Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof.

Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
CHAPTER 13: POLITICAL EXECUTIVES AND LEADERSHIP

Questions for discussions:

1. In what circumstances may heads of state play a significant political role?

Answer:

The heads of state—the personal embodiment of state’s power and authority—

definitely play an important role in the political system and especially regarding the
survival of such regimes. Hence, it cannot be denied that these political actors have a
significant role in certain circumstances which may vary in different contexts and
depending on their functionalities such as ceremonial duties, control of policy-making,
popular political leadership, bureaucratic management, and crisis response.

To further expound, an executive or a head of state has an imperative role in

such political ceremonies such as state occasions, foreign visits, international
conferences, and ratification of treaties or legislation because they serve as a
representation of the people they represent (which is the governed) and this also
symbolizes or provides focus for unity and political loyalty—helping the construction and
maintenance of legitimacy. Hence, their representation and portrayal as “national
leaders” in the aforementioned ceremonies are vital when it comes to public support
and electoral credibility which are both important and determining factors in the political
system and winning political power. Furthermore, the role of an executive has also a
significant role in the control of policy-making and especially upon the formulation of
policies that should benefit the governed—the executive should govern the people. In
addition, the political executive should learn to develop or formulate coherent economic
and social programs that meet the needs of more complex and politically sophisticated
societies, and to control the state’s various external relationships in an increasingly
interdependent world.

On the other hand, the popularity of political leadership and bureaucratic

leadership are also contributory factors when it comes to the significance of an
executive in the political system because these are crucial to the character and stability
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
of such incumbent regime and it should be the responsibility of these leaders to oversee
the implementation of policies—as they are charged and elected to do the task to run
the machinery of the government to serve the people. Thus, this political popularity is
not a shallow matter due to the fact that if the leadership of a political executive is
unpopular, without the support of the general public, policy formulation and
implementation becomes difficult—affecting the legitimacy of the regime. Moreover, as
political leadership is being discussed, the role of an executive has also an important
role especially in times of crisis (either domestic or international concern) because they
have the power (e.g., emergency powers) to respond in the mentioned scenario—of
course, by the virtue of its hierarchical structure and the scope it provides for personal
leadership.

In conclusion, the heads of state definitely play a significant role in such

circumstances in the political system like ceremonial duties, control of policy-making,
popular political leadership, bureaucratic management, and crisis response which on a
sharp take, these factors are their main essence for the functionality of a government
and especially the survival of a regime.

2. Is the only power that a chief executive possesses the power to persuade?

Answer:

No. The power to persuade is not the only power that a chief executive
possesses because this particular political actor also exercises a wide range of law-
making powers by the usage of executive decrees, orders, and other instruments for the
functionality of not just the executive branch but to the whole body of government.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the power of persuasion or enforcing direction is
innate to the chief executive (for they are trained for this kind of instance) because
these mentioned factors or channels are their passage to initiate legislative programs
and make the legislative process work as they are the ones who are ratifying laws and
executing these things. On the other hand, of course, a political executive is not just the
sole actor who is doing the moves in the political system and more likely to dominate
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
the process of policy-making. With the help of the initiation of political parties and
interest groups as well as the expertise and specialist knowledge of bureaucrats or civil
servants—they also play a crucial role in policy formulation; leaving the political
executive to establish the overall direction of government policy. Therefore, it is not
appropriate to say that the power to persuade is the only power that a chief executive
possesses because, besides this matter, the executive also possessed a broad range of
law-making powers (through executive decrees, orders, and other instruments) for the
functionality of the government and for the betterment of the people.

3. Are presidents or prime ministers more powerful?

Answer:

No. Presidents or Prime Ministers are not more powerful than their lower
subordinates in the hierarchical structure in such political system because they may be
varied in different contexts and constraints in the government. For instance, as argued
by Richard Neustadt (1990) as “separated institutions sharing powers” in the book, it is
being said that in the United States of America—although the president was designated
as the head of state, chief executive, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and chief
diplomat, and was granted wide-ranging powers of patronage and the right to veto
legislation—Congress was still invested with strong counterbalancing powers in the
sense of declaration of war, rejection of presidential vetoes, and on other case, the
Senate was also empowered to approve appointments and ratify treaties. Moreover, in
the same context in the US, there are also some factors which could hinder the success
of US presidents which are the Congress (the “success rate with Congress through
congressional scrutiny and its power over the president to execute impeachment”); the
federal bureaucracy (acting as a constraint in the presidency in which they pursue their
own interest other than administration priorities); the Supreme Court (exercising
influence to shape the president’s political agenda and their inevitable scrutiny for the
president’s potential corruption or abuse of power with their “security of tenure” that
could be a constraint from the success of the executive part); and the media (the USA’s
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
fourth branch of government which prizes both its political independence and its
reputation for seeking truth—that may affect the president’s image or appeal to the
general public).

In the same manner, as the Prime Ministers, they are not more powerful than
other political actors because although they are the ones who are in charge to
command cohesive parliamentary majorities which can wield power, they are also
subject to important constraints. As the example stated in the book, the need to
maintain party unity by ensuring that the various factions and ideological wings of the
party are represented in the cabinet—and the pressure in countries such as Canada to
maintain regional and linguistic representation—act as important checks on prime
ministerial power. On the other hand, the advent of a coalition government, as under
David Cameron in the UK since 2010, also constrains the prime minister’s powers of
patronage. Nevertheless, briefly saying, prime ministers are only as powerful as their
cabinets, parties, and broader political circumstances allow them to be.

In conclusion, it is indeed that the significance of Presidents or Prime Ministers

are not more powerful than their lower subordinates in the hierarchical structure in the
political system because there are various constraints in the government, for instance in
the US, key political factors like the function and role of Congress, the federal
bureaucracy, the Supreme Court, and even the media (which is outside the political
realm), have different implication towards the success of such presidency and the
survival of their regime.

4. Is collective cabinet government a principle worth preserving?

Answer:

Yes. A collective cabinet government is a worth preserving principle that should

be embedded in the political system especially in the executive branch because it
ensures that the executive power is not being used for personal tool and that it serves
as an imperative linkage for internal, efficient, and effective coordination across
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
government departments upon formulating and implementing government policies. To
further elaborate, a cabinet—a committee comprises of senior ministers who represent

various government departments or ministries—is acting as a network between

institutions and political actors in such administration who play significant and essential
roles in the overall direction and coordination of government policy. It also
acknowledges the extent to which policy influence is exerted through the building up of
alliances and coalitions of support. To put it in context, in presidential systems such as
the USA, the cabinet exists to serve the president by acting as a policy adviser, rather
than a policy-maker. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the full cabinet is merely the
hub of a cabinet system, comprising committees of subject specialists able to examine
policy proposals in greater detail and depth than is possible in the cabinet itself.
Therefore, a collective cabinet government is a worth preserving principle because the
widespread use of cabinets reflects the political and administrative need for collective
procedures within the political executive (securing the executive power is not being
abused for personal interest of the chief executive) and it also acts as a vital link for
coordination between government departments and political actors when it comes to
formulating and implementing policies.

5. Are leaders “born” or “made”?

Answer:

Political leaders are can be both “born” and “made” because there is no
structured process regarding their emergence or presence and that it may also be
varied in different theories of leadership which can be distinguished as a natural gift, a
sociological phenomenon, an organizational necessity, and a political skill.

When it comes to the traditional view of leadership as “a natural gift”, Aristotle

emphasized that leadership is strictly an individual quality (that is ultimately innate from
birth) and that it manifests in the personalities of what were traditionally thought of as
“mean of destiny”. Thus, as he put it in his own words, Aristotle stated that “men are
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled”. Moreover, the second
alternative view regarding leadership is the “sociological phenomenon” which mainly
suggests that the patterns of behavior of political leaders are can be observed through
the lens of sociological, rather than a psychological phenomenon. Hence, this
perspective pertains that socio-historical forces are the key factors upon the “creation”
of leaders and that these forces are cannot be avoided because it encapsulates the
notion of struggle, competition, and power dynamics in the society which carved the
characteristics of leaders in general.

Another theory of leadership that is important upon analyzing its origin or factors
behind it is the perception that it arose in the pursuit of organizational necessity. This
particular view of leadership sees it in largely technical terms as a rational, or
bureaucratic, device. In this matter, leadership is essentially “an organizational
necessity” that arises from the need for coherence, unity, and direction within any
complex institution. Moreover, the final theory of leadership portrays it very much as an
artifact—as “a political skill” that can be learned and practiced. Briefly saying, political
leadership may somehow incline to the art of manipulation—a perhaps inevitable
feature of democratic politics in an age of mass communications.

In conclusion, political leadership can be categorized as both “born” and “made”

because it may be dependent on some factors or varied to some extents, contexts, and
perspectives such as viewing it as a natural gift, a sociological phenomenon, an
organizational necessity, and a political skill which are all valid since when it comes to
the notion of “power dynamics” in the political system—there is no structured and
definite description upon analyzing the concept of leadership.

6. Is the task of leadership becoming easier or more difficult?

Answer:

The task of leadership is definitely becoming more difficult because it is being

subjected to several factors and responsibilities which are all embedded in the essence
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
of being a “leader”. For instance, leadership is not just about the pattern of behavior or
personal quality wherein it can be done through exerting influence and charisma over a
larger body or group to organize—leadership is also affiliated and interconnected to the
concept of representation because such political leader shall represent and symbolize
the larger society he or she governs (be it in the ratification of laws, foreign affairs, or
international conferences. Leadership cannot also be ended in the notion of
representation because such political leader shall also employ his or her functionality as
an elected official through addressing the needs and interests of the governed (the
people) by having a direct and control of policy-making process. Hence, in a practical
perspective, leadership shall always prevail in the times of uncertainties such as crisis
because the idea of “followership” must be protected at all costs since this is an
imperative matter when it comes to political legitimacy.

Furthermore, within the framework of democratic politics, powerful constraints

are also being placed on leadership wherein political leaders are publicly accountable
for their actions and that established institutional mechanisms are being upheld through
which they can be called to account and removed. Nevertheless, leaders are doomed to
disappoint (to fail to live up to the expectations of the governed) because modern
societies in this generation have become more complex and enmeshed with global
influences that politicians find it almost impossible to get things done. Thus, such
societies are also becoming more diverse and fragmented wherein political leaders are
finding it increasingly difficult to construct a political appeal based on a common culture
and a set shared of values.

Therefore, it is indeed that leadership, especially in modern societies, are

becoming more difficult to be both achieved and maintained because this concept nor
more likely a political responsibility is always subjected to several factors which are all
embedded in the political system such as mechanisms of constraint, governmental
functionalities, pressure from the general populace, diverse and fragmented social
actors, and structured significance in the political realm and civil society.

7. Should strong leaders be admired or feared?

Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science

Answer:

It is obvious that strong leaders should be feared or more likely not to be allowed
to emerge especially in the current championed democratic rule in today’s society
because it will inevitably result in authoritarianism (violation of long-fought human rights
and other facets of democracy), the infantilization of societies (preventing from active
political engagement and egalitarian growth), and more likely to be doomed to fail. To
further expound, due to the fact that democracy has been established, enshrined, and
advanced in most countries, political leadership has increasingly been depersonalized
through the existence of several constitutional and institutional constraints which are all
acting as mechanisms to prevent power abuse. Thus, political leaders should not be
admired and should be feared instead because the concern for employing charisma
(charm or the power of personality) or authoritarian behavior in the political system as a
passage to command the people and such policies must not be allowed—for it is not
based on formal rules or procedures and it has no limit which could affect a democratic
rule.

Moreover, if a strong leader is being feared, it has also a great chance to

infantilize the society since this kind of leadership has an immeasurable impact not just
on the followers but also on the public at large. For instance, through manifesting a
charismatic leadership (that has a near-mystical characteristic) might generate an
uncritical loyalty from the general public—amounting perhaps devotion and stagnant
progress in the society. The rise of personalized leadership (that is being feared)
definitely infantilizes society—instilling a political passivity and unwillingness to engage
in questioning, argument, and debate that is incompatible with a healthy democracy.
Nevertheless, if this instance will happen in modern societies, it is more likely that
leaders who come to power largely as a result of their charismatic attitude or façade
political image will typically end in the future. Personalized leaders “shine” in the theatre
of politics, where their oratorical (and, often, televisual) skills are most in evidence, but
their administrative and policy-making skills may be much less developed.
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
In conclusion, strong leaders should be more feared rather than be admired
because these corrupt and abusive actors are detrimental not just for the political
system per se but for the society in general. In addition, a political leader who has a
strongman façade is not only harmful to a democratic rule but for the harmony of the
governed (the people) due to the fact that this could be a prerequisite to an authoritarian
rule or regime that would diminish the essence of democracy; a key factor to infantilize
the society that would undermine dissent, political engagements, and egalitarian growth;
and most importantly doomed to be failed since it lacks the substance that is essential
for the survival of a regime or the formulation of policies.

8. Are cults of personality a feature of all political systems, not just dictatorial ones?

Answer:

Yes. Cults of personality are definitely a feature of all political systems (not just
dictatorial ones) because it involves the notion of getting the trust and support of the
people (the electorates) which will build or strengthen their legitimacy and for the
survival of their regime. A cult of personality can be defined as a cult of leadership (i.e.,
other forms or types of leadership are all akin to this kind of phenomenon) in which a
particular political leader is being portrayed as a heroic or God-like figure. By this, it can
be distinguished that it might be used as a propaganda device by politicians to either
win the political power in the office or to further attain the success of their regime.

Moreover, since the personality of such political leader is being weaponized as a

key factor for their interest or propaganda, it can also be subjected to some sort of
manipulation (of course, through the intensification of the influence of mass
communications) because the sense of “followership” regarding this matter is being
detached from being critical citizens and responsive to political engagements. Briefly
saying, the advent of patron-client relationship with the idea of “cults of personality” is
inevitable in all political systems since the source of all political wisdom and an unfailing
judge of the national interest is being characterized by the cult which heavily implies that
any form of criticism or opposition amounts to treachery or lunacy. However, the
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
downside of this phenomenon is that the authority linked to a specific individual is
difficult to sustain for a system of personal rule and even outlive its founding figure per
se because one’s charisma and presence are different and cannot be duplicated or
replicated.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the cults of personality (in the main sense of
charismatic authority) are both a feature and embedded in the nature of all political
systems (not just dictatorial ones) due to the fact that it involves the notion of leadership
per se which mainly pertains to getting the trust and support of the electorates (the core
power of their legitimacy) and for the survival of their regime (a determining factor of
their political success).

9. Do we get the political leaders we deserve?

Answer:

Unfortunately, no. Without considering an anarchic characteristic, politics per se

in modern societies are already nasty and brutal because political leaders and political
actors, in general, have their own interests and propagandas—resorting to an extent of
much intense competition for power in the political system. Hence, this competition not
only encapsulates the notion of competing in the pursuit of political power, but it also
sheds light on the usage of different channels and machinery in order for them to be
successful in achieving their desired status-quo in the political system and establishing
their legitimacy.

Brutally honest speaking, politicians are often seen as power-seeking hypocrites

who conceal personal ambition behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological
conviction—hence, this perception has become more common in the modern period as
intensified media exposure has more effectively brought to light examples of corruption
and dishonesty. Furthermore, another reason why we do not get the political leaders we
deserve is that these leaders tend to enhance and purify their own personalities—
forcing them to project themselves in the hope of gaining electoral support—which has
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
undoubtedly been strengthened by modern means of mass communication (especially
television) that mainly emphasize personalities rather than policies, and at the same
time, providing leaders with powerful machinery with which to manipulate their public
images. Hence, the aforementioned detrimental factors have significant roles in the
general public’s perception and impression of these political leaders because through
these facades, they are being blinded from truth and manipulated from their essence in
the political realm which are to criticize and seek accountability.

In conclusion, it is unfortunate to think about that we do not get the political

leaders we deserve because these supposedly public servants (that are elected by the
general public to serve them and the nation) and leaders (that should be on the frontline
to bring change in society) are the ones who are just using the concept of “politics” not
as a field to serve the people but to employ their self-serving interest; utilizing
“elections” not as a gateway to winning political power but more likely making it as their
machinery for maintaining their status-quo through social conditioning; and manipulating
the “electorates” as their capital machinery that would be the basis of their legitimacy
without genuine concern.

RELEVANT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CHAPTER

1. What would be the image of politics without leadership? (own perspective)

2. In to what extent do the three branches of government interconnected with one
another upon the formulation and implementation of policies? (see p. 285-286)
3. Can the entirety of government function without the presence of a political
executive? (see p. 286-288)
4. Why do political executives are more popular than other political actors? (own
perspective)
5. Does the nature of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and dictatorship inevitable to
presidents only? (own perspective)
6. What form or kind of leadership should modern societies adapt to? (own
perspective)
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
7. Are the terms “President” and “Prime Minister” interchangeable? Are there any
differences between the two? (see p. 289-298)
8. If the functionality of the president is to implement laws, then what is the
significance of the cabinets? (see p. 298-300)
9. Is there a perfect view or theory of leadership? What kind of leadership do we
deserve? (see p. 301-304)