Which type of political leader does your hero belong to?

»In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, a Southerner, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. At that point, the American South was still solidly Democratic. He said privately: »I think we have lost the South for a generation.«, and that turned out to be right – the South is now solidly non-Democratic. That was an example of a politician doing something that he knew was right for the country, even though at the same time he tragically knew that doing that would cost Democrats the South for a generation. That is an act I would call political heroism.«

This was Yale University prof. dr. Steven B. Smith‘s anwser to a question about patriotism, given at an online lecture titled: »Styles of statemanship«, organized by IPM Institute with the support of the US Embassy in Slovenia. In the lecture, prof. Smith outlined 4 different types of political leaders with an emphasis on their democratic and antidemocratic tendencies. Can you identify the type your favourite leader belongs to?

The idea of a statesman seems at odds with the idea of democracy – of faith in the collective wisdom of the people. Democracy was established to remove the need for larger-than-life political heroes. So what is the role of the political leader in the land where people are king? Is the leader a mouthpiece of public opinion? Is his job to give the people what they want? Or does a statesman stand above public opinion and his job is to refine and educate the public mind?

After asking these questions, prof. Smith stressed the importance of making a distinction between a statesman and democracy on one hand and a demagogue (leader of the common people) and demagoguery on the other. For this argument he used Max Weber’s (1919) distinction between those who live for politics and those who live off politics. But to define democratic statesmanship – which may seem like a contradiction in terms – is to distinguish it from three models of political leadership: machiavellian, charismatic and progressive.

Machiavellian leader

Machiavellian Prince is popularly characterized as someone who would do anything neccessary to achieve their goals. The idea of this kind of leader emerged from Machiavelli’s perceived neccessities of political practice, a kind of realism as opposed to idealism.

As a condition of political greatness, Machiavelli believed, the Prince must exempt himself from obedience to ordinary ethical laws and injunction. They should do good when they can, and do evil when they must.

Machiavellian leaders are thus pragmatists – they use whatever means work and are prepared to get their hands dirty. Machiavelli lists lying, deceit, selective use of cruelty, acting against religion – with fame, glory and honour as main motivators. But practising this virtues, Machiavelli warns, will lead a person to ruin.

Charismatic leader

Some people consent to obey because it has always been that way (traditional authority); some consent to obey because of rationally established rules administered by impartial authority (legal rational authority); some obey because they are enchanted by some virtuous leader (charismatic authority).

Max Weber used this term to designate a specific leader type: religious leaders such as Moses, Buddha, Dalajlama. But charisma can be easily mistaken with any charlatan who can pool wool over people’s eyes. So how to distinguish a true from a false prophet – a charismatic leader from a charlatan, a demagogue?

Authentic charismatic leaders have three qualities: feeling of proportion, a sense of responsibility, and the most important one – passion: a devotion to a cause, attachement to goals.  But charisma doesn’t tell you much about the quality of their governance – it can be used for good or for evil. There are no fixed principles of action beyond the demand the leader be authentic and true to his passion and his goals – whether they are good or evil.

Progressive leader

Progressive leaders are driven by the belief that all truly important problems facing human civilization (poverty, education, healthcare) are technical problems in nature and can be solved on the basis of scientific knowledge – that is or soon be available to humankind.

Political leadership is understood as (scientific) management and dominated by modern political science. It is an idea that politics can be removed from the messy business of democracy, and be replaced by science of administration. Progressive leaders are supposed to be above mere politics – immune to the sway of partisan and  interests – and be a mouthpiece for the nation.

Politics is thus no longer considered an art – a sphere of prudence and practical judgement. It is seen as technical activity, done by experts trained in game theory, rational choice, econometrics, statistics, and other methods of gaging public opinion. This has generated and army of reformers who believe in rational planning to produce a safe, healthy and prosperous society

This has become a governing principle of a large majority of the Democratic party. This governing principles do not believe in inalienable human rights written in the constitution, but believe that the constitution should be a living document, constantly evolving and adapting to new situations.

Successful progressive leaders are therefore those who can adapt to and galvanize change while society moves in new and ever unseen directions. They have a duty and obligation to work for the acceleration of progress. There is even immorality to not bring about progressive change. To resist progress is to be deemed by progressives as conservative, reactionary and the enemy of the people.

The question remains by what metric is change or progress to be measured? How do we know how much progress is enough? How do we know that progress is actually progressive, if we don’t have a fixed standard on which to judge it?

Constitutional statesmanship

Constitutional government is one of the great ideas of Western political thought, unique in angloamerican political tradition, which understands constitutions as devices of controlling power. Constitutional rule is concerned with forms of rule rather than outcomes.

It is important that certain formal political procedures are followed and that legitimizes the outcome. Governing in a constitutional manner means governing with respect to forms – like rule of law, due process, trial by jury – rather to have a fixation on achieving a specific end or a goal.

This is the idea behind the US constitutional government, which needs to be distinguished from two other types of popular government: the classical polis democracy, a direct democracy of a small community; and a British mixed constitution with 3 branches of the community (one king, few lords, many commons) having their representation within the state. US constitutionalism is different.

In contrast to the classics, it is a representative government with indirect rule – people may elect their representatives but are removed from power The task of constitutional government, as Madison argued in the Federalist 23, is not to expresss the general will of the people, but to refine and filter public opinion through a complex system of election and representation. In contrast to mixed government, there are no hereditary classes and the government wholly popular, not a mixture of republicanism, aristocracy and monarchy.

One of the main challenges posed by constitutional framers is how to combine a popular government with restraints on power? Because if those restraints are removed, how will the people then restrain themselves? How to constitutionalize restraint is thus one of the core questions of democratic statecraft.

One way is of conceiving the constitutional government as a limited government. It deliberatly leaves some things out of political control. It differentiates between people as citizens and people as members of the civil society, with individual rights to life, freedom and happiness, which are protected by the state. To control every aspect of people’s lives is death to constitutionalism.

Sometimes, however, emergencies require the existence of exceptions when a statesman can exceed the limits set by the constitution. This is why constitutional leaders must practice self-restraint. One of the examples is Lincoln’s commitement to not postpone the elections during the US civil war, which he expected but stressed the importance of free elections even in the time of crisis. He declared to work with his successor to end the war and help the transition if he loses.

He was elected again as President, and it is also a great contribution to the idea of constitutional restraint – that free elections should not be endangered even for the sake of losing, that the ends do not justify the means. Constitutional leaders must have an ethic of responsibility, that not everything is permitted. They are lead by an awareness of human falability, that they might be wrong. Human fallability is the main reason for moderation and self control – virtues of a true democrat.

*this text is a summary of the lecture titled: »Styles of Statesmanship«, posted on the FB page IPM Inštitut za politični menedžment.