Governance as the involvement of civil society and steakholders is a model of flat hierarchies. But can it be succesful without strong leadership and what kind of competences need those who manage governance processes?
A democratic system with broad governance requires leader, with inclusive mindset, who could provide value based leadership. The person should be strong visionary leader with broad based competence to handle all aspects of governance and should be a person of high integrity, commitment and ethics. This type of person will energize the whole system and drive it towards achievement. The politics of manipulation and self proclamation do not work in the long run.
Thank you for these considerations. Could you give some examples of succesful governance processes and visionary leaders in international politics?
Political leadership could be considered a complementary element in regard to the governance principles. While the hierarchies (including flat hierarchy) are linked for instance to authorities and power distribution, leadership is related rather to the capacities, skills and competences of individuals or groups.
Robert Michels' "iron law of oligarchy" notwithstanding, "leadership" is a function of hierarchical organization and is profoundly undemocratic in name and in nature. It is, of course, largely illusory as even so-called "charismatic" leaders are mainly the public face or "brand" of political parties that are, themselves, mainly the expression of larger and mostly corporate interests.
As my New York friend, Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote in a magazine article entitled "In a Manner that Must Shame God Himself" (Harper's, November, 1972), there are two imaginary political parties in the United States - the Republicans and the Democrats - and there are two real political parties in the United States - the Winners and the Losers. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are run by the Winners; so, in every election, this much is certain ... the Winners will win.
The leaders of the imaginary parties are like the actors who are featured in television commercials. They are chosen because they have an attractive personality and can "sell" the product. Sometimes bad choices are made, and the imaginary party in question loses. But it all has to do with "show business."
If people were serious about democracy (which most are not), they'd re-examine Rousseau or, at the very least, read Carol Pateman's slim volume, "Participation and Democratic Theory" (Cambridge University Press, 1970). Or, maybe four books by my old mentor, Henry S, Kariel's (1924-2004): "The Promise of Politics" (Prentice-Hall, 1966); "Saving Appearances" (Duxbury, 1972); "Beyond Liberalism" (1977); and "The Desperate Politics of Postmodernism" (University of Massachusetts, 1989).
Thank you, Howard, for this inspiring answer. I am working in the field of democratic theory. Rousseau and Pateman are among my favourite thinkers. I am recently working on the concept of workplace democracy. But unfortunately I do not know the work of Henry S. Kariel, so thank you very much for these references.
Greetings, Markus:
I have an idea I'd like to discuss with you ... please e-mail me at:
Two quotes of possible interest:
"There's nothing worse for a leader than to see fear in people's faces ... There's nothing worse in life than to sit there and be a victim of a process you can't control."
- Sergio Marchione, CEP Chrysler Group LLC
"Why are the many nominally supreme but actually powerless? Largely because the circumstances of their lives do not accustom or fit them for power or responsibility. A servile system in industry invevitably reflects itself in political servility."
- G. D. H. Cole
Hi Markus, interesting question. I am thinking how would you know otherwise. I mean can there be a human society where someone will not step forward and take over as a leader. So regardless of the system you will always have leaders. What is the counter factual to your question, and therefore how would you test the null hypothesis
BTW, a great theory of leadership (or sorts) is presented by NYU political scientist Bruce Buenos de Mesquita.
This partly depends on your understanding of leadership - one can see leadership in terms of something inherent to a person and carried by them 'strong leaders'. Sometimes the leader and situation are interdependent in slightly more complex ways (constitutive account), sometimes a certain kind of leader fits a certain kind of situation (contingency account) sometimes just the leader qualities matter (trait account) and sometimes the situation determines everything (situational account). The attached preprint version of 'A Model of Political Leadership' has a review of these ideas in it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry, Organic
- Organic