Lecture
The activities of various parties, public organizations are personified in specific personalities - the leaders. Leadership as a social phenomenon is inherent in human nature . Already in the early stages of human development, its existence was unthinkable without the formation and interaction of certain models of group behavior. And this led to the choice of such an order of social life, where the leading role was played by experienced, strong, intelligent people who received recognition, trust and authority among their fellow tribesmen. From leadership in a personal form, society passed to more complex forms: to leadership institutions and group leadership.
It cannot be said that the problem is new for the national science. Its individual aspects were considered by historians, philosophers, political scientists and representatives of other social disciplines.
But in terms of the study of political leadership as an independent topic, domestic political scientists are taking the first steps: the number of publications so far is small.
For a long time the point of view prevailed in Russian social science, that if antagonistic contradictions were eliminated, then problems of political leadership were automatically removed. However, the problem existed and, moreover, in the conditions of Soviet society, the struggle for power, the introduction and implementation of political programs, the change and approval of political leaders often turned into a cult of personality, lawlessness and mass repression.
Under the conditions of democratization, the role of the scientific management of the life of society, the importance of studying the problem of political leadership and political elites is increasing.
Leadership is considered in political science as one of the mechanisms for regulating relations between people, social groups, institutions, and society as a whole. Its essence is the relationship of domination and submission, influence and following .
To understand political leadership, it is necessary to clarify its nature. The priority here belongs to foreign political scientists. The general line of research went from analyzing the personality traits of a leader, the relationship of a leader and his followers to developing a classification of various leadership styles.
1. "Theory of hell" naturally grows out of the analysis of ideal leaders-heroes. An important role in its creation was played by an English scientist of the XIX century. F. Galton , a psychologist and anthropologist, who tried to transfer biological laws to human society. The essence of the theory is reduced to attempts to identify a set of desirable or mandatory psychological traits of the personality of the leader . A large amount of factual material was collected. However, it turned out that a purely empirical generalization of personality traits of leaders does not produce the expected effect: the more detailed and detailed the lists of traits became, the more precisely they coincided with the full set of psychological and social traits of a person in general. In the studies themselves revealed contradictions. The American political scientist R. Stogdill , summarizing the results of 124 leadership studies, encountered a wide range of opinions: there was not a single leader trait with which all authors agreed. They even contested such necessary for the leader features as the mind, willpower, integrity. Some authors wrote that strong-willed and principled people who are able to resist mass sentiments turn into outcasts of society, and those who are led by group expectations become the leader, inferior to the wishes of the majority.
2. Adherents of the second wave of the "devil theory" began to distinguish between purely personal characteristics of the leaders and the features of their behavior associated with the performance of certain political tasks. This is reflected in the influence of behaviorism. The focus of understanding is transferred to the behavior of the leader, the concept of "situation" and "leader style" is introduced . Proponents of the situational approach assume that the various traits of a leader vary depending on the situation. American political scientist J. Jennings noted: "There is no doubt that if the situation is ripe for Napoleon, then Napoleon is ripe for the situation. A great leader feels a situation when he can use it, turn it into his asset."
3. The theory of the determining role of followers is very close to the situational approach. The analysis of not the leaders themselves, but their followers, their interests and requests comes to the fore. The nature of leadership in this case is investigated through the prism of analyzing the relationship between the "leader" and "slave" . The group itself chooses a leader who satisfies it. Therefore, the leader’s secret is not in himself, but in the psychology and inquiries of his followers. Proponents of this theory believe that the decisive role of the slaves has a negative impact on the leader. In this they see the main reason for the weakening of leadership at present.
Modern Western political scientists define leadership as a multifaceted concept. At the same time stand out:
Political leader - at the same time is the subject and object of the political process . The subject of his doing what he is on their uncommon qualities becomes at the head of the socio-political movements in order to realize the interests of communities that nominate him. For this, the leader is vested with authority, i.e. the right to direct efforts, the will, the intelligence of people, and also to operate with material, financial values.
The political leader is also an object of politics. Different eras, different classes and social groups require leaders with different qualities, based on a permanent criterion - the effectiveness of its activities to meet the needs and interests of the community that has resorted to its services.
From the very beginning, every leadership seeks to declare itself, to have as many supporters as possible, to formalize, to enter the existing political system. The evolution of political leadership is a movement from simple to complex. In practice, it often has a stadial nature. First - the emergence of social movements and the allocation of their leaders, then - the formation of parties, the development of their software installations and organizational principles, the formation of a hierarchy of party-political leadership and, finally, the struggle for power, the coming to power of parties, participation and governance of the country, delegation of party leaders to senior government positions, the emergence of leaders-leaders.
Political leadership has certain characteristics:
1) the presence of its own political program, the ability to implement it;
2) popularity, authority, responsibility. Only one who is able to take responsibility, and can act as a leader;
3) constant confirmation of their right to lead.
Revealing the essence of leadership in the political process, it is necessary to dwell on the role of political leader.
Political leaders, expressing the interests of certain classes and parties, have a significant impact on the course of events.
The role of leaders is especially great in critical periods of development, when quick decision-making is required, the ability to correctly understand specific tasks. At the same time there is an opinion that a "strong leader" can solve all the problems.
Indeed, at a certain stage, the effectiveness of an activity with a tough, demanding leader can increase. But the leader’s main task is to cause activity, eliminate passivity, and involve a lot of people in solving urgent problems of public life .
In this regard, political science considers it necessary to emphasize the following features of a leader:
Leaders are not born, but become, they are created by authority. Therefore, not every subject of politics can master the art of a leader. A political leader can only be a person who is distinguished by independent thinking and expresses the interests of the masses. When making political decisions, the leader must be able to adapt them to real conditions.
In order to become a leader, individuals must justify the trust of the object and thereby gain credibility. They follow the leading subject not because they have to go, but because they want to go.
Every era needs its leader. He is always a child of his time, as if responding to his request . So, Alexander of Macedon (356-323 BC), Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon and many others were the product of time. Therefore, random leaders do not exist, there are random politicians, even in senior government positions. And although there are many contenders for leadership, history chooses the one who meets its needs.
From a scientific point of view, typology of leaders is of interest. Formal typology differs based on functional analysis related to the scale of leader functions. After all, the leader of the opposition party is not at all the fact that the leader of a state, or a spokesman for regional political interests, or the head of a religious movement. The classification is based on such criteria as the content, style of activity of the leader, his authority.
One of the first typologies was proposed by the German sociologist M. Weber . It is based on a classification of the authority of those exercising power. Understanding under leadership the ability to "give orders and cause obedience," M. Weber distinguished:
1) traditional leadership based on the belief in the sacredness of traditions (for example, the eldest son of the monarch after his death himself "legally" (or legitimately) becomes the monarch);
2) rational-legal leadership based on faith in the legality of the existing order and its "rationality". In it, the leader-official acts not as an individual from whom power emanates, but as an agent of a certain state function, rational from the point of view of the integrity of the system (remember the years of LI Brezhnev and KU Chernenko’s reign);
3) charismatic leadership , based on the belief in the supernatural abilities of the leader, on the cult of his personality. Such a leader has in the eyes of followers sometimes magical powers. Charismatic leadership, according to M. Weber, occurs in critical situations. With the stabilization of the social system, it is transformed into a traditional or bureaucratic one, the "routinization of charisma" occurs.
The authority of the traditional leader, according to M. Weber, is based on many years of custom. A person has the "right to lead" due to the origin, membership in the elite. This type of leadership is characteristic of pre-industrial society.
Bureaucratic leadership is inherent in industrial society. It arises in the case when a leader becomes not by virtue of any special personality traits (although the leader must demonstrate a certain level of competence), but with the help of legitimate bureaucratic structures. Bureaucratic leadership is impersonal.
Among the marked types of leadership, the most interesting is the charismatic one. The concept of "charisma" means "God's grace." This term applies to an individual who stands out from the midst of ordinary people and is considered endowed with supernatural, superhuman, exceptional abilities. They are regarded as emanating from the deity, and on their basis the individual is recognized as the leader. For this type of leadership, fanatical devotion to followers is characteristic. Any doubt in his qualities is considered as blasphemy. In this, M. Weber sees the most important differences of this type of leadership from bureaucratic and traditional.
At the end of XX century. it became obvious that both the West and the East had recently encountered the process of "charismatization" of political leadership. Crisis phenomena in most countries create an acute, unstable environment that gives rise in the political consciousness to some kind of miracle that can solve all the problems of life at once: knowledge and sound orientations are beginning to be replaced by faith. The crisis of the administrative-command model of socialism in the late 1980s. brought to life a whole galaxy of leaders of this type.
Sometimes a charismatic leader is able not only by his actions, but also by the mere force of moral influence, by the very fact of his existence, to overcome the disunity of society. But it is impossible not to see the negative aspects of this process, when a charismatic leader is easily surrounded by an aura of irreplaceable.
According to the style of activity, authoritarian and democratic types of leader are distinguished.
Authoritarian is a leader demanding monopoly power. Communication between members of the group is nullified and is under the control of the leader. The authoritarian leader is trying to increase the activity of subordinate administrative methods. His main weapon is “iron demandingness”, the threat of punishment.
Democratic leaders, however, initiate the maximum participation of everyone in the activities of groups, do not concentrate responsibility, but try to distribute it among group members, create an atmosphere of cooperation.
By the nature of the activity types of leadership are distinguished:
1) universal , i.e. constantly showing leadership qualities;
2) situational , showing the qualities of a leader in a particular situation.
According to the content types of leadership are distinguished:
a) the leader - the inspirer, developing and offering a program of behavior;
b) the leader - the performer, the organizer of the implementation of an already specified program;
c) a leader who is both an inspirer and an organizer.
By type of activity, “formal” and “informal” leadership are distinguished.
Formal leadership is associated with established rules for the appointment of a manager and implies functional relationships. An informal leader arises from the personal relationships of the participants. These types of leaders either complement each other and are combined in the person of an authoritative leader, or come into conflict, and then the effectiveness of the organization falls.
Political scientists usually share individual leadership — the leader and his followers — and collective leadership — the elite and the masses.
Political leadership is usually attributed to one person, but his many roles are performed by other people, primarily the nearest headquarters. Solutions are prepared by teams of people, professionals. In democratic societies, political institutions have a high degree of autonomy and the management machine operates independently of the change of leaders. For example, in Italy since 1945 more than fifty heads of government have changed, but the stability of society has been preserved.
Comments
To leave a comment
Political science
Terms: Political science