What makes an effective, fair yet “strong” leader?

If given the choice between living in a democracy or a totalitarian state, most people would choose the former. Yet, the preference for a strong leader – someone who rules with an iron will – remains prevalent in society. Why is this the case? The media plays a significant role in shaping this preference. News reports often skip the behind-the-scenes workings of politics or the perspectives of those who support heads of state daily. Instead, we usually hear about what a leader said or did, which creates the impression that power resides solely with one dominant individual. This has distorted our understanding of leadership, causing us to overlook essential qualities of a truly good leader – humility, the ability to compromise, and openness to diverse viewpoints.

It's time to abandon the myth that strong leaders are inherently good for society. This article will show you:

- Why former British Prime Minister Tony Blair fell victim to his own hype

- Why the president of the United States isn’t as powerful as you might think

- Why power-hungry politicians seek more influence over foreign policy

Don't miss out on these insights. Read on to challenge your views on leadership and power.

The Flawed Perception of Good Political Leadership

The public's understanding of what constitutes good political leadership is deeply flawed. This misconception is shaped by various influences, including public speeches, media reports, and lobbying efforts. As a society, we’re often swayed not just into supporting particular leaders but into preferring a certain kind of leader. The media tends to depict political leaders as more powerful than their entire political parties. This portrayal diverts public attention from the inner workings of democratic systems, focusing instead on the leader at the top. Leaders themselves often buy into their own hype, enhancing their perceived power in the eyes of the public. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, for example, claimed in his autobiography that he won three elections personally, rather than crediting the Labour Party. His self-confidence led many to view Blair as a political messiah. The public also mistakenly believes that a country’s well-being hinges on its leader’s strength of character. Politicians reinforce this perception, especially during election seasons. It's common for politicians to use "strong vs. weak" rhetoric to undermine opponents. This tactic leads the electorate to view politics as a game of "survival of the fittest." For instance, Tory party head David Cameron attempted to portray Ed Miliband as "weak" when Miliband became Labour leader. However, when Tory backbenchers defied party whips on a policy issue, Miliband turned the tables, claiming that Cameron was the weak leader for losing control of his party. While it’s true that a person who can’t stand up for themselves won’t fare well in politics, effective leadership isn’t solely about strength. Survival also means knowing when to back away from danger. The public misconception that leadership should be about power carries a significant risk, as it can steer society toward totalitarianism.

Beyond a Strong Personality: The Essential Traits of Effective Leadership

Being a leader requires more than just a strong personality; modesty and listening skills are crucial as well. Effective leaders need a diverse set of skills to succeed, including the ability to accept criticism and negotiate with other political figures.

The Importance of Modesty and Listening

Modesty is a key trait for leaders, allowing them to consider constructive criticism and engage in effective negotiations. However, modesty is just one part of the equation. Expertise is also vital, but no leader can be an expert in every field. Great leaders understand the importance of listening to specialists in areas where they lack knowledge. A successful leader surrounds themselves with advisors who are experts in various fields related to public life. For instance, a leader should not know more about a particular sector than the minister responsible for it. If a leader's ego prevents them from listening to these experts, they risk making poorly informed decisions, which can have devastating consequences for society.

Utilizing Expertise: The Example of Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher's success as Britain’s prime minister was partly due to her ability to utilize expert advice. While she exhibited traits of a "strong" leader, she also understood the importance of thorough research and consulting knowledgeable experts. Thatcher wielded significant power during her tenure, but her decisions were often informed by expert opinions. On the contrary, leaders who shun expertise are likely to fail. Experts need to be knowledgeable and in touch with public opinion. A leader who relies too heavily on a small group of "yes men" risks becoming out of touch with the broader party and public sentiment, leaving themselves vulnerable to being overtaken by another strong personality.

The Downfall of Tony Blair

This scenario played out with Britain's Tony Blair. As prime minister, Blair created a rift between himself and his chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, who refused to agree with all of Blair’s decisions. This strained their working relationship and diminished Blair's ability to influence domestic economic policy. The conflict, combined with growing support for Brown within the Labour Party, eventually led to Blair’s resignation as prime minister. His downfall underscores the importance of listening to diverse perspectives and maintaining strong, collaborative relationships with key advisors. In summary, effective leadership goes beyond having a strong personality. It requires modesty, the ability to listen, and the wisdom to leverage expertise from a range of knowledgeable advisors. Only by embracing these qualities can leaders truly succeed and make informed decisions for the benefit of society.

The Power of Collegial Leadership: A Path to Long-Lasting Change

Successful leaders often share a common trait that doesn't always get much media attention: they lead in a collegial manner. Collegial leadership, characterized by collaboration and shared responsibility, is a hallmark of governments that effect enduring change.

The Essence of Collegial Leadership

Collegial leadership involves leaders working together with their colleagues and managing subordinates in an effective, cohesive manner. It relies on mutual support and the ability to harness the collective skills of a team.

The Example of Clement Attlee

Clement Attlee's government from 1945 to 1951 exemplifies the power of collegial leadership. Attlee's administration was responsible for establishing Britain's National Health Service (NHS). He appointed experienced ministers and fostered a collaborative cabinet environment, even when disagreements arose. Attlee skillfully utilized the individual talents of his cabinet members, such as Aneurin Bevan, the minister instrumental in creating the NHS. This effective teamwork was made possible by the genuine respect Attlee earned from his subordinates—a respect rarely commanded by so-called "strong" leaders.

Lyndon Johnson's Collegial Approach

Another example of collegial leadership is US President Lyndon Johnson, whose administration passed the Civil Rights Act. Johnson devoted himself to working closely with senators and representatives to garner support for his ideas. He spent considerable time engaging with fellow politicians rather than isolating himself in the Oval Office and issuing directives. Johnson's collegial style also led to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, providing government-supported healthcare for the elderly and poor. These achievements secured Johnson's legacy as one of America's greatest presidents, despite the Vietnam War casting a shadow over his tenure.

The Democratic Ideal

A democracy is founded on the principle of people sharing ideas and working together. It follows that a collegial leadership style is well-suited to running a democratic society. By fostering collaboration and mutual respect, leaders can create a more inclusive and effective government. The most successful leaders often adopt a collegial leadership style, emphasizing collaboration, shared responsibility, and respect. This approach not only facilitates effective governance but also leads to lasting, positive change in society.

The Reality of Power in Democratic Systems

In democratic systems, a leader’s power is carefully regulated by a framework of rules and regulations. While society often focuses on "strong" personalities who can get things done, it’s important to remember that leaders in democracies must navigate numerous hurdles to enact significant changes.

The Purpose of Restrictions

These hurdles exist for a good reason. Democratic systems are designed to prevent any single leader from overpowering other political parties that represent large sections of society. Heads of state are often restricted from enacting legislation independently, with other parts of the government given the opportunity to review and provide input. This is the case in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and Congress in the United States.

The Importance of Collaboration

Effective democratic leaders understand the importance of collaboration and persuasion. Major reforms cannot be passed without the support of others. Most successful democratic governments function through coalitions, where leaders work to create consensus among representatives with diverse views and backgrounds, aiming to find solutions that most people can agree on.

Checks and Balances in the United States

The president of the United States, for example, operates within a complex, decentralized political system. Political power is shared among White House staff, members of Congress, the judiciary, and various departments and agencies across all 50 states. This system ensures that power is not concentrated solely in the hands of the president. This intricate web of checks and balances makes it challenging for any single president to oversee major, transformational changes to government or policy. While the US president does have the power to veto major laws approved by Congress—a power more pronounced than in many other major democracies—this has led some to describe the United States as a “vetocracy,” where the president’s veto ability allows significant influence over policy decisions.

Limited Domestic Power, Greater Foreign Influence

Overall, democratic leaders tend to have less domestic power than the public perceives. However, power over foreign policy is a different matter entirely. Leaders often have more leeway in this area, shaping international relations with less domestic constraint. While democratic systems limit the power of individual leaders through a series of checks and balances, effective leadership requires collaboration, persuasion, and coalition-building. This ensures that changes in government reflect a broad consensus rather than the will of a single individual.

The Paradox of Power: Democratic Leaders and Foreign Policy

While democratic leaders face significant domestic checks and balances, they often wield greater power when it comes to foreign policy. This area of governance typically has fewer structural limitations, particularly in matters of war.

The Unpredictability of War

War is inherently unpredictable, with constantly evolving tactics. Consequently, domestic rules governing warfare are minimal. When leaders find their power restricted at home, foreign policy can become an avenue to assert their authority and influence.

The Risks of Poor Foreign Policy Decisions

Leaders can cause significant harm through misguided foreign policy decisions. A notable example is British involvement in the 2003 Iraq War, largely driven by Prime Minister Tony Blair. This decision led to countless unnecessary deaths. In his memoirs, Blair repeatedly emphasized that entering the war was his prerogative as prime minister, reflecting the mindset of a "strong" leader who often bypasses expert consultation.

The Role of Modern Communication

The rapid pace of international communication has further amplified the power of foreign policy. Politicians, especially heads of state, often feel pressured to respond immediately to global issues. The ability to instantly communicate with other world leaders can lead to impulsive decision-making, sometimes without the benefit of expert advice.

Long-Term Consequences

Uninformed foreign policy decisions can have profound and lasting repercussions. For example, a leader who drags a country into an unnecessary war can create a legacy of conflict and instability. This can also pave the way for different types of leaders to emerge, potentially altering the political landscape for generations. In summary, while democratic leaders are constrained by domestic checks and balances, they often possess significant power in foreign policy. This paradox underscores the importance of informed decision-making and the need for leaders to consult experts before making consequential foreign policy choices. The impact of such decisions can resonate across countries and generations, highlighting the critical role of responsible leadership in the global arena.

The Right Conditions for Charismatic Leadership

Even the most charismatic leaders can only rise to power under the right societal conditions. It’s a common misconception that a leader’s political success is solely dependent on their personality. In reality, factors such as wars, economic troubles, and prior political trends play significant roles in the emergence of strong-willed political figures.

The Role of Desperation

Desperate times make people more likely to follow charismatic leaders who offer quick, simple solutions to complex problems. Adolf Hitler, for instance, was a charismatic speaker, but his political success was largely due to the widespread economic desperation Germans experienced following their defeat in World War I.

Major Political Changes

People are also more inclined to support a "strong" charismatic leader when a political system is undergoing significant changes. During transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy, the public’s understanding of democratic processes may be underdeveloped. This can make them more susceptible to the appeal of decisive, authoritative leadership.

A 2007 survey conducted in post-communist countries revealed that in eight out of the 13 countries surveyed, over one-third of citizens preferred a strong leader to address chronic political and economic issues, even if it meant undermining or overthrowing democracy.

Negative Views of Democracy

If citizens hold a negative view of democracy, they are more likely to favor a "strong" leader. An oppressive government that falsely claims to operate on democratic principles can erode public trust in democracy, making citizens skeptical of its potential to solve their country’s problems.

The Timing of Leadership Change

Society often craves leadership change after a period of time. Leaders like US Presidents Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy, and Britain's Tony Blair, were charismatic but also benefited from good timing. They rose to power as opposition figures when the previous ruling parties had either been in power for too long or had made serious policy mistakes. In summary, countries in turmoil often produce remarkable, strong-willed leaders, for better or worse. Charismatic leaders do not rise in a vacuum; their emergence is facilitated by the right societal conditions, including economic desperation, major political changes, and a collective desire for change. Understanding these conditions can provide deeper insights into the dynamics of political leadership.

Don’t be misled into believing that the best political leaders are those who exhibit "strength." In democratic systems, the most effective leaders are modest, listen to experts, and have the ability to unite groups with differing views. Societies in distress are particularly susceptible to being swayed by "strong" personalities, which can lead to significant problems both domestically and internationally.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on our content! Please email us at ayansur1986@gmail.com with the title of this book as the subject line and share your feedback.