Power politics: Towards increasing authoritarianism
While power may corrupt, leaders without it cannot lead
US President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. PHOTO: REUTERS
In a series of alarming developments around the world, the trend towards greater authoritarianism is, arguably, most significant as it is alarming.
Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, replaced his prime minister with one who is more ‘compliant’ to his drive of concentrating executive power.
Vladimir Putin has successfully used nationalism to tighten his control over Russia and seems to enjoy great popularity. Xi Jinping is regarded as China’s most powerful leader since Mao Zedong, presiding over a growing number of crucial decision-making committees.
In the event of a Trump presidency, commentators fear that he could turn out to be an “American Mussolini”.
Abuse of power is as old as man himself. Leadership involves the use of power, and, as Lord Acton famously warned, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And yet, the ‘irony’, or paradox, is that leaders without power cannot lead.
The prominent psychologist David McClelland distinguished three groups of people by their motivations. Those who care most about doing something better have a “need for achievement.” Those who think most about friendly relations with others have a “need for affiliation.” And those who care most about having an impact on others show a “need for power.”
This third group turned out to be the most effective leaders, which brings us back to Acton. But power is not good or bad per se. Like calories in a diet, too little produces atrophy, and too much leads to obesity. What is needed is the right mix of ethics and power, the balance of which results in an ‘ideal leadership’.
Machiavelli stressed the importance of the hard power of coercion when a leader faces a tradeoff with the soft power of attraction, “since being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself.” Machiavelli believed that when one must choose, it is better to be feared than to be loved. But he also understood that fear and love are not opposites, and that the opposite of love – hatred – is dangerous for leaders.
He also addressed the importance of ethics for leaders, but essentially in terms of the impression that visible displays of virtue made upon followers (or subjects). The appearance of virtue is an important source of a leader’s ability to get what one wants by attraction rather than coercion. However, for Machiavelli, the display of a prince’s virtues are more important and, therefore, should only be apparent, never real.
Idealism without realism rarely reshapes the world, but judging the modern democratic leaders, we should keep both Machiavelli and Acton in mind.
We should look for and support leaders who possess an ethical element of self-restraint and a need for achievement, affiliation as well as for power. Emotional maturity and training are, therefore, important means of limiting a lust for power, and appropriate institutions are essential to getting the balance right since ethics and power can be mutually reinforcing.
Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, replaced his prime minister with one who is more ‘compliant’ to his drive of concentrating executive power.
Vladimir Putin has successfully used nationalism to tighten his control over Russia and seems to enjoy great popularity. Xi Jinping is regarded as China’s most powerful leader since Mao Zedong, presiding over a growing number of crucial decision-making committees.
In the event of a Trump presidency, commentators fear that he could turn out to be an “American Mussolini”.
Abuse of power is as old as man himself. Leadership involves the use of power, and, as Lord Acton famously warned, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And yet, the ‘irony’, or paradox, is that leaders without power cannot lead.
The prominent psychologist David McClelland distinguished three groups of people by their motivations. Those who care most about doing something better have a “need for achievement.” Those who think most about friendly relations with others have a “need for affiliation.” And those who care most about having an impact on others show a “need for power.”
This third group turned out to be the most effective leaders, which brings us back to Acton. But power is not good or bad per se. Like calories in a diet, too little produces atrophy, and too much leads to obesity. What is needed is the right mix of ethics and power, the balance of which results in an ‘ideal leadership’.
Machiavelli stressed the importance of the hard power of coercion when a leader faces a tradeoff with the soft power of attraction, “since being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself.” Machiavelli believed that when one must choose, it is better to be feared than to be loved. But he also understood that fear and love are not opposites, and that the opposite of love – hatred – is dangerous for leaders.
He also addressed the importance of ethics for leaders, but essentially in terms of the impression that visible displays of virtue made upon followers (or subjects). The appearance of virtue is an important source of a leader’s ability to get what one wants by attraction rather than coercion. However, for Machiavelli, the display of a prince’s virtues are more important and, therefore, should only be apparent, never real.
Idealism without realism rarely reshapes the world, but judging the modern democratic leaders, we should keep both Machiavelli and Acton in mind.
We should look for and support leaders who possess an ethical element of self-restraint and a need for achievement, affiliation as well as for power. Emotional maturity and training are, therefore, important means of limiting a lust for power, and appropriate institutions are essential to getting the balance right since ethics and power can be mutually reinforcing.