By Ladipo Adamolekun

The central argument in The Myth of the Strong Leader. Political Leadership in the Modern Age by Archie Brown (2014) is that the strong-weak leader dichotomy contributes little to our understanding of political leadership. This argument is a recurrent theme in Brown’s discussion of four categories of political leadership identified in the book: (i) redefining, (ii) transformational, (iii) revolutionary, and (iv) totalitarian/authoritarian.

As a preamble, Brown offers a longish list of the “attributes” or “desiderata” of a political leader: integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy, and boundless energy.

He also provides a mix of leadership styles, notably, dominating/domineering, collegial/collaborative, collective, inclusive, and dictatorial/authoritarian. In successive chapters on the four categories of leadership, he highlights both the key leadership attributes and the leadership styles of the different political leaders he uses as examples. Drawing on the insights provided in this well-researched book with examples selected from many countries across the continents, I conclude the review essay with three takeaways that I consider relevant to Nigeria.

Redefining Leadership

According to Brown, a redefining political leadership is one that succeeds in “stretching the limits of the possible in politics and radically altering the political agenda.”  His three major examples are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson of the United States of America (USA) and Margaret Thatcher of Britain.

President FD Roosevelt successfully lifted America out of the Depression of 1933 through his New Deal programme that radically changed the country’s economic and social systems. Regarding President LB Johnson, he redefined citizenship for many hitherto deprived Americans through championing the successful passage of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, 1965.  In Britain, Thatcher’s 11-year-long premiership (1979-1990) was characterised by radical changes in British economic and social policies.  As an apostle of privatisation, she ensured that about two-thirds of state assets were sold off.  She also reversed almost all the pillars of the welfare state introduced by Britain’s post-World War II government and maintained by successive governments up to 1979. The only notable exception is the National Health Service that assures free health care at the point of delivery for British citizens.

Transformational Political Leadership

Brown’s examples of political leaders that promoted transformative changes include Charles de Gaulle of France, Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union/Russia, Deng Xiaoping of China, and Nelson Mandela of South Africa.  Charles de Gaulle who ruled France from 1958 to 1969 changed the country’s political system. Specifically, he created a semi-presidential system of government that produces “a combination of effective governance and democratic accountability. And he resolved the Algerian crisis by accepting the need for decolonisation; Algeria became independent in 1962.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991), led transformative change that was encapsulated as perestroika (a programme of economic, political, and social restructuring)and glasnost (promotion of openness and transparency in government institutions and activities). In particular, his political restructuring resulted in the abandonment of Marxism-Leninism and its replacement with competitive elections as the source of political legitimacy. His transformative foreign policy that paved the way for democratization in central and eastern Europe resulted in two landmark consequences: the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The latter was clearly unintended but Brown passes it as an achievement because it happened peacefully.

Deng Xiaoping, paramount leader of China from 1978 to 1989, led the transformation of the Chinese economic system that resulted in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty within a decade. This was achieved through the abandonment of collectivization in agriculture and the return to peasant household farming. He replaced the existing state-controlled (command) economy with a market economy and opened the country to foreign direct investment thereby integrating China into the world economy.

Finally, Nelson Mandela was a transformative leader as demonstrated by the key role he played in ensuring a definitive end to South Africa’s evil apartheid system and his lead role in the peaceful transformation of the country’s political system into a democracy. His one term in office (1994-1998) was followed by two democratic successions in his lifetime.

Revolutionary Leadership

Brown makes a distinction between revolutionary leaders who successfully carry out revolutions that produce systemic change and those who fail to dislodge existing power holders. His list of successful revolutionary leaders includes Vladimir Lenin of the Soviet Union, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) of Turkey, Mao Zedong of China, and Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Lenin led the Russian revolution of 1917 that removed the country’s last Tsar and founded the Soviet state.  His regime was established on a new ideological legitimacy (baptised Marxism-Leninism) that involved the transformation of the economy through the nationalisation of banks and industry.  In Turkey, Ataturk radically changed the ideological foundation of the state by replacing the traditional political and religious authorities after establishing the country as a republic in 1923. He also carried out a cultural revolution through the introduction of secular rule, secularization of education, and emancipation of women.

Mao Zedong, the acknowledged leader of Chinese communists since the 1930s, led the long revolutionary war in China for close to two decades to a victorious end. In 1949, he declared the People’s Republic of China. And in Cuba, Fidel Castro led the revolution of 1958-1959 that overthrew the existing regime. His government proceeded to create a fundamentally different political system and a new society. In 1963, he merged his revolutionary movement with the country’s Communist party, and ruled for close to 50years under Communist economic and political institutions.

Totalitarian and Authoritarian Leadership

Brown considers totalitarian and authoritarian political leadership as a continuum with mildly authoritarian, authoritarian and highly authoritarian at one end, and totalitarian, highly totalitarian, and extreme totalitarian at the other end. His main examples include Josif Stalin of the Soviet Union, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Mao Zedong of China.

Stalin succeeded Lenin as Soviet Union’s pre-eminent leader and by the early 1930s, he had become a one-person ruler with the Communist Politburo (executive) a mere rubber stamp.  He removed other prominent players in the 1917 revolution either through expulsion or execution after “show-trials” between 1936 and 1938. His totalitarian rule is noted for the compulsory collectivization of agriculture that resulted in famine during which millions of Soviet peasants died,

Hitler became German chancellor in 1933 when his National Socialist (Nazi) party emerged as the largest single party in the parliament. And he became president the following year. His ideology of a racially pure and powerful greater Germany had anti-Semitism as its centrepiece. From eliminating Jewish influence in Germany, he proceeded to eliminating Jews themselves. He led Germany’s economic recovery from the Depression of the 1930s and proceeded to develop the country’s military might. Then, he embarked on territorial expansion that led to the Second World War which he lost. He shot himself in his Berlin bunker in 1945.

Mao Zedong ruled China from 1949 to 1976 and his totalitarian rule was marked by the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). The former was a plan of forced agricultural collectivization and rural industrialisation that resulted in economic contraction, famine, and millions of deaths. And the latter, a violent socio-political purge that was intended to rid Chinese communism of remnants of capitalist and traditional elements only resulted in damaging the country’s economy and traditional culture and cost millions of lives.

Conclusion: Three Takeaways Relevant to Nigeria

My three takeaways that are relevant to Nigeria are: (i) desirable leadership attributes; (ii) desirable leadership styles; and (iii) urgent need for a redefining political leadership at the centre.

1. Desirable Leadership Attributes

The fourteen leadership attributes provided by Brown are integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy and boundless energy.

I consider the following four as the most crucial: integrity, intelligence, courage, and vision. And I strongly commend them to incumbent Nigerian political leaders at all levels, to aspiring political leaders, and to the Nigerian voter.  I would dare to assert that any incumbent leader who does not possess at least three of these attributes is very likely to be adjudged a bad performer at the end of his/her tenure; any leader who possesses all four attributes is very likely to be adjudged a good performer;and an incumbent leader who possesses all four and two or more others from the fourteen is likely to emerge as a very good performer.  The aspiring Nigerian political leader is invited to undertake a rigorous self-assessment and determine whether or not she/he is fit to contest for a political leadership position.  And it would be desirable if, henceforth, Nigerian voters pay more attention to the leadership attributes of contestants for political leadership positions before casting their votes.

2. Desirable Leadership Styles

The leadership styles highlighted by Brown and listed in the Introductory paragraph are:

dominating/domineering, collegial/collaborative, collective, inclusive, and dictatorial/authoritarian. In his concluding chapter, “What Kind of Leadership is Desirable?”, Brown strongly endorses a collegial leadership style. Since collaborative, collective and inclusive are, in varying degrees, variations of collegial leadership style, what he rejects are dominating/domineering and dictatorial/authoritarian leadership styles. I share his preference and I commend it to both incumbent and aspiring political leaders in the country. Nigeria experienced dictatorial/authoritarian leadership style during close to 30 years of military rule and it is no exaggeration to assert that the vast majority of Nigerians would not like a return to that era.  Regarding dominating/domineering political leadership style, Brown’s position is that while a political leader can use it to achieve some good results for the society, it is possible to achieve the same good results through collegial leadership. I share and recommend this viewpoint to both incumbent and aspiring political leaders in the country.

 Urgent Need for a Redefining Political Leadership at the Centre

My final takeaway is a clear choice among the four categories of political leadership summarised in this review essay.  It is my considered opinion that what Nigeria needs at this juncture in her national development is a redefining political leadership at the centre. None of our four post-military rule leaders qualifies to be included in this category.  President Obasanjo (1999-2007) and President Buhari (incumbent since 2015) are neo-military rulers, an unsurprising consequence of their strong military culture that has trumped any desire to respect democratic norms. And while Yar’Adua’s rule (2007-2010) was undermined and cut short by ill health and death, Jonathan (2010-2015) lacked the leadership attributes needed to provide redefining political leadership. The redefinition that Nigerian politics needs today – devolution/restructuring to re-establish a true federation – is awaiting a redefining political leadership to champion and accomplish it.

Professor Ladipo Adamolekun writes from Iju, Akure North, Ondo State.