment is echoed across other countries, including South Africa, where a man asked that “parties stop degrading each other.”

“If the Republicans and Democrats would just work together this would be the greatest country in the world.” Man, 58, U.S

People give various reasons for their concern about interparty conflict. Some point out how friction between parties creates gridlock : With “two parties fighting and voting along party lines, we never get anything done,” said a man in the U.S. A Canadian man shared a similar idea, saying, “If parties stop bickering, we might advance further.” Others are concerned because “democracy requires mutual efforts while competing,” according to a South Korean man, and because “parties that don’t want to cooperate with others are not democratic,” according to a Dutch man. A Dutch woman succinctly said, “If political parties do not want to work together, a democracy is useless.”

More cooperation between parties

“Get together more, talk more, diversity of opinions. That the parties leave personal benefits aside and agree, more like the Argentine team.” Man, 31, Argentina

Parties are also called upon to work together . As a woman in the U.S. said: “I would like to see both parties work together and not see each other as wrong. Compromise is the name of the game!” This is echoed in South Korea, where one man said that “compromise is necessary.” One South African respondent noted that working together would allow all parties to focus on “reaching one goal and keeping our country peaceful with stability.”

For others, improved communication between parties is the key for greater harmony. An Argentine woman explained that democracy would work better if “the different parties have a dialogue.” And an Israeli respondent similarly asked for “more dialogue and goodwill to bridge the gaps between the various parties.”

Changes to the opposition party

Some specifically request that opposition parties offer less resistance . A respondent in Kenya, for example, asked the opposition to “calm down a little.” In Hungary, some go even further to suggest that the opposition be “done away with” or “stay silent.” A man in South Africa explained that democracy may be better off without any opposition parties because “no one will ever oppose the decisions, which creates stability in the country.”

“Less hyperbole from the Liberal-National Coalition. We need a viable opposition instead of the half-witted reactionaries that the Coalition keeps serving up.” Man, 50, Australia

Other suggestions for opposition parties are more targeted. In Australia, people want opposition parties “to stop opposing things just to score political points” or to stop “voting against a good bill just because they are in opposition.” A Spanish man also spoke out against disagreement for the sake of it: “Don’t assume that the opposition must always say the opposite of what the ruling party says.”

Still, in some countries, the emphasis is reversed, and people want a stronger opposition that “will keep the government in check.” As one man in the UK explained: “I think we need an opposition that genuinely disagrees with the government. There has got to be debate. We have a Parliament and it’s not being used properly.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Election System & Voting Process
• International Political Values

Americans are less likely than others around the world to feel close to people in their country or community

How people in 24 countries think democracy can improve, who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government, representative democracy remains a popular ideal, but people around the world are critical of how it’s working, freedom, elections, voice: how people in australia and the uk define democracy, most popular, report materials.

• Spring 2023 Survey Data

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

US and The World Sample Answer: Lyndon Johnson as a Political Leader

“what were the strengths and weaknesses of lyndon johnson as a political leader”.

This is an essay from our History guide . 2014 Higher Level Paper, Section 3, Topic 6 (THE US AND THE WORLD, 1945-1989), Q2. 

Don’t forget to subscribe for all the latest content and tips from top Leaving Cert performers!

Lyndon B. Johnson displayed a variety of political strengths and weaknesses throughout his Presidency, which began abruptly in 1963 with the murder of his predecessor John F. Kennedy and ended in 1969 with his resignation. His lack of experience lead to a great number of misgivings and mistakes on his part, but he put great emphasis on the importance of negotiation and stuck to his convictions for the most part.