In all historical periods, political leadership was one of the most important and complex issues of governance and ruling. Researchers admit that during the 20th century, there is a personalization of leadership within the executive branch of government. Political leadership is unidentifiable in pursuit of the indefinable. Leadership is unidentifiable in the sense that it has no physical manifestation. It is not an object. It does not have substance in the same manner as the nose on one’s face (Lyall & Sell 2006). There is no material thing which we can touch or see and then unambiguously declare that we have identified ‘leadership’. Instead, ‘leadership’ is an abstraction. It is a social science concept. It is a concept whose meaning is socially constructed. Individuals may have their preferred definition of leadership. At best, there may be common agreement that one definition of leadership is better than all others. Whatever the case, ‘leadership’ is an essentially contested concept. In this sense at least, the concept of ‘leadership’ is indefinable and closely resembles other related social science concepts, such as ‘power’, ‘influence’, authority’ and ‘control’. the case of Latin American countries shows that strong leadership can be based on unique charismatic personalities of leaders and radical-charismatic authority (Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez) as well as regeneration of ‘”vision” followed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Radical-charismatic leadership is based on symbolic elements and principles of authority. In Cuba, both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez were symbolic figures of social and political changes and reformation. Fidel Castro was often seen as the creator and uncontested military and political leader of the Revolution and his brother entrusted with the role of alter ego, the free-wheeling and hence normally vulnerable Fidel has been immune from the fate that befell the somewhat similarly disorganized and careless Ben Bella in Algeria. There could be no Cuban Boumediène, though there must have been times when sober members of the government, not to mention the Russians, regretted that the possibility did not exist (Lyall & Sell 2006).
Critics (Lyall & Sell 2006) admit the use of unique symbols and gestures by Fidel Castro. Thus, to untangle the moods and motives that shaped Fidel’s behavior on any given occasion can be an enormously complicated matter. In Santiago on January 2, 1959, Fidel Castro had indulged in a self-gratifying gesture with an eye on history; but there was undoubtedly more to it than that. He was banking on the appeal of nationalism to rally the widest sort of popular support, a matter of prime importance. In this respect his judgment was sound, for the response to his appeal was enthusiastic. Castro came to give his thanks, but also to have a strategic platform from which to speak to Latin America–and to size up the situation. Venezuela, more than Cuba, could be the key to the continental revolution that was already in the back of his mind (Lyall & Sell 2006). The masses in Caracas, the seat of power in Venezuela, had been radicalized, and nationalism was rampant. It was here that Richard Nixon, then vice-president of the United States, had been subjected to the greatest indignities during his ill-fated goodwill tour of South America in May 1958. Hooted, jostled, spat upon, and stoned, Nixon barely escaped serious injury. President Eisenhower had been on the verge of sending a task force to rescue him. The highlight of Fidel’s visit to Caracas was the great mass meeting in the Silencio Plaza, where the Cuban spellbinder put on a performance long remembered in the city. This was a scarcely veiled reference to Venezuela’s “unfinished” revolution. More important, as it turned out, it was the opening of the debate in a polemic that was to grow in intensity and geographic scope over the years–in fact, until October 1967, when the failure of Cuban armed intervention in several countries, and particularly in Bolivia, provided sufficient empirical evidence to place the dispute in a new perspective (Niemann et al 2002). The debate concerned the assessment of the Cuban experience as a model for revolution in Latin America. From the theoretical point of view, it involved a challenge to established criteria and principles, including those professed by the exponents of Soviet Marxism. From the practical point of view, it was related to the pressures that could be exerted in Latin America in support of the Cuban Revolution, that is to say, the national interests of the new Cuban state (Lyall & Sell 2006).
A similar approach was followed by the political leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. This may be the only time that Chavez publicly expressed himself with such complete candor on vital political issues. Except for nationalism, the locus of power has been the only permanent political feature of the new state since its inception. From humanism to orthodox and back to neo-orthodoxy, from the first “integration” of the revolutionary organizations to Chavez himself rarely took part in the public debates on these matters (Lyall & Sell 2006). While reforms fought the ideological battle, he assumed the position of the bearded patriarch, respected by all members of the revolutionary family whose quarrels he observed with patience until an issue arose that seemed sufficiently serious for him to intervene and provide “orientation.” Similar to Castro, Chavez created strong power based on military authority. “Under Hugo Chavez dozens of military officers have served as presidential advisors, cabinet members, governors, and congressmen, as well as in many other important government posts. Army doctors are working in civilian hospitals, soldiers are building schools and highways, military doctrine is being taught in schools” (Schulz 2001, p. 59). These actions can be interpreted as symbolic actions aimed to create an image of a strong leader and power.
In Latin America, both Chavez and Castro had created and was ruling over socialist states tantamount to negating a fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism, namely, that at some point in a revolutionary process the leading role in setting up the new socialist state is inevitably assumed by the vanguard party of the workers, peasants, and military (Lyall & Sell 2006). For instance, in the 1965 version of the Communist Party of Cuba and beyond-through ideological and organizational thick and thin “control in our hands” has not diminished (Kozloff, 2007), Thus, it later turned out that the new Communist Party of Cuba was not the progeny of the party or even an amalgamation of revolutionary sectors, but a reincarnation of the Movement of July 26th, purged, toughened, polished, and streamlined, with Fidel Castro at the head and practically all positions of strategic importance occupied by veterans of the old movement. “But again Peru, though the most notorious case, has not been alone. In a number of countries – Venezuela under Chavez and Argentina under Menem come quickly to mind strong executives, backed by the military and security forces, have dominated the policy process, bypassed constitutional constraints, intimidated the opposition, and limited political participation” (Schulz 2001, p. 59).
Different leaders have different kinds of ambitions which are reflected in their symbolic images and unique personalities. They have different kinds of aims, or goals, that they wish to fulfill. In particular, leaders vary in both the focus and the scope of their ambitions. These variations have the potential to affect the outcome of the decision-making process (Kagan, 2007). For example, individual leaders may focus their -attention on certain aspects of this process at the expense of others. It may be that some leaders will concentrate on the procedural aspects of government, ensuring that the business of government runs smoothly, whereas others will be more policy-oriented (Moreover, some Presidents and Prime Ministers may naturally steer a course towards ‘high’ politics and away from ‘low’ politics. ‘High’ politics includes areas such as defense and foreign policy as well as matters such as constitutional reform. These areas reinforce the statecraft aspect of the leader’s role. They emphasize the difference between the status of Presidents and Prime Ministers and that of the other members of the government (Lyall & Sell 2006). They also usually provide good photo opportunities and the chance to escape the low-life intrigue of party politics. Still, whether they organize or innovate and whether or not they prefer ‘high’ to ‘low’ politics, political leaders vary in the focus of their ambitions (Kagan, 2007).
American leadership represents a unique combination of a strong President-leader and political leadership of the Congress. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama try to differentiate between leadership styles is to establish a dichotomy of leadership behavior. In its most rudimentary form, this might involve distinguishing between uncompromising leaders and malleable leaders. That is to say, between those leaders who are habitually willing to fight their comer and those who are willing to cede. Both leaders pay special attention to their ancestry and unique racial images so popular among Americans. Obama suggests that American democratic principles are shared by over a hundred nations. The American military is not only the largest but the only one capable of projecting force into distant theaters. Obama emphasizes decision-making and task performance, even at the risk of alienating colleagues (Obama, 2006). He distinguished between Presidents who had active—positive, active—negative, passive—positive, and passive—negative characters. He argued that leadership style depended on which type of character Presidents possessed. Presidents and Prime Ministers operate within a framework of complex institutional structures, historical forces, and societal demands. The one person who is seemingly well-placed to exercise political leadership within the US system is the President. The US President has few party resources on which to draw. Political parties act only as weak and largely unreliable support mechanisms for US Presidents (see below). However, in the USA there are three dimensions of presidential leadership: constitutional powers, administrative resources, and popular legitimacy. Although the various elements of these three dimensions serve as the basis for presidential leadership, they also present the President with certain challenges and constraints. In this way, although the presidency represents the fulcrum of leadership in the country, the system is such that the President’s ability to set and realise the leadership agenda is never guaranteed (Frankeruta et al 2007). Consistent with the twin notions of the separation of powers and checks and balances, the constitutional prerogatives of the President are considerable but qualified. One of the overriding concerns of the Founding Fathers was to avoid creating a presidency whose incumbent would resort to the ‘tyranny of the one’. In foreign policy-making, the President has a similar set of powers. Most importantly, Presidents have the power to negotiate treaties with foreign governments. However, such treaties have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Upper House of Congress, the Senate.
What is more, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also vary in the scope of their ambitions. There are differences in the extent of the policy change that political leaders wish to bring about both within and between different leadership arenas (Frankeruta et al 2007). We are most familiar with ‘great’ leaders who aspire to leave their mark on all aspects of the domestic political system and even on the world system. Such leaders have a particular vision that they wish to fulfill or a program of policy proposals that they wish to implement. In one of the debates, Obama pays special attention to his origin and unique African-American ancestry to create a symbolic image of a black leader. Following Prewitt (2005):
In a front-page story on August 30, 2004, The New York Times noted that Alan Keyes, a black Republican running for the Illinois Senate seat, questioned whether his opponent Barac Obama, the son of a Kenyan father and a white American mother, was an African American: “Barack Obama claims an African-American heritage. Barack Obama and I have the same race–that is, physical characteristics. We are not from the same heritage. My ancestors toiled in slavery in this country” (p. 5).
This episode shows that American leaders try to create a unique racial image so important for the community and voters.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differ not only in the focus and scope of their ambitions but also in how they try to bring these ambitions about. Although every individual is unique, it is still possible to identify similarities between the kinds of ways that different political leaders behave in office. It is possible to generalize about the behavior of political leaders and to identify particular leadership styles (Bernstein 2008). These styles may be identified from empirical observations about a person’s behavior in office or they may be constructed based on an individual’s total life history using an explicit theory of personality (psychobiography). Whichever methodology is adopted, a leader’s style may have an impact on the decision-making process. In this way, governmental decisions are at least in part a function of the different kinds of leadership styles that political leaders exhibit. Hillary Clinton uses a symbolic meaning of her famous name and the unique qualities of a woman leader. “McKinney, a member of the church for 25 years, said she was “mixed” between Hillary and Obama: “It’s so difficult because we’ve got a woman, plus we have a black man” in the primary, said the retired social worker. “And it’s a good thing because it’s time for a change” (Burke and Holmes 2008, p. 2). In the sense that different kinds of leaders vary in terms of the focus and scope of their ambitions, then the same country may experience different types and forms of political leadership at different times in different arenas simply as a result of a change from one leader to another. Some of how the ambitions of leaders impact the leadership process involve the leadership environment in general and the structure of political resources in particular (Douglas 2001).
In contrast to military power and dictatorship in Latin America, American leaders in the USA use institutions of race and gender to collectively comprise the leadership environment (Douglas 2001). Douglas (2001) briefly identifies the major elements of the leadership environment and examines the sorts of resources and constraints with which Presidents and Prime Ministers are faced. The distribution of power within the executive is partly affected by both the staff resources of Presidents and Prime Ministers and their relationship with the permanent administration. In terms of the former, there is no clear correlation between staff size and the ability to exercise leadership. This is not to say, though, that staff size and organization are unimportant. A leader who enjoys only an administrative backup may not be in a position to manage the decision-making process. Similarly, a leader who heads a large personal staff may have to spend time controlling its many members at the expense of wider governmental matters. In this way, staff size and its organization are factors in the policy process, but the way that they matter needs to be investigated in each country (Bernstein 2008). In terms of the wider administration, it is necessary to consider the extent to which the bureaucracy has an input into the decision-making process. When the input of permanent administrators is high, it is usually at the expense of elected representatives (Douglas 2001). The degree of input varies across countries according to administrative cultures and the organization of the bureaucracy. They are all innovators. Not all leaders, though, wish to bring about such a great degree of change. Some leaders may have a more restricted set of aims. They may be more policy-neutral and less reformist. In between these two extremes, there are the adjusters or parameter-setters. Such leaders modify policies only to a limited extent and often in a restricted set of areas. “Both Clinton and Obama have released lengthy lists of clergy endorsements, including out-of-state civil rights leaders and heads of national denominations. Moreover, both campaigns have trotted out megastars like Oprah Winfrey (for Obama) and Maya Angelou (for Clinton) to help make their case to black women” (Burke & Holmes 2008, p. 3). On the positive side, they have both the power and the duty to place policy recommendations before Congress. Presidents are the country’s chief political agenda-setter.
In sum, psychology and symbolic leadership shape the decisions o voters and citizens and create a certain image of an ideal political leader. Race and gender become the main determinants in a Clinton-Obama battle while military power and strong authority support Castro and Chavez. In America, there are certain constitutional restrictions to presidential leadership in the fields of policy. In Latin American countries, a political leader is a symbol of the nation and its power.
Bibliography
Bernstein, C. 2008, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton NY: Vintage Books, pp. 537-564.
Burke, D., Holmes, C.S. 2008, Black Churches Torn between Clinton, Obama. The Christian Century, 125 (1), 1-13.
Douglas, A., Burtis, J. O., Pond-Burtis, K. 2001, Myth and Leadership Vision: Rhetorical Manifestations of Cultural Force. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7 (4), 55.
Frankeruta, G., Rosenfeld, G., Yglesias, M. 2007, Hillary Clinton for President? an American Prospect Debate. The American Prospect, 18 (4), 18.
Kagan, K. 2007, End of Dreams, Return of History. Policy Review, 144 (1), 17.
Kozloff, N. 2007, Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politic, and the Challenge to the U.S. NY:Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 7-36; 53-57.
Lyall, K. C., Sell, K. 2008, The True Genius of America at Risk: Are We Losing Our Public Universities to de Facto Privatization? Praeger.
Niemann, Y. F., Armitage, S. A., Hart, P., Weathermon, K. 2002, Chicana Leadership: The Frontiers Reader. University of Nebraska Press.
Obama, B. 2006, The Audacity of Hope: Toughts on Reclaiming the American Dream NY: Three Rivers Press, pp.101-176.
Prewitt, K. 2005, Racial Classification in America: Where Do We Go from Here? Daedalus 134 (1), 5.
Schulz, D. B. 2001, The Growing Threat to Democracy in Latin America. Parameters, 31 (1), 59.