Adil Yerkinbek

The politics of leadership-In some respects, the subject of political leadership appears to be outdated. The division of society into leaders and followers is rooted in a predemocratic culture of deference and respect in which leaders ‘knew best’ and the public needed to be led, mobilized or guided. Democratic politics may not have removed the need for leaders, but it has certainly placed powerful constraints on leadership; notably, by making leaders publicly account able and establishing an institutional mech anism through which they can be called to account and removed. In other respects, however, the politics of leadership has become increasingly significant, helping to contribute to the establishment of a separate discipline of political psychology, whose major concerns include a study of the psychological make-up and motivations of political leaders (Kressel, 1993). This growing focus on leadership has occurred for a number of reasons. For instance, to some extent, democracy itself has enhanced the importance of personality by forcing political leaders, in effect, to ‘project themselves’ in the hope of gaining electoral support. This tendency has undoubtedly been strengthened by modern means of mass communication (especially television), which tend to emphasize personalities, rather than policies, and provide leaders with powerful weapons with which to manipulate their public images. Furthermore, as society becomes more complex and fragmented, people may increasingly look to the personal vision of individual leaders to give coherence and meaning to the world in which they live. Ironically, then, leadership may never have been so important, but also so difficult to deliver.

Theories of leadership

The question of political leadership is surrounded by controversy. To what extent is leadership compatible with freedom and democracy? Does personalized leadership inspire and motivate, or does it subdue and repress? Are strong leaders to be admired or feared? At the heart of these disagreements lie differing views about the nature of political leadership. What does the phenomenon of leadership comprise? Where does leadership come from? Four contrasting theories of leadership can be identified. Leadership can be understood as: natural gift, a sociological phenomenon, an organizational necessity and political skill.

A natural gift

The traditional view of leadership sees it as a rare but natural gift. As Aristotle put it, ‘men are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled’. From this perspective, leadership is strictly an individual quality, manifest in the personalities of what were traditionally thought of as ‘men of destiny’. The most extreme version of this theory is found in the fascist ‘leader principle’ (Führer - prinzip). This is based on the idea of a single, supreme leader (always male), who alone is capable of leading the masses to their destiny. Such an idea was, in part, derived from Friedrich Nietzsche’s notion of the Übermensch (the ‘overman’ or ‘superman’), who rises above the ‘herd instinct’ of conventional morality and so achieves self-mastery. In a more modest form, this theory of leadership is embodied in the idea of charisma, generally understood to mean the power of personality. The classic examples of charismatic leaders are usually seen as forceful personalities (such as Hitler, Castro, Nasser and Thatcher), although the more modest, but no less effective, ‘fireside chats’ of F. D. Roosevelt and the practised televisual skills of almost all modern leaders also exemplify charismatic qualities. However, unfortunately, leaders who exhibit genuine moral authority are rare.Modern political psychology adopts a similar view of leadership, in that it analyses it in terms of human personality. The one who was tutored by Aristotle, whose name was spread all over Macedonia, Egypt and Persia and in some works of Aristotle he was named as " Born to be king" - Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great was perfect leader and general for his army who had power of Macedonian army and wisdom of Aristotle. He is perfect example of being a person who gained natural gift of being leader.Formidable to enemies, fair to his troops.

A sociological phenomenon

An alternative view of leadership sees it as a sociological, rather than psycho - logical, phenomenon. From this perspective, in other words, leaders are ‘created’ by particular socio-historical forces. They do not so much impose their will on the world as act as a vehicle through which historical forces are exerted. This is certainly the approach adopted by Marxists, who believe that historical development is structured largely by economic factors, reflected in a process of class struggle. The personalities of individual leaders are, thus, less important than the broader class interests they articulate. Marx, nevertheless, acknowledged that Bonapartism was an exception. This was a phenom enon based on Louis Bonaparte’s coup d’état in France in 1851, through which a personal dictatorship was established in conditions in which the bourgeoisie had lost power, but the proletariat was not sufficiently developed to seize it. Even in this case, however, Marx insisted that the Bonapartist dictatorship reflected the interests of the numerically strongest class in France, the smallholding peasantry. Similarly, in analysing Stalinism in the USSR, Trotsky emphasized the degree to which Stalin’s power was rooted in the dominance of the state bureaucracy (Trotsky, 1937). Sociological factors have also provided the basis for the very different idea that political leadership is largely a product of collective behaviour. In his seminal The Crowd (1960), Gustav Le Bon analysed the dynamicsof crowd psychology, arguing that leaders are impelled by the collective behaviour of the masses, not the other way round. This Bonapartist dictatorship can be seen now from presidents of EEU (Eurasian Economic Union). People living in this country had a lot of power in choosing the way for development and in ecnomical issues. Presidents decision will be final.

An organizational necessity

The third theory of leadership sees it in largely technical terms as a rational, or bureaucratic, device. In this view, leadership is essentially an organizational necessity that arises from the need for coherence, unity and direction within any complex institution. Leadership therefore goes hand-in-hand with bureaucracy. Modern large-scale organizations require specialization, which, in turn, gives rise to a hierarchy of offices and responsibilities. This bureaucratic leadership conforms to what Weber called legal-rational authority, in that it is essentially impersonal and based on formal, usually written, rules. The rise of constitutional government has undoubtedly invested political leadership with a strongly bureaucratic character by ensuring that power is vested in a political office, rather than the individual office-holder. This, nevertheless, conflicts with democratic pressures that force political leaders to cultivate charisma and emphasize personal qualities in order to win and retain power. Leadership in this form is shown from 16 century of Japan. Oda Nobunaga (織田 信長, listen; 23 June 1534 – 21 June 1582) was a Japanese daimyō and one of the leading figures of the Sengoku period. His goals in reaching unification of whole country started with military force in Kyoto and alliance with his former generals Hideyoshi Toyotomi and Tokugawa Ieyasu. Oda Nobunaga started to gain military and political power in Japan from his conquests to capital of Japan Kyoto in those period and by conquesting the middle part of Japan. Unfortunately he had not reached his goals but his general after founder and first shōgun of the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan Tokugawa Ieyasu complete unification of Japan.

A political skill

The final theory of leadership portrays it very much as an artefact; that is, as a political skill that can be learned and practised. Political leadership, in this sense, is akin to the art of manipulation, a perhaps inevitable feature of democratic politics in an age of mass communications. This can be seen most graphically in the cults of personality that have been constructed to support the dictatorial leaderships of figures such as Mao Zedong, Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Indeed, many of the classic examples of charismatic leadership can, in practice, be seen as forms of manufactured leadership. Stalin, for example, bolstered his own popularity by building up an elaborate cult of Lenin in the 1920s; he erected statues, renamed streets and towns, and placed Lenin’s embalmed body in a mausoleum in Red Square. During the 1930s, having carefully linked himself to Lenin’s heritage, Stalin transferred this cult to himself. Similarly, Hitler’s performances at the Nuremburg rallies were carefully stagemanaged by Albert Speer. His every word and gesture were carefully rehearsed and choreographed; the whole event was designed to build up emotional tension that would be released by Hitler’s appearance. Modern democratic politicians have no less strong a need to project themselves and their personal vision, though the skills appropriate to the television age tend to be refined and sophisticated compared with those suitable for mass rallies and public demonstrations. The heightened optimism that greeted Barack Obama’s first election victory in 2008 and his inauguration the following year, and his unusually successful early period in office (especially over the issue of health care reform), were often linked to his capacity to deploy two important leadership skills. First, an astute and highly fluent public speaker, Obama was able to convey professionalism and gravitas whilst also, as appropriate, using humour and self-deprecation. Second, he demonstrated strong emotional intelligence, the capacity that, according to Greenstein (2009), is the key to establishing a successful leadership style. Emotional intelligence reflects the ability to draw on four key competences or skills: self-awareness (the ability to read one’s own emotions), self-management (the ability to control one’s emotions and marshall positive emotions), empathy (the ability to sense, understand and react to others’ emotions) and relationship management (the ability to use these skills in combination to have the greatest impact in any situation). In Obama’s case, these skills were used in an attempt to balance a commitment to bipartisanship against support for an underlying vision of the federal government as an agent of social justice that harked back to Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ and Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’. However, a possible drawback of such ‘soft’ leadership skills (in many ways, these are akin to ‘soft’ power) is that they may so increase levels of hope and expectation that eventual disillusionment with the leader becomes inevitable.