Charismatic Leadership

Newspapers argue every day over what qualities make good leaders. In the UK the focus is on the failures, where lies, association and incompetence are held up to disqualify individuals from positions of responsibility. Meanwhile in the US, being a mother or an outsider can be used to prop up political campaigns. The personal qualities of leaders are consistently used to justify or disavow beliefs, ideas and policies.

However, tying authority to a personality makes a leader's position unstable. In his work exploring authority, Max Weber tackled the role that personalities play (1994), classifying such leadership as charismatic authority. And where power is tied to the individual qualities of a single leader, there lies instability. This is due to continued power being dependent upon the ability of a charismatic leader to repeatedly 'prove their powers' (Hughes et al, 2003).

In practice this means a tyrant must always inspire fear, a mother must never lapse in devotion to family values and the democrat can never be seen to do the sorts of deals that other politicians make every day.

Such a system invites uncertainty, but can also be an effective means of generating a base around which to rally support. Personal qualities become the justification behind many actions; both means and ends. This offers a great flexibility to charismatic leaders, often enabling them to support the achievement of dissonant ends - with the ends justified as right by virtue of the leader's qualities.

Rational authority has a much more difficult time in making its case. Such leadership and authority has to depend upon reasoned, rational & consistent logic - where political means and ends are legitimate because they have evidence to support there conclusions.

However, Joe Chamberlain & HH Asquith discovered in the run up to the 1906 UK election that rational authority is immensely strong when good evidence is available and is well distributed. Chamberlain's soaring rhetoric was undone by Asquith's own approach - travelling up & down the country to address crowds and put the evidence to the people (Marr, 2009).

Charismatic Authority can (and has been) a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Yet it remains a seductively powerful one. If we are to have real & legitimate democracy, those who would support a more accountable politics would do well to mix campaigning with the scientific method - to bring strong evidence to the ears of voters everywhere. It is a method whose effectiveness has precedent.

==========
References:
==========
+ Max Weber's 'Basic Concepts in Sociology'; Chp 4, Pt 4: Bases of Legitimate Order; Citadel 1994.

+ John A Hughes, Peter J Martin & Wes W Sharrock's 'Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx - Weber - Durkheim'; Chapter 3: Max Weber; Power and Forms of Domination, Pg 112; Sage, 2003.

+ Andrew Marr's 'The Making of Modern Britain'; Pt 1: Living in the Future; Joe's Great Rebellion, Pg 34-35; Macmillan 2009.

The Voice of Identity - Barack Obama & Ron Paul

The US Presidential election of 2012 could mark a watershed moment in international economics. It appears as if it will be the battleground on which the last holdouts of the Keynesian School will face off against the austerity led economics favoured by the IMF (Chu, 2011).

However, in order to have this meaningful debate, the primaries must first produce candidates who can best express the benefits of each school of thought. The candidates who have repeatedly shown themselves capable of that task have been President Barack Obama & Senator Ron Paul. Each of them firmly and intelligently represent their sides in the Keynes versus von Mises debate, respectively.

'No matter who I've met with, whether it was the business leaders today or the labour leaders I met with last week, my message has been the same: the American economy is at its strongest when we have a common set of values that it reflects - when we reward not just wealth but also work and worker's who create it, because what we've relearned in painful fashion over the past few months is that Wall Street can't thrive so long as Main Street is struggling. So to strengthen our long term economic competitiveness... we need to build an economy that lifts up all Americans. Now if we're serious about making America more competitive in the 21st century, we also have to finally solve our energy crisis... When America wanted to send a man to the moon, we put the full resources of our federal government behind it and spent over a $100 billion dollars, in today's dollars. Well I want to make an even bigger commitment to free this nation from its addiction to oil and that's why I will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years,... investments that will create up to 5 million new green jobs, that pay well and can't be outsourced and that will create billions of dollars in new business. That's the kind of leadership we need to realise the potential promise of green energy, our economy, our safety and our security and that's the kind of leadership I will offer as President of the United States'

- Then-Senator Obama, 26 June 2008.

'Government is literally out of control. Spending, taxes, regulations, monetary inflation, invasion of our privacy, welfarism to both the rich and the poor, military spending, and foreign adventurism around the world will one day precipitate a crisis that will truly test our will to live in a free society. If government were not so much out of control, would not the most conservative president of the last 50 years be able to do something about the runaway deficits? The deficits have tragically only gotten very much worse under Reagan. All the problems we face, high interest rates, inflation, deficits, vicious business cycles with accelerating unemployment are serious problems indeed, but the real threat under the conditions to come will be the potential loss of our personal liberty. Without liberty, prosperity is lost and equality of poverty prevails

- Then-Representative Ron Paul, Congressional Record - US House of Representatives, September 20, 1984.

Due to the global impact of the American economy, this is a contest that will have a huge impact on the next decade of economic thought. Considering then the importance of the debate, it seems right that it be between two of the United States' finest orators, campaigners & public thinkers.

So to supporters of libertarian small government or liberal public intervention; of free speech, free press & free peaceful assembly; of local decisions being made by local people; of constitutional rights that apply to all equally -

• getting an Obama versus Paul debate means challenging attempts to manufacture candidates and filter the news that reaches you;
• getting an Obama versus Paul debate means avoiding the inaccurate rhetoric and 'personality politics' of political popularity contests and allows for a real discussion about how people live;

- so to supporters of all sides, regardless the winner of this primarily economic presidential contest, an Obama versus Paul debate will give America a president that fought hard, a president that won the argument and a president that will likely set the tone internationally for the next decade.

==========
References:
==========
+ Ben Chu's 'Did the IMF preach austerity?'; in The Independent; 21 September 2011.

+ Senator Obama on the Economy and Energy, on YouTube; 26 June 2008.

+ Ron Paul's speech from the Congressional Record — US House of Representatives, 20 September 1984; in the article 'The Economics of a Free Society'; on Mises.org; 23 May 2008; excerpted from Ron Paul's 'Pillars of Prosperity'; Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008.

The Go Between - John Bercow

Since Mr John Bercow was elected Speaker by Parliament in the wake of the expenses scandal, he has been fighting to make it a better place.

This has meant spending a lot of time combating the bad habits of members. So far a number of MPs have felt the sharp end of the Speaker's tongue:

'Order. There is far too much shouting in the Chamber and the Secretary of State for Education should not be shouting his head off — it is a very bad example to set to the nation’s schoolchildren'

- Mr Bercow rebuking the education minister, Mr Michael Gove.

'Order! I say to the Children's Minister, try to calm down and behave like an adult; and if you can't, if it's beyond you, leave the chamber, get out, we'll manage without you... no it's not funny, only in your mind, Mr Loughton is it funny. It's not funny at all, it's disgraceful'

- Mr Bercow rebuking the Children's Minister, Mr Tim Loughton.

Speaker Bercow isn't alone in his appreciation of the need to clean up Parliament's behaviour (Hodder, 2011), nor do the Speaker's attempts to clean up Britain's political sphere end at the door to the Palace of Westminster. In interviews he has been outspoken against certain media establishments and their comments, amongst others, on how his wife ought to act due to his role as speaker:

'I think there is a good deal of old-fashioned chauvinism. The notion that somehow my wife has got a duty either to agree with me or to say nothing. My wife is an independent person, she's entitled to her own views'

-Mr Bercow comments on attempts by critics to 'attack him through his wife'.

From the Speaker's lectures (BBC, 2011) celebrating the centenary of the Parliament Act to hosting President Obama, who spoke at Westminster Hall earlier this year; Speaker Bercow is steadily trying to manage Parliament's identity towards positive goals through celebrations of its heritage, rather than just swatting bad behaviour as it rears its ugly head.

When our ancestors reined in monarchs through control of taxation and budgets, and Responsible Government became a reality, the Speaker became a powerful political figure as Parliament's representative to the king. Around the empire, Speakers became important voices for democracy, such as Louis-Joseph Papineau in Canada.

In those days it would be the Speaker's job to rally parliamentarians to challenge & restrain the excesses of the executive. With the advent of responsible government and a virtually powerless monarch, the Speaker has been increasingly required to focus upon improving the reputation and perceived image of Parliament, to clean up the public image of how a government conducts its business.

The 'character' of a leader or leadership institution in itself is not enough for legitimate governance, but it can serve to improve the confidence of stakeholders in the arguments and decisions being made within those institutions - generating trust through accountability and transparency.

Reicher and Haslam (2007) had three propositions about the nature of leadership:

• Proposition 1: The emergence of leadership is related to the development of a shared social identity.
• Proposition 2: Leadership serves to facilitate the development of shared social identity.
• Proposition 3: The success of leaders relates (i) to their ability to convince others to accept their proposals as valid expressions of group identity, and (ii) to their ability to create a social reality which corresponds to their definition of social identity.

Mr Bercow's job has been to drive Parliament towards a reform of its identity, not just to change the outward perception of Parliament, but to change Parliament's perception of itself. This has meant strenuous efforts to promote parliamentary scrutiny, respect for procedure and working hard to reform what it means to be a public delegate; sometimes in the face of an abject flaunting of the rules of conduct pertaining to members (BBC, 2011).

For more on Mr John Bercow, see the BBC's 'The John Bercow story' & Prospect Magazine's 'Getting the House in order. For more on Reicher & Haslam's research take a look at wikipedia's page on BBC's 'The Experiment'.

==========
References:
==========
+ Hodder Education, 'Parliament and Politics: A study in how not to debate'; 6 July 2011.

+ BBC Democracy Live, 'Speaker's lectures: Centenary of the Parliament Act'; 2011.

+ Steve Reicher & S.Alexander Haslam's 'Identity entrepreneurship and the consequences of identity failure: The dynamics of leadership in the BBC Prison Study'; in Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 125-147; 2007.

+ BBC's 'Defence Secretary Liam Fox quits'; 14 October 2011.

Life as a Leader - Gordon Brown

Since his resignation, Mr Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister and Chancellor, has kept himself close to the public's view. Despite failing to secure a new term in power for Labour (even with his resignation), the former Premier is still showing much of the bullish resilience he displayed in office.

The former Labour leader's comeback came with a speech on behalf of his constituents - and the British shipbuilding industries - on the matter of maintenance for British aircraft carriers (BBC, 2010). Mr Brown seemed to take a good deal of confidence from the reception he received for this speech. So much so that his name had been one of those in consideration for Head of the IMF, until an alleged intervention by Mr Cameron blocked his appointment (Stewart, 2011).

However his role in combating the financial crisis while in office, back in 2008, was so prominent that he nevertheless received the Chair of another economic policy committee, the World Economic Forum (WEF, April 2011). In this role he has been a voice in the background of global economics, pushing for a more International response to the ongoing crisis, calling for nations to recognise their interdependence (WEF, September 2011).

Mr Brown has stressed that European nations need to 'invest in infrastructure', a economic policy clearly at odds with the more conservative austerity programs dominating policy-making in the largely conservative governments of the EU (Guardian, 2011).

This quietly made case is good for the Labour party opposition in Britain, and the policy framework it is developing as alternative measures to deep cuts (Kettle, 2011; Balls, 2011).

The ex-premier is using the influence of that role well to demonstrate an important aspect of leadership. This particular aspect is known as framing work, describing the way a leader tries to shape both the identity of a group & its aims - managing the relationship, not just between leaders and followers, but also relations between followers and the future. In all seeking to create a unified message that those who identify with the group can get behind (Johnson et al, 2001).

Mr Brown's work is invaluable to the Labour Party in their attempts to break out of the routine of opposition and present a real alternative that people can understand and get behind.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC Democracy Live, 'Brown makes first Commons speech since leaving No 10'; 8mins 10; 1 November 2010.

+ Heather Stewart's 'Gordon Brown wins economic consolation prize after IMF rebuff'; in The Guardian; 22 April 2011.

+ World Economic Forum, 'Gordon Brown to Join World Economic Forum as Chair of New Policy and Initiatives Coordination Board'; 22 April 2011.

+ World Economic Forum, 'Globally Coordinated Action Needed to Put World Growth Back on Sustainable Path'; 16 September 2011.

+ Sheila Pulham, Chris Fenn, Garry Blight & Guardian Research Department's 'Left, right, left: how political shifts have altered the map of Europe'; in The Guardian; 28 July 2011.

+ Martin Kettle's 'Ed Miliband has offered an alternative – but will anyone vote for it?'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2011.

+ Labour conference: Ed Balls unveils five-point plan for growth - video; in The Guardian; 26 September 2011.

+ Alan Johnson, Colin Barker & Michael Lavalette's 'Leadership & Social Movements';
Manchester University Press, 2001.

Lies, Damned Lies & Reporting

There have been two examples in the last week of the mistakes that the media can make. Two major news outlets were caught red handed, on the one hand pre-empting the news and on the other outright revising it.

On 1st October, the New York Times was caught changing the angle of its coverage of the Brooklyn Bridge incident, to present a series of events less friendly to the protesters and more friendly to the police.

This late alteration by the New York Times illustrates some problems:

• first, that vested interests in a particular message can (it would not be unreasonable to believe) encourage our confirmation bias, making it harder to see anything but the information that agrees with our own views;
• and second, that information is now spread so quickly that reporters have little time between events and deadlines, which has had consequences for the amount of time available for editorial scrutiny.

This short time window has generated a need to map out stories in advance of events. And it was this practice that caught out the Daily Mail, which incorrectly reported that Amanda Knox's appeal had been rejected by the Italian courts.

It is not always enough to regulate publishers, editors and the news media. They exist in a competitive market where your attention is the prize. Therefore the reader must always be vigilant - reading diverse and credibly sourced material to filter out the subjectivities of any single publication. The reader must now be a researcher and investigative journalist themselves in order to expose subjectivities behind reporting and get to the facts.

==========
References
==========
+ Kevin M. Lerner's coverage of the Times report & the internet's reaction.

+ Malcolm Coles discusses the Mail's slip up, along with similar slips by other news outlets.

October: One Year of Le Rouge Journal

Welcome to the second year of this blog. Thank you to the thousands of visitors we've had in the past year and we hope you'll stick with us into the future.

Our new year begins with a new layout; a few tweaks to make us a little more user friendly and friendlier on the eye.

In the next few months we'll have:

+ personality profiles of some high profile politicians;
+ a discussion of the role of personality in politics;
+ a review of the contenders in the US Presidential race;

... and much more besides.

And last, but certainly not least, we hope to collect articles to be available in book form in the next few months, both paperback and electronic.