POLITICAL LEADERSHIP – PANTA REI
PHENOMENON
Prof. Tanja Karakamisheva-Jovanovska Ph.D.
Ss. “Cyril and Methodius” University,
Law Faculty “Iustinianus Primus”,
Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
tanja.karakamiseva@gmail.com
I. Introduction
The leadership in a broad sense, as well as the political
leadership as a concept in a narrow sense of the word, is
always interesting, provocative, important and fruitful for a
debate and open dialogue both among those who practice it,
the politicians, and among those who analyses it as an
universal phenomenon – the scientific researchers. Although
this is a historical phenomenon, its methods and structures are
subject of constant change, which is the reason why the
leaders are obliged to follow these dynamic changes and to be
prepared to abandon the outdated ideas and political
instruments that have proven as dysfunctional in the new
political environment. The political leadership, as a dynamic,
socio-political and coherent process has been subject of
analysis of many political authors who most often bring up the
following instruments: 1. which is, i.e. where is the root of the
leader's power; 2. which are the executive instruments of this
power; 3. whether instead of the dilemma between the "hard"
and "soft" power, the leaders should be focused on exercising
the so-called "smart" power; 4. which are the personal
characteristics of the leaders and the followers and how do
they interact; 5. which are the ways to motivate leadership and
the follower's behaviour; 6. Do the political leaders "drive" the
history" or the history drives them; 7. is there a "four season"
leadership"; etc. This paper will true to give an answer for all
those questions.
Key words: political leadership, power, authority,
elections, legitimacy
1. About some more important leadership theories
The leadership theories are a pretty new phenomenon. It
seems that they cone as a direct reaction to the interest in the
leadership, as a dynamic, socio-political, open and coherent
process, among not only the theoreticians, but more and more
among the politicians as well, as a direct need to identify the
characteristics, mechanisms and behaviours of the politicians.
Namely, by getting to know the characteristics of the leader
more closely, his strengths and weaknesses, his successes and
failures, the public in fact gets to know the matrix of his work.
The leadership is a "universal term", and the leaders are agents
of change, persons whose activities affect many other people.
The political leadership is, before all, a political process that
should be approached from three aspects: 1. The leadership
implies organisation and mobilisation of people and resources
(economic, political and other) that are put directly in function
for achieving political goals; 2. The leadership implies power,
authority and legitimacy, categories that have been defined by
history, institutions, goals and by the political culture of a
given country, and; 3. The leadership implies forming of
formal and informal coalitions among leaders and elites,
vertical and horizontal bonds that have for their goal to solve
collective problems that broadly define the challenges for the
progress of the community.i
The theory knows of three distinguished theoreticians that deal
with the issue of leadership: Max Weber, George Burns and
Daniel Goleman.ii
Weber speaks about three types of leaders: bureaucratic,
charismatic and traditional. He is one of the first theoreticians
who speak about the leadership and the need of dynamic
movement from one leader's style to another. His position on
the two main paradigms of the leader's behaviour is very
interesting: his distinction between transaction and
transformation paradigm. Weber believes that the transaction
leaders are those who work within the scope of the existing
systems in order to achieve certain results. He says, for
example, that the bureaucratic leader is in fact an transaction
leader who is efficient in the use of his knowledge and
authority to achieve certain political results. On the other
hand, the charismatic leaders are so-called transformation
leaders who are often compared with heroes in the history
books. The transformation leader is able to see the things from
a completely different dimension by putting in use his own
charisma, or the charisma of the others, in order to achieve
certain goals.
George Burns' theory is largely compliant with the one of
Weber, though besides transformation and transaction leaders
he also speaks about moral and immoral leaders. In his theory,
Burns describes five different types of leaders who exist in
the transaction leadership style:
1. Thinking leaders;
2. Bureaucratic leaders;
3. Party leaders;
4. Legislative leaders and;
5. Executive leaders.
In his theory, Burns also describes four transformation types
of leaders:
1. Intellectual leaders;
2. Reform leaders;
3. Revolutionary leaders and;
4. Charismatic leaders.
Daniel Goleman's theory, better known as theory of emotional
intelligence, is predominantly focused on the basic elements
that define the leader. According to this author, one person's
intelligence, seen independently from the other elements, is
not sufficient for one person to be a leader. According to
Goleman, what distinguishes the leaders from the intellectuals
is their emotional intelligence, which is composed of the
following five components:
1. Self-awareness, ability to understand your own strengths
and weaknesses;
2. Social skills – how the leaders communicate with the others
and build perception about the state affairs;
3. Self-regulation, ability of the leader to think about the
consequences before reacting;
4. Motivation, strong will for success, and
5. Empathy, ability to understand the opinion of the others.
The group of most distinguished theoreticians who study the
leadership certainly also includes Bernard Bass, who develops
several definitions about the leadership, grouped in the
following way:
1. Leadership as a focus of group interestiii;
2. Leadership as an effective personalityiv;
3. Leadership as an art of mutual consentv;
4. Leadership as an influential processvi;
5. Leadership as an act, activity or behaviourvii;
6. Leadership as a form of persuasionviii;
7. Leadership as a power process;
8. Leadership as an instrument for achieving goals;
9. Leadership as an interaction effect;
10. Leadership in combination with other elements, etc.
In the ever changing world, and particularly in the fragile and
weak states in which the non-formal institutions dominate
over the formal institutions, there are always hybrid forms, the
influence of the leadership is stronger because there the
leadership defines its own boundaries and possibilities.
Therefore, knowing the political leadership and its modern
trends is crucial for understanding the politics and the political
processes in the country.
2. About the contemporary trends in the political
leadership
Out of the many definitions on the theory of the so called main
forms of leadership no one, managed to develop a better
classification from James MacGregor Burns. Although the
names of several eminent theoreticians are worth mentioning,
their work is merely upgrading of the main leaders' postulates
set by Burns. What comes as a joint conclusion of all
theoreticians, is that the old postulate "leader-follower" must
be replaced with the motto "leader-citizen."
"In conditions of democracy, the motto 'leader-follower' is too
restraining and must be replaced with the motto: 'leader-
participative and creative citizen.'"
The globalisation brought to effect new forms of international
and supranational leaderships, such as "collection or package
for transnational exchange of people, investments,
information, ideas and authorities."ix
The globalisation has increased the meaning of the leadership
within the international organisations, regional organisations,
as well as in the global agencies to a much higher level,
bringing in new trends in the shape and content of the political
leadership.
In this way, the quality of the political leaders and of the
political leadership today is measured in two dimensions:
- The first dimension is related with how successfully the
leader has accomplished the new trends in the political
communication with the citizens, i.e. what is the quality of his
political communication, and;
- The second dimension, which concerns the key aspects of the
so-called personalisation of the leader, his communication
skills, ability to keep good political relations with everyone,
particularly with the political adversaries (ability to engage in
dialogue), the personal characteristics of the leader and his
public behaviour, as well as his ability to inspire trust.
Every political leader must possess good professional and
communication ability through which, in fact, he is building
the trust from the citizens and the other participants in the
political system of the country. And the trust is the key
traditional, as well as contemporary precondition for any
successful leader. The leaders must be developed as
trustworthy individuals. Having in mind the fact that the trust
from the citizens is last to come and first to be lost, the
political leaders must constantly work on all elements that
make it. Here, public and private behaviour of the leader is
particularly important, his competence and ability for media
presentation of his achievements, his constant availability for
the media and ability to develop position on all ongoing
issues. The new trends in the political leadership suggest that
the work of the political leader is exceptionally difficult and
demanding and burdened with high expectations from the
citizens.
The individual characteristics of the leader lead to the equation
between the "leader" and the "leadership", whereas leadership
is taken more as a characteristic and ability of the leader,
rather than as a process or as a political link between the
leader and the citizens.x
Or, as Gronn suggests, in the heart of this individual approach
to the leadership is the leader and his solo position.
Still, the contemporary leadership is not understood
exclusively as individual leadership. On the contrary, it has to
be observed from an aspect of all parties involved, which are
crucial for the process of building leadership, i.e. building a
leader.
The leadership is connected with the power, but it does not
come as a synonym for power. The connection between the
leadership and the power is very complex and involves great
number of people. Here, particularly valuable for analysis is
the aspect of "hard power" vis-à-vis the aspect of "soft
power". But even more valuable is the segment of "smart
power", which puts into synergy the elements of both hard and
soft power and uses them in a more discreet, combining the
needs on the specific case.
The contemporary political science, particularly in the filed of
political development, is mainly focused on the structure of
the political power, although there are remarks coming from
the contemporary theoreticians that the theory must pay equal
attention not only to the structure, but also to the agents of
power, i.e. not only to the naked leadership, but also to the
social and historical factors that determine its role.
But, how come that these clear calls of the theory of political
leadership are not realised in reality? One of the reasons is
perhaps in the fact that if the political leadership is given key
determining role in the political results, it might create bland
connotation of authoritarianism, which is contrary to the
political "social" connotation of the democracy, pluralism and
representation. The concentrated presence of democracy and
collaboration in the politics today has led to insufficient
presence of the leadership as an issue, although there have
been some attempts to keep it alive.xi
Both the contemporary and the classic leadership theories put
the emphasis on the characteristics that the leader must
possess, or better said, have predefined characteristics that the
leaders must possess. They include: intelligence, personal
(character) values, trust, charisma and appearance. Interesting
in this context is the opinion of De Vader and the opinion of
Alliger, who define the previously noted characteristics in the
following way: 1. The leader must have certain level of
intelligence; 2. The leader must balance his behaviour and
position it in the middle of the axis between extrovert-introvert
behaviour. 3. The leader must demonstrate certain amount of
inter-human sensitivity, and yet not to loose the line of
domination in the inter-human relations, and 4. As part of his
activities, the leader must respect the characteristics that have
a conservative character. Their overall conclusion is that the
political leaders are trying more and more to be intelligent,
extrovert and "masculine", opposite to the people who are not
leaders.xii
The opinion of Davis is also quite interesting; he believes that
the political leadership is a "basic, dynamic force that
motivates and coordinates the subjects in the politics and
drives them to the realisation of their own goals." The
emphasis of the political leadership should be put on its
development dimension which is valued based on the
successfulness of the leader to create progressive vision about
the state, to incorporate his followers in his vision and in the
fulfillment of the goals that this vision carries.
All these considerations urge the contemporary conceptions
about the political leadership to alter the classic relation of
"leader-follower" and modify it into a contemporary relation
of "leader-creative, participative citizens," and not just
followers. Or, said in the words of Ronald, "in conditions of
democracy we need involved and creative citizens in politics
and not just followersxiii." This idea is, in fact, a cradle for the
new motto in the political leadership, which drives the history
ahead and which has led us to a "four season leadership."
The contemporary political leadership is based on the election
legitimacy, which is particularly important for the political
leaders who are part of the legislative and of the executive
government and who drain their political power form the
victory at democratic elections. It is on this concept that the
entire politics of the modern European leadership, which
devoted the 2013 to the citizens, is based upon. Namely, the
strengthening of the idea that the European citizens are
creators of the politics of the Union, at all levels – local,
national and European, and that they are the pillar of all
institutions, is a primary obligation that comes from the
concept of citizens' trust in the local, national and European
institutions. Therefore, the adoption of the so-called inter-
institutional agreement for opening room for enhanced
European civic dialogue also opens a new practical dimension
for active and participative civic sector in the provisions of the
Lisbon Treaty. It is interesting to note that these two initiatives
for reviving of the democratic civic sector refer not only to the
citizens of the EU member-countries, but also to the
candidate-countries, which also means the Macedonian
citizens who can be fully incorporated in the EU2013
programme, and especially for the issues of local character.
The main goal of the programme "2013 European Union of
the EU citizens" is to better inform the citizens about their
rights and freedoms guaranteed with the European and
international treaties, and in context of enhanced civic input in
the EU political discussions. One can conclude that the better
the citizens are informed about their rights and freedoms, they
are better prepared to make better private decisions as well as
better civic decisions, which will increase the level of
democratic life in all of Europe.

The political leadership also must work in accordance with the

thoughts of the modern citizen and create actions that will
highlight the civic importance in the process of creation of
important political processes in the country.

3. Conclusion

The contemporary research on the political leadership brings

forward a very important novelty in the field of the leadership.
This novelty determines the new boundaries for the new
political leaders on one hand, and the citizens on the other.
The political leadership continues to be a very pluralistic
category, not only theoretically, but also empirically. However,
the reference: "political leader-participative, creative citizens"
is more and more pushing aside the outdated reference of
"political leader-followers" and sends it in the memory of the
political history as an empty phrase that describes some past
times ad past values”.xiv
i

FOOTNOTES:

See: Heather Lyne de Ver (2008), “Leadership, Politics and Development: A Literature Survey”, Developmental
Leadership Program, Background Paper 03, http://www.dlprog.org as well as Heather Lyne de Ver (2009),
“Conceptions of Leadership”, Developmental Leadership Program, Background Paper 04,
http://www.dlprog.org
ii
See: Heather Lyne de Ver (2009), “Conceptions of Leadership”, Developmental Leadership Program,
Background Paper 04, March 2009, http://www.dlprog.org
It is interesting to note the opinion of Burns who qualifies the leadership as an essential human and two-way
connection, i.e. as a "reciprocal process of mobilising people who have specific motives and values, different economic,
political and other resources in terms of competition and conflict, and in context of independent ad mutual realisation of
the goals of the leaders and their followers."
iii
Most well known theoretician who elaborates this definition is Cooley, who believes that "the leader is always nucleus
of tendency". Inspired by the needs of his followers, the leader focuses their energy in the right direction. Therefore, the
leadership is a function of existing needs and a link between the leader and his followers. See: Bass, B. M. (1990)
Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications 3rd Edition, New York: The Free
Press, (p. 11).
iv
See: Bowden, A. O. (1926) “A study of the personality of student leaders in the United States,” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 21, (p.149-160).
v

Ibid, Bass, B. M. (1990)

vi
See: Nash, J. B. (1929) “Leadership,” Phi Delta Kappa, vol. 12, (p. 24-25).
vii
See: Fiedler, F. E. (1967a), “A theory of leadership effectiveness”, New York: McGraw-Hill.
viii
Ibid, Bass, B. M. (1990.)
ix
See: Joseph Masciulli, Mikhail A. Molchanov and W.Andy Knight, “Political Leadership in Context”, Ashgate
Research Companion,
http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Ashgate_Research_Companion_to_Political_Leadership_intro.pdf.
x
See: http://www.leadership.co.uk/mainpages.asp?PageID=3
xi

Quite interesting is the slogan "Ability, responsibility, accountability", as an essence for the contemporary meaning of
the term: "ruling" and the term "leadership". The American leadership theory, as best known global theory, is dominant
in the segment of analysing the leadership as an organisation and managing structure. See for more details: Grint,
Keith (2005), Leadership: Limits and Possibilities, New York: Macmillan, as well as in: Grint, Keith, (2000), The
Arts of Leadership, New York: Oxford University Press.
xii
See: Grint, K. (1997) ‘Leadership: A contested Construct’, in Grint, K. (ed.) Leadership: Classical,
Contemporary, and Critical Approaches, Oxford, Oxford University Press, (p. 27-36).
xiii
See: Heifetz, Ronald (2010), “Leadership without easy answers”, Cambridge: Harvard Business Press, (р. 20)
xiv
Palgrave Studies in Political Leadership Series (2012), “Comparative Political Leadership”, Edited by Ludger
Helms, Palgrave MacMillan.