Political Leadership in Liberal and Democratic Theory

Joseph Femia

Description

The working hypothesis of this book is that the issue of leadership is neglected by mainstream democratic and liberal theories. This deficiency has especially become evident in the last three or four decades, which have witnessed a revival of deontological liberalism and radical theories of participatory and 'deliberative' democracy. The contributors examine, discuss and evaluate descriptive, analytical and normative arguments regarding the role of leadership in liberal and democratic theory. The volume seeks to provoke debate and to foster new research on the significance and function of leaders in liberal democracies.The book (as a whole and in its constitutive chapters) works on two levels. First, it aims to expose the lack of systematic treatment of leadership in mainstream liberal and democratic theory. Second, it explores the reasons for this neglect. Overall, the book tries to convince the reader that liberal and democratic theories should revive the issue of leadership.

Sujets

• Politique
• Lettres et linguistique

Informations

• Publié par: Andrews UK
• Date de parution: 22 août 2016
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781845407131
• Langue: English

Extrait

Title page
Political Leadership in Liberal and Democratic Theory
Edited by Joseph Femia, András Körösényi and Gabriella Slomp
imprint-academic.com



Publisher information
2016 digital version converted and published by
Andrews UK Limited
www.andrewsuk.com
This Collection copyright © Joseph Femia, András Körösényi and Gabriella Slomp, 2009, 2016
Individual chapters copyright © their Author, 2009, 2016
The moral rights of the contributors have been asserted
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism and discussion.
Imprint Academic
PO Box 200, Exeter EX5 5YX, UK



Introduction
Leadership may be defined simply as the quality permitting one person to command others. Nevertheless, leadership is essentially based on consent rather than coercion. Ordering someone about at the point of a gun is not leadership, though leaders will normally impose coercive sanctions on those (presumably a minority) who refuse to accept their commands voluntarily.
The topic of leadership has stimulated two rival modes of approach. The classical approach focuses primarily on the personalities of ‘great men’, depicting them as unique and heroic figures capable of inspiring their disciples through sheer force of will. Examples would include Rousseau ’s Great Legislator or Nietzsche’s ‘superman’. Especially influential in modern social science has been Max Weber’s ‘ideal-type’ of the charismatic leader, endowed with some extraordinary quality (real or imagined ) that enables him (almost always a male) to mobilise human effort and transform the material world, for good or ill. Weber contrasted charismatic authority with two other types of domination: traditional (where obedience is based on custom and revered precedent) and ‘rational-legal’ (where compliance is based on legally established rules and procedures). Both these modes are stable and predictable structures of everyday life. By way of contrast, charismatic domination in its pure form is mercurial and transient, and the changes it inspires may or may not be desirable. Social scientists in the early twentieth century tended to see charismatic authority as a symptom of modernity. The decline of traditional practices and institutions, according to psychologists such as Freud and LeBon, had exposed the deep human craving to surrender to a hypnotic leader. In this literature, leaders were portrayed rather negatively, as self-absorbed and irrational theatrical figures who posed a threat to human liberty. The devotion they engendered (or would engender) in their followers was deemed to be a dangerous manifestation of mass psychic disorder. The subsequent rise of Mussolini and Hitler seemed to confirm such fears.
After World War II, the idea of charisma as a diabolical trait was set aside in the interests of a more sociological understanding of leadership. Weber was accused of underestimating the social significance of the charismatic leader as a symbol, catalyst, or message-bearer, embodying the values and hopes of the social group. Charisma, after all, depends on social recognition and must therefore reflect, in some intangible way, the culture and sensibilities of those who come to validate it. Whereas Weber stressed the revolutionary or disturbing aspects of charisma, it was now seen as instrumental in maintaining social order. [1] Leaders, according to this new approach, are hardly extraordinary. In the words of Cecil Gibb, ‘leadership is not a quality which a man possesses; it is an interactional function of the personality and of the social situation’. [2] In fact, some studies indicated that leaders, far from being unusual, were often the group members closest to the statistical average whose very ordinariness allowed them to make innovations. [3] The focus now was on the needs and structures of the group and the surrounding situational context, and on the resulting dynamic between leaders and led. This approach to leadership was egalitarian in its assumptions and did manage to explain the type of ‘leader’ who claims only to be a ‘mouth-piece’ for his followers.
Not all leaders, however, simply mirror an existing consensus. Some attempt to create a new consensus - remote and majestic men and women, who are objects of fear and reverence. Even leaders dismissed as mere managers will, if they are effective, usually command a measure of devotion and possess certain human attributes beyond the normal: courage , intelligence, imagination, perseverance, and the like. Good leaders generally evince a rare combination of characteristics, which allows them to come to the right decision in a manner that transcends rationality. Starting with Machiavelli, many have tried to develop a science of leadership, but history suggests that leadership ability is akin to artistic talent, which can neither be reduced to a set of maxims nor acquired by reading books.
We may conclude that Weber’s mysterious idea of ‘charisma’ still has something important to tell us about leadership. The relationship between a political leader and his/her followers is not just a matter of rational calculation. To the contrary, it expresses underlying psychic processes that challenge our cherished belief in fundamental human equality . This may help to explain why the great bulk of the scholarly literature on leadership is produced by sociologists, psychologists, and experts in business management; and why political theorists seem reluctant to speculate in any systematic way about - or even acknowledge - the role of political leadership in modern society. If, as the American Declaration of Independence informs us, ‘all men are created equal’, then political leadership , at least in its more proactive forms, represents a deviation from the ideal of personal autonomy. Leadership smacks of hierarchy, of exceptional individuals, of the primordial fact that there will always be rulers and ruled. For this reason, the idea of democracy will never sit easily alongside the need for leadership. Insofar as liberalism is associated with democracy, as well as individual rights and the rule of law, it too has an inherent antipathy to strong leadership. Indeed, the main purpose of liberal theory has been to justify restrictions on what leaders may do.
But the implicit egalitarianism of our political culture is not the only reason why theorists are loath to recognise or analyse the positive benefits of political leadership. After all, mediaeval Europe, despite its rigid hierarchical structures, saw earthly power-holders as mere functionaries, executing God’s law in strict collaboration with the Church, and foreswearing any creative ambitions of their own. As the existing social and political order was seen as divinely ordained, infused with the purpose of preparing mankind for the ‘life beyond’, rulers were expected to demonstrate due humility. Even during the Renaissance, a period which valued individual achievement, the ubiquitous advice-books for monarchs were basically mediaeval in conception, describing ideal rulers who were paragons of piety and rectitude, and whose judgement was confined to the deductive application of eternal truths. Machiavelli, in his classic work The Prince, subverted this literature by dealing systematically with the requirements of leadership in the real world, where abstract universals rarely survive contact with unpropitious circumstances. Jettisoning all teleological baggage, abandoning the idea of an immutable universal order, he insisted that a virtuoso politician could decisively shape human events. For Machiavelli, politics was not the expression of a sacred plan, derived from Scripture; it was a struggle for power and advantage, in which the different protagonists were engaged in a never-ending game of political chess, with winners and losers. Success was enjoyed by those who aligned themselves with dexterous and ruthless leaders, masters of calculation and prediction. [4] Leadership, as Machiavelli made clear, becomes a political necessity only in a context of conflict and uncertainty, where choice often involves selecting the lesser of two evils. If politics is reduced to moral principles, or defined as the pursuit of some abstract ideal, then leadership, with its vicissitudes, may be perceived as a threat to the achievement of the ‘good’.
For almost half a century now, mainstream liberal and democratic theory has seen its task as one of identifying truths about how we should live - truths inherent in our essential human nature and discoverable through rational analysis. The normative bias of analytical political philosophy, instigated by Rawls, and the ‘deliberative’ and ‘participatory’ bias of speculation about democracy, inspired mainly by Habermas, leave little scope for political leadership. Politics is understood as the executive instrument of some moral purpose, which imposes severe constraints on what political leaders can rightfully do. Making the moral prior to the political is the defining feature of what Bernard Williams calls ‘political moralism’, which he contrasts unfavourably with ‘political realism’. The latter, says Williams, recognises a ‘general truth’ discovered by Goethe’s Faust: in the beginning was the deed (not the word). That is to say, political theory will seem to make sense only by virtue of the historical situation in which it is presented, and which it will to some degree reflect. It follows that no political theory can by itself determine its own application . [5] On this understanding of the relationship between theory and practice -and it is an understanding that permeates this volume - the role of leadership is crucial.
Our starting point is that this neglect of leadership is a deficiency that needs to be explained and corrected. [6] Our overal