7.4. Political Leadership

A person who exerts a constant and decisive influence on society, the state, or an organisation is called a political leader.
The concept of "leader" comes from the English word "leader", meaning one who leads and directs other people. The content of this word rather accurately reflects the purpose of the person who is a leader, their place and role in society, the processes in which they are involved, and their functions. A leader is characterised by the ability to influence other people in a way that organises their joint activity to achieve certain goals. Leaders head and lead various human communities - from small groups of people to communities at the level of the state.
The emergence and functioning of leaders is an objective and universal phenomenon; it is objective because any joint activity requires organisation, the working out of the most rational and acceptable ways of achieving goals. These functions are performed by people who are trusted, who enjoy authority, and who are highly active and energetic. It is a universal phenomenon because a leader is necessary for all types of joint activity of people, groups, organisations, and movements. One can speak of leaders in politics, business, science, art, religion, parties, trade unions, student groups, and so on.
Closely linked to the concept of "leader" is another concept - "leadership". This is understood as the complex mechanism of interaction between leaders and followers. This mechanism presupposes, on the one hand, the leader's generation of new ideas and their active, effective influence on people and management of them. On the other hand, it presupposes the readiness of people to obey the leader, to follow them, and to take part in carrying out the tasks they set.
A political leader is not simply a person who manages political processes and carries out functions in governing society, a political organisation, or a movement. A political leader is one who is capable of changing the course of events and the direction of political processes. It is therefore by no means obvious that every prime minister, monarch, or head of a political party, let alone every member of parliament, becomes a political leader. Political leaders energise the political processes in society. They put forward programmes that determine the course of society's historical development. Real politics has never been carried out without the participation of political leaders, who act as the principal actors in political processes and their main driving force.
Political leaders of nationwide, national scale are statesmen, heads of major parties, deputies, leaders of socio-political movements, and initiators of various kinds of public associations. They are characterised by the ability to exert a real influence on policy: to determine the strategy for society's development, to form governments, and to oversee cabinets of ministers.
Political leadership is the mechanism and the specific means by which power is exercised. Political leadership represents the highest level of leadership, since it reflects political processes and relations in the highest structures of power, fixing the relations of power between the subject and object of politics at the summit of the political pyramid.
Many theories attempt to explain the phenomenon of leadership (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1 - Main theories of political leadership
Proponents of trait theory regard the leader as a set of particular psychological traits, the presence of which contributes to an individual's rise to a leading position, and endow him with the ability to make decisions of authority in relation to other people. Among the most significant traits of a leader are cited initiative, competence, a sharp mind, enthusiasm, confidence, friendliness, sociability, a sense of humour, and so on. To the mandatory qualities of contemporary political leaders in democratic countries, photogenic and telegenic appeal, external attractiveness, and the ability to inspire trust in people are increasingly being added.
To test trait theory, large-scale concrete studies were conducted. They cast considerable doubt on this concept, because it turned out that, upon detailed analysis, a leader's individual qualities almost exactly coincide with the full range of psychological and social characteristics of a personality in general. Moreover, many people of outstanding abilities remain unclaimed for years, and often for their whole lives, never finding application.
However, none of this means a complete rejection of trait theory. It is obvious that occupying leading positions under conditions of competition does indeed require particular psychological and social qualities. At the same time, their set varies considerably depending on historical epochs, individual states, and specific situations.
The idea that leadership depends on particular social conditions is substantiated and developed by situational theory. It proceeds from the relativity and plurality of leadership. A leader is a function of a particular situation. It is the specific circumstances that have taken shape that determine the selection of a political leader and determine his behaviour. Thus, for example, in Islamic Iran, politicians of the European or American type will inevitably be rejected. Likewise, a religious leader-prophet would be unable to make his mark on the political arena of the West.
It is obvious that the requirements for a leader differ considerably depending on whether the given state is in a state of crisis or is developing steadily.

From the standpoint of the situational approach, leadership qualities are relative. One person may display the traits of a leader at a rally, a second in everyday political-organisational work, a third in interpersonal communication, and so on. On the whole, leaders are distinguished chiefly by purposefulness, readiness to take responsibility for solving one task or another, and also by competence.
The nature of political leadership is fairly complex and does not lend itself to an unambiguous interpretation. Psychological theories, and in particular the psychoanalytic explanation of leadership, help to clarify its subjective mechanisms. As Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed, at the basis of leadership lies suppressed libido — a predominantly unconscious drive of a sexual nature. (Freud's followers interpret libido more broadly, as psychic energy in general.) In the process of sublimation it manifests itself in a striving toward creativity and, among other things, toward leadership. Freud identified two categories of individuals according to their relation to leadership: those who strive for power, and those who feel an inner need for submission, for someone's patronage.
The French researcher of crowd psychology Gustave Le Bon divided the people into leaders and the mass. He greatly exaggerated the significance of leaders in public life, while, conversely, underestimating the role of the crowd. He believed that anyone could become a leader, provided they learned to master the psychology of the masses. The crowd, in Le Bon's view, always seeks a leader and itself strives for submission.
A notable contribution to the development of psychoanalysis was made by scholars of the Frankfurt School, E. Fromm, T. Adorno, and others. They identified a personality type inclined toward authoritarianism and striving for power. Such a personality is formed most often in societies gripped by systemic crisis, as a result of which an atmosphere of mass despair and anxiety prevails. Under these circumstances, the people seek a saviour and are ready to entrust their fate to him. An authoritarian leader seeks to subordinate all the structures of civil society, is inclined toward mysticism, is guided primarily by emotions, and cannot tolerate equality and democracy.
Typologies of political leaders are of great importance for studying the nature of leadership. Depending on various bases and criteria, many types of leadership are distinguished (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Types of political leadership

Many researchers of leadership rely on the typology developed by the German philosopher and sociologist M. Weber. His typology is based on the concept of "authority". M. Weber understood leadership as the ability to give orders and secure obedience. This ability rests on various resources that ensure the population's submission to the leader. Voluntary submission to a leader (which is precisely what authority is) is achieved by various means. M. Weber distinguished three types of leadership:

1. Traditional - the right to leadership is based on traditions existing in society. For example, a monarch's eldest son is recognised as monarch after his death. This type of leadership is more characteristic of pre-industrial society.
2. Rational-legal - the right to leadership arises from formal, legally established procedures within a given community. This is essentially bureaucratic leadership. Here the official-leader-official acquires authority not by virtue of tradition or special qualities, but as the performer of a specific state function.
3. Charismatic - based on belief in the leader's extraordinary abilities, on the cult of his personality. It has an emotional basis. Charismatic authority is not tied to the normative procedure of appointment to a governing position and depends not so much on ideas as on the devotion of the masses, their belief in the leader's special qualities, and their reverence for him.
According to M. Weber, such a leader is capable of offering society new answers to the questions troubling it and of putting forward initiatives that go beyond what is accepted in that society and that, under ordinary conditions, would be effectively blocked. Thus, a charismatic leader most often plays an innovative or revolutionary role.
The force of a leader's charisma can be so great that his shortcomings are often perceived as virtues (for example, authoritarianism), becoming part of the reference image of the leader. Such a leader is forgiven failures in policy and illegitimate actions. Responsibility for the former is placed on the leader's entourage, while the latter are perceived as something justified by circumstances, by concern for the good of the people.
Sometimes the absolutisation of the leader's role takes the form of a cult of personality, of pagan veneration before a charismatic figure.
A differentiation and typology of political leaders is possible depending on the methods of governing society that they use. According to this criterion, political science distinguishes two styles - democratic and authoritarian.
A democratic political leader initiates the maximum participation of everyone in the group's activity, rather than concentrating responsibility in his own hands, and instead tries to distribute it among the members of the group. Such leaders are open to criticism, well-disposed towards people, and create an atmosphere of cooperation and shared interests.
An authoritarian political leader is oriented towards undemocratic, monopolistic methods of governance. Under such a leader, links between members of the group are reduced to nothing or proceed under his rigid control. He does not tolerate criticism or dissent, and prefers a single direction of influence based on the threat of the use of force.
One of the generalising criteria for the typology of political leaders is the goals they set and the influence they exert on society. On the basis of these criteria, the American political scientist R. Tucker distinguishes three types of political leaders: conservatives, reformers, and revolutionaries.
Conservatives direct all their activity and all their actions towards justifying the need to preserve society in its present form.
Reformers strive for a radical transformation of the social order through the large-scale reform, above all, of the structures of power.
Revolutionaries set as their goal the transition to a fundamentally different social system.