Political Leadership
Alistair Cole
Political leadership
A key distinguishing feature within the academic literature has been between those advocating universal propositions about political leadership; and those concerned with a more limited, usually national, framework Jean Blondel’s attempt to construct a universal model of political leadership proves the weaknesses of over-ambitious definitions of leadership. Blondel proposes a general model of political leadership claimed to be valid for all polities. Little account of different systemic contexts within which leadership is exercised; for instance between liberal democratic, authoritarian, traditional or military leaderships. Extensive coverage… but what really is being said?
Definitions
Blondel: leadership is ‘ability to make others do what they would not otherwise do’. Classic face of power (Lukes). Leadership is exercise of coercive power. Elgie, 'political leadership is best understood as the control over the public policy-making process by a particular institution'. This limits the study of political leadership to one of interaction between formal institutions, and overlooks or underplays the mobilising aspect of individual political action. Charismatic leadership (Weber). Leadership as mobilisation Leader-follower relations ( Burns) Leadership relational Symbolic leadership (Blondel) Psycho-biographies and socio-psychological studies define leadership in terms of personal attributes of leaders, typically ‘authoritarian personality’. Leadership can be all of these…a transversal concept which requires framework of analyses to allow operationalisation.
Framework of analysis 1.
Leadership is multidisciplinary. It has attracted work in the fields of psychology, management studies, organisational theory, and history, as well as from political scientists. Within the framework of political science, most attention has been centered upon: the institutional offices or positions occupied by leaders the personality traits associated with leadership (what distinguishs leaders from routine office-holders, for instance) the political environment or settings within which political leaders operate Styles of leadership, both individual and collective Leadership as part of broader core executive studies Most involve some combination of the personal qualities of leaders, their positional strengths and weaknesses, and the wider environmental and cultural constraints and opportunities that help shape their political leadership. Frameworks give rise to a number of questions
Structure and Agency
What is the interplay between structure and agency? To what extent are political leaders bound by structural and political constraints; how far are they free agents, able to determine leadership goals and policy outcomes? Are certain types of leader (for example the caretaker, the authoritarian, the visionary, or the coalition broker) suited to certain types of environmental setting? Do particular psychological character traits (such as an authoritarian personality) predispose certain individuals for political leadership?
Leadership settings:Germany as a case study
Appreciating leadership potential depends first and foremost upon understanding the structural bases of a given polity. The case of Germany illustrates this well .The domestic political setting within which a German chancellor functions is far more restricted than that of his French or British counterparts. Post-war German political leadership has been built upon a political structure which embodies the diffusion of power across several interlocking institutions. The forces militating against strong leadership include: the compromises inherent in coalition management, the impact of factional politics within the governing coalition, the federal system, which vests a virtual veto power in the hands of state governments and the second chamber; the prevalence of sectoral corporatism as a model of state-group relations, and the impact of a particular institutional framework designed to dissipate decision-making authority across separate, but interdependent institutions. These constraints can also become opportunities for astute and skilful politicians, but leadership constrained by memory.
Agency and individuals
Personal character traits are an important facet of an ability to exercise political leadership. The leadership qualities of decisiveness, strength, resolution, risk-taking, vision and imagination are differentially distributed, irrespective of wider structural circumstances. Different personal skills are appropriate to varying leadership styles and circumstances. Certain leaders appear to possess personal characteristics enabling them to leave their permanent imprint upon their offices. the examples of Charles de Gaulle in France and Konrad Adenuaer in Germany were exemplary in this respect. As with the French presidency and de Gaulle, the character of the German Chancellorship owes a great deal to the legacy of the first Chancellor, Adenauer. Adenauer crafted the chancellorship into a powerful weapon of executive leadership.
Leadership Roles
What leadership roles are performed? Successful political leadership in complex liberal democracies depends upon the ability to perform different roles appropriate to variable contexts. The qualities required of a party manager are not always the same as those for a governmental coordinator; the skills required for domestic economic management are distinct from those of the foreign policy suzerain. The extent to which individual political leaders are able to carry out particular roles is predicated in part upon the nature of the office they occupy; Mitterrand and Thatcher performed foreign policy roles that were, arguably, not available to Chancellor Kohl in the 1980s, on account of the constrained leadership setting within which German chancellors then operated. The structure of the domestic political system is one very important dimension of political leadership.
But roles are not, literally, pre-given. To a degree, individuals can determine the roles they perform, or even invent new ones. Sarkozy is arguably crafting the French presidency into a new type of political office
Position: Presidential Leadership
The key principle of a pure presidential system (such as the US) is that one individual symbolises the political executive, and is ultimately responsible for the activities of the government: in the US, the President in theory fulfils this function, although in practice it is impossible for the President always to know what is going on in his name. The US President combines the functions of Head of State and Head of Government. The President is elected - by electoral college - and is responsible only to the people. Thus, in pure presidential systems, governments are responsible to the President alone, and can not be overturned by elected Parliaments. They will, however, change with a change of presidential incumbent. In the US system, there is a separation of powers, with legislative, executive and judicial branches of government separate from each other and providing checks and balances on each other’s operation.
In most countries with powerful Presidents, however, there is no such pattern of divided government – and the presidential form equates with a powerful form of unchecked – and often corrupt – executive power (the model in Africa, for example).
Position:Parliamentary leadership
In parliamentary systems, by contrast, government is held to be a collective enterprise: responsibility for government decisions is invested in a collective body known as a cabinet, or a Council of ministers. The Prime minister is the foremost personality within Cabinet, but decision-making is collective. The PM is not directly elected, and can be overturned by a negative vote in an elected Parliament. In parliamentary systems, governments are held to be responsible to elected Assemblies, themselves representative of the people. In a pure presidential system, such as the US, the executive is separate from the legislature: members of the US government can not be members of Congress as well. In a parliamentary system, such as the UK, the executive is drawn from the legislature: members of the government are first elected as members of Parliament. In nearly all European states, there is a fusion of powers, rather than a strict separation.
Semi-presidential system
The semi-presidential system combines features of the presidential and the parliamentary A semi-presidential system combines a directly elected President and a government responsible to parliament. Francois (2008): France’s semi-presidential system equates with the lack of political responsibility of the core executive leader, the President, who is de facto unaccountable. Executive drawn in part only from elected Assembly. Rule of incompatibility. Nomination by President of personalities who have not been elected A model that is not really for export?
Political Leadership in comparative context (1) formal constitutional resources
Proposition 1: formal constitutional powers are a necessary, but not sufficient component of leadership the powers vested by the constitution on the core executive leader Power of nomination Powers of selection and dismissal of ministers Limits on terms in office? Specific constitutional responsibilities, e.g. in defence Limitations to exercise of core executive authority? EG the guarantee of individual ministerial autonomy in the FRG.
Political Leadership in comparative context (2) role of party system
Proposition 2 .Role of party system in producing homogeneous versus coalition governments. The strong prime minister at the head of a disciplined party majority is likely to exercise tighter control over government than the broker-style leader of a coalition of five or so parties The nature of the relationship between government and governing party/coalition is vital. The colonisation of important ministries by a coalition partner (e.g. Welfare by Social democrats in Germany) can frustrate the claim by the premier to exercise political leadership. Party political and organisational variables can conflict Style of leadership likely to be strongly influenced by the party system. Are brokerage skills rewarded, for example, or are is the relationship framed in terms of providential leader and subordination? There are no absolute rules, but behavuoural observations.
Political Leadership in comparative context (3)
Nature of elective mandate
Proposition 3. Direct election and elective legitimacy. The core executive leader who has been directly elected (such as the French President) enjoys an additional elective legitimacy by comparison to parliamentary prime ministers. French President remains in office for the duration of a mandate and can not be overturned by a party or parliamentary revolt, unlike in Germany, UK or Italy. On the other hand, direct presidential elections do not automatically invest officeholders with increased power, as the Portuguese or Finnish examples demonstrate. New democracies in central and eastern Europe tempted by institutional design of the semi-presidential system, but in practice have evolved into parliamentary regimes.
Political Leadership in comparative context (4): Elections and government formation
Proposition 4 Elections and government formation. The closer the link between electoral victory and government formation, the stronger the position of the office holder. The strength of the British PM (and, for that matter, the German Chancellor) usually relates to the fact that s/he has led the ruling party to a victorious general election. There is- usually - a strong relationship between general elections and government formation, even in case of the Grand coalition. In Italy, or France, this relationship is less apparent - which limits the political prestige of the Prime minister Thus, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair all led their parties to successive electoral victories, thereby strengthening their leadership positions. Although Thatcher and Blair was eventually overturned by a party revolt, and Kohl’s leadership threatened to go the same way, there is no doubt that Kohl and Thatcher had more authority and power than a string of Italian premiers whose occupancy of the premiership was decided by party committee in between election periods. After all, who can remember Spaldolini in Italy?
Political Leadership in comparative context (5) longevity of office
longevity in office. This is a precondition to exercising effective political leadership.. Learning leadership, exploiting opportunities But experience also demonstrates that it is extremely rare for any one leader to stay in office more than 10 years or so…The nature of obstacles in the democratic process
Political Leadership in comparative context (6): Relations within and beyond the core executive
Political leadership is behavioural; in part a function of the relations of political leaders with other decision-making actors, both within and outside of the core executive. Relations between Prime ministers, Finance ministers, spending ministries often tense crystallises tensions at a macro level… duplicated by rivalries between bureaucratic divisions Government = competition for scarce resources. Nature of bureaucratic resources, rules and regulation. Who has the best expertise? What rules govern access to these resources? How are promotions managed in the civil service? What is role of political appointments – or spoils systems Leadership is positional + relational… Powerful external relations can strengthen a PMs internal standing.
Political Leadership in comparative context (7) constraints and resources
the existence or otherwise of institutional and political counter-weights to strong leadership (such as constitutional courts, a written constitution, or a constraining party system). The role of Assemblies and – especially – constitutional courts is critical importance here The rise of the EU regulatory state and the legal order basis of the European Union and the ECJ, has provided a powerful check on unbridled executive authority.
Germany 1.
German Chancellors have generally proved strong leaders In Germany the post-war period has seen the emergence of a strong political office in the form of the Chancellor. It was believed by the allies that the absense of strong, institutionalised leadership had been partly responsible for the rise of Nazism. For this reason, it was important to strengthen the Chancellor at the expense of the President- whose capacity for intrigue had to be broken. The pre-eminence of the Chancellor was recognised in the Basic Law (Guideline principles) strengthened by the following provisions 1. He can not be dismissed by the President of the Republic (unlike in France) 2. he can only be dismissed by the Bundestag in the event of a vote of ‘constructive no confidence’ being passed against him. This involves an absolute majority against the incumbent chancellor in the Bundestag - an unlikely occurrence except for a shift in policy alliances. The CVNC has been a German constitutional export: Spain and Poland have followed suit.
Germany 2.
The German Chancellor who has led his party/ coalition to victory in an election finds himself in a strong position: relatively disciplined party support; focus of media attention during elections. This position reinforced by the Convention that he should be appointed for the duration of a legislature. The only exceptions to this rule have been Adenauer's retirement in 1963, and the resignations of Brandt, Schmidt in mid-office and Schroder’s 2005 dissolution. Between 1949 and 2007, Germany had shown more stability of personnel than in any other of the countries considered: it has had only 8 Chancellors during this period (Adenauer, Erhard, Kiesinger, Brandt, Schmidt, Kohl, GS and AM).
Constraints on a German Chancellor
According to the principle of Ressortprinzip, enshrined in the Basic law, each Minister is responsible for running his own department, and the Chancellor can not order a Minister to run department in a different way (unlike in the UK, eg). The existence of coalition partners constrains the Chancellor, to the extent that bargains must be struck which other leaders might dispense with. And fixed-term parliaments effectively make it extremely difficult for Chancellors to dissolve the Bundedstag, in order to seek general elections at favourable moments: this is one of the reasons which makes the British and French leaders so powerful. As measured by this checklist, in their domestic settings German Chancellors occupy a median position amongst west European leaders. In practice, there is no real equivalent in Germany of the French or British ministerial reshuffle: traditions of ministerial autonomy and of coalition capture of particular portfolios are far too strong for this.
Italy
Italy During the first Italian Republic, the Italian premier generally had only a minor role to play, but the office strengthened under Berlusconi and Prodi. Until 1994, Italian governments lasted for less than one year on average. Ministers were imposed upon an Italian premier by considerations of party and factional balance within the ruling coalition. The means at the disposal of an Italian premier for co-ordinating governmental action were derisory, despite a large bureaucratic apparatus under direct control of the premier. Italian premiers were so weak because they presided over coalition governments, navigated between divided political parties, were responsible to a parliament determined to assert its control, and in general did not benefit from a strong relationship between election results and government formation. The post-1994 Italian regime has gone some way to rebalancing this, with the governments of Prodi and Berlusconi creating a bipolar competition assisted by the majoritarian electoral system and providing stronger, though deeply contested and still coalition-dependent leadership. Extent of the role of institutional engineering in creating political outcomes.
Britain 1.
UK The British Premier, by any standards, occupies a key leadership position within the family of west European nations. British prime ministers have often appeared in a stronger leadership position than their European counterparts. There is a close linkage between the leadership of an electorally majoritarian political party and the exercise of the office of Prime minister. Election campaigns are centred around the personalities of rival party leaders, as much as the policies espoused by their parties; the success of Tony Blair in 1997 was testament to this. There is also a close relationship between electoral success and government formation. Strengthened by the majoritarian effects of the first-past-the post electoral system, elections tend to produce single party majorities. Successful Prime ministers have usually been able to rely on disciplined party support. But Thatcher, Major, Blair all constrained by their parties.
Britain 2.
Unlike their German, Italian and French counterparts, they have not been tightly constrained by a written constitution outlining their powers and responsibilities; indeed, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty removes most checks and balances on a British premier’s use of executive authority, on condition that a parliamentary majority is retained. British premiers have powerful sources of patronage at their disposal; each recent incumbent has made regular use of their freedom to hire and fire ministerial colleagues. At the height of her activism in July 1989, for instance, Mrs Thatcher replaced or reshuffled 12 out of 21 Cabinet ministers. The departure of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 or Blair in 2007 also revealed the limits to prime ministerial power in Britain, however; a disillusioned party will not tolerate a leader with whom it has lost faith, even when this is an incumbent prime minister. While ministerial autonomy is less manifest than in the German case, any British Prime minister must be careful not to ride roughshod over powerful ministers. An embattled premier such as Blair could not afford to lose senior ministerial colleagues; hence the effectiveness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Clarke…
France
France Along with the British premier, the French President is a serious contender for the key executive office in western Europe. The President is directly elected for a five year period: direct election confers a status on the French President which his colleagues find difficult to match. Until the quinquennat reforms of 2000, the presidential term of office was longer than that of any of his counterparts. Whatever the French constitution says, French Presidents have enjoyed considerable freedom of manoeuvre in selecting and dismissing prime ministers and ministers; and in personalising control over core policy choices. French Presidents dispose of powerful sources of political patronage, and most Presidents have been backed by solid parliamentary majorities. In instances of cohabitation (1986-88, 1993-95; 1997-) the prime minister has become the chief executive leader, with uncontested control over domestic policy, but having to contend with continuing presidential involvement in the ‘presidential’ sector of foreign affairs, defence and European integration. As in the other systems surveyed, individual ministers can occupy pivotal positions, but they are less secure in their tenure than in Germany
Poland and Czech Republic
Czech Republic and Poland. In both cases, early transition saw the development of strong Presidents.. but , faced with the accession process and problems of political majroty building, Prime ministers, at the head of shifting party coalitions, have emerged as much stronger figures, with the corresponding decline of the Presidency.