What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age
In this magisterial and wide-ranging survey of political leadership over the past hundred years, Archie Brown challenges the widespread belief that strong leaders - those who dominate their colleagues and the policy-making process - are the most successful and admirable.
Within authoritarian regimes, a more collective leadership is a lesser evil compared with personal dictatorship where cultivation of the myth of the strong leader is often a prelude to oppression and carnage. Within democracies, although 'strong leaders' are seldom as strong or independent as they purport to be, the idea that one person is entitled to take the big decisions is dangerous nonetheless, and the advantages of a collegial style of leadership are too often overlooked.
In reality, only a minority of political leaders make a big difference, by challenging assumptions about the politically possible or setting in motion systemic change. Yet in a democracy that is rare. It is especially when enlightened leaders acquire power in an authoritarian system that the opportunity for radical transformation occurs.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, Willy Brandt and Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping and Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are among the leaders whom Brown examines in this original and illuminating study.
Within authoritarian regimes, a more collective leadership is a lesser evil compared with personal dictatorship where cultivation of the myth of the strong leader is often a prelude to oppression and carnage. Within democracies, although 'strong leaders' are seldom as strong or independent as they purport to be, the idea that one person is entitled to take the big decisions is dangerous nonetheless, and the advantages of a collegial style of leadership are too often overlooked.
In reality, only a minority of political leaders make a big difference, by challenging assumptions about the politically possible or setting in motion systemic change. Yet in a democracy that is rare. It is especially when enlightened leaders acquire power in an authoritarian system that the opportunity for radical transformation occurs.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, Willy Brandt and Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping and Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are among the leaders whom Brown examines in this original and illuminating study.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published April 10, 2014
About the author
Archie Brown
42 books77 followersArchibald Haworth Brown, commonly known as Archie Brown, is a British political scientist and historian. In 2005, he became an emeritus professor of politics at the University of Oxford and an emeritus fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford, where he served as a professor of politics and director of St Antony's Russian and East European Centre. He has written widely on Soviet and Russian politics, on communist politics more generally, on the Cold War, and on political leadership.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
April 17, 2017
Um livro bem mais longo do que eu queria. E mais baseado em anedotas do que princípios. Não que sejam algumas anedotas, o Archie Brown tem uma senhora experiência na área e conviveu com muitos líderes importantes e grandes analistas. Mas depois de ler o The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics, fiquei bem mais exigente com o que esperava: um livro conciso, com princípios claros e descrições que servem para demonstrar o ponto.
O livro se baseia em apontar situações e como líderes desempenharam nelas, para destacar que uma pessoa forte ou centralizadora não necessariamente toma boas decisões. Boas no sentido de realizarem o que propõe, independente de se as consequências são benéficas ou não. Mas no fim são isso, situações e mais situações, que tornam o livro muito mais longo do que precisaria ser se ele simplesmente alinhasse os exemplos e descrevesse um pouco menos. Entendo o propósito da descrição mais detalhada, que ajuda a contextualizar e tudo, mas não era o que eu buscava.
O livro se baseia em apontar situações e como líderes desempenharam nelas, para destacar que uma pessoa forte ou centralizadora não necessariamente toma boas decisões. Boas no sentido de realizarem o que propõe, independente de se as consequências são benéficas ou não. Mas no fim são isso, situações e mais situações, que tornam o livro muito mais longo do que precisaria ser se ele simplesmente alinhasse os exemplos e descrevesse um pouco menos. Entendo o propósito da descrição mais detalhada, que ajuda a contextualizar e tudo, mas não era o que eu buscava.
February 7, 2018
In this book, Archie Brown destroys the myth of a strong political leaders in both democracies and authoritarian states and says that these leaders - with some notable exceptions - do rather more harm than good. Don’t let it fool you: the best political leaders are those who are modest, can listen to experts and unite groups with opposing views. Societies in duress are particularly vulnerable to being taken in by “strong” personalities, but this can cause major problems both at home and abroad.
Archie delivers four type of political leadership styes: redefining, transformational, revolutionary and totalitarian and gives examples, complete with biographical sketches of every important political leader in the last century. On almost every page Brown offers us a historical tidbit or anecdote which is a nice bonus.
It is perhaps good to mention that Brown offers two type of political systems: democratic and totalitarian, each with its own characteristics.
Democratic system set restrictions so a single leader can’t overrule other political parties in the government. That’s why the most effective (democratic) leaders are people who know how to collaborate and persuade other political figures of their ideas.
The president of the United States, for instance, is kept in check by a complex, decentralised political system and this makes it difficult for any single president to oversee major changes to government or policy.
However, democratic leaders do have much more power over foreign policy. There are fewer limitations in government when it comes to crafting foreign policy, especially with regard to waging war. This is painfully obvious in the decision of Bush to invade Iraq and its support by Blair.
What he calls a redefining leader are those who are able to change politics, particularly in what people think on what is feasible and desirable. They redefine the political centre. As some examples Brown mentions Attlee and Thatcher, where as Macmillan and Blair were not.
A transformational leader is one who changes their nation is some systematic way, such as Madela in South Africa, Gorbachov in the USSR and De Gaulle in France. These leaders leave the political system of their country altered.
A revolutionary leader is a leader who changes the political system, albeit with some violence. One examples is Castro.
A totalitarian leader is a leader who leads by personal decree, setting up some own political system, together (but not always) a personality cult. Examples: Mussolini, Hitler, Mao and Stalin
Archie delivers four type of political leadership styes: redefining, transformational, revolutionary and totalitarian and gives examples, complete with biographical sketches of every important political leader in the last century. On almost every page Brown offers us a historical tidbit or anecdote which is a nice bonus.
It is perhaps good to mention that Brown offers two type of political systems: democratic and totalitarian, each with its own characteristics.
Democratic system set restrictions so a single leader can’t overrule other political parties in the government. That’s why the most effective (democratic) leaders are people who know how to collaborate and persuade other political figures of their ideas.
The president of the United States, for instance, is kept in check by a complex, decentralised political system and this makes it difficult for any single president to oversee major changes to government or policy.
However, democratic leaders do have much more power over foreign policy. There are fewer limitations in government when it comes to crafting foreign policy, especially with regard to waging war. This is painfully obvious in the decision of Bush to invade Iraq and its support by Blair.
What he calls a redefining leader are those who are able to change politics, particularly in what people think on what is feasible and desirable. They redefine the political centre. As some examples Brown mentions Attlee and Thatcher, where as Macmillan and Blair were not.
A transformational leader is one who changes their nation is some systematic way, such as Madela in South Africa, Gorbachov in the USSR and De Gaulle in France. These leaders leave the political system of their country altered.
A revolutionary leader is a leader who changes the political system, albeit with some violence. One examples is Castro.
A totalitarian leader is a leader who leads by personal decree, setting up some own political system, together (but not always) a personality cult. Examples: Mussolini, Hitler, Mao and Stalin
December 22, 2020
Would recommend in paper vs. audiobook. Wide-ranging and filled with dozens of interesting anecdotes. Written by a Brit, so very UK-centric compared to something you might read from USA.
The gist of his argument is that the best leaders are willing to listen to a wide-range of stake holders and are effective at balancing power vs. using it to serve ideological ends. Balance, normalcy, and humility may not be sexy, but they seem to have a better track record than their counterparts.
The gist of his argument is that the best leaders are willing to listen to a wide-range of stake holders and are effective at balancing power vs. using it to serve ideological ends. Balance, normalcy, and humility may not be sexy, but they seem to have a better track record than their counterparts.
April 15, 2020
The book is one of the excellent books about leadership and its qualities. The title basically defines what the book is about. The author believes that a strong leader is not necessarily the one who concentrates power in his/her hand but rather the one who knows how to delegate and distribute power in a way that helps to build sustainable systems. He put leaders into two categories; Redefining leaders and transformational leaders. Redefining leaders are those who know how to dramatically shift the political landscape in their direction rather than seek it while the transformational leaders are those who transform the system itself. The book is very interesting but one of its shortfalls is that it gives lots of examples that can be summarized and still get the idea of what the author is talking about.
March 6, 2017
Archie Brown has an impressive level of knowledge about world politics, and I learned a lot from this book about the history of various leaders and regimes around the world. The central thesis is that attributes typically ascribed to a "strong" leader don't necessarily make for a good leader. Those who follow their own singular visions and exert power over others tend to produce the great failures (and often atrocities) of history. Rather, it is the leaders who stay connected with their people and opposition, and seek expert opinion and compromise, are the ones who are truly "transformational" - to use Brown's term.
I wouldn't call this easy reading. At times the experience felt indistinguishable from poring through Wikipedia articles on a given leader or conflict - informative, but not page turning. At other times Brown would get lost in an aside about the personal or professional life of a leader, and I'd wonder what the story had to do with the message of the book. Many passages felt redundant, and his presentation had me jumping around the world and through time in a way that made me unsure of the book's structure. I'm glad I read it, though. This book filled in many gaps in my understanding about names I would recognize but be able to tell you very little about - Gorbachev, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Thatcher, Blair, Atlee, Mandela, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and so on... much ground and time is covered, and many connections were made in my mind. I couldn't help but read about each leader and compare/contrast with our current national disaster, Donald Trump. It was a delight to discover that Brown had written an article about him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/d...
I wouldn't call this easy reading. At times the experience felt indistinguishable from poring through Wikipedia articles on a given leader or conflict - informative, but not page turning. At other times Brown would get lost in an aside about the personal or professional life of a leader, and I'd wonder what the story had to do with the message of the book. Many passages felt redundant, and his presentation had me jumping around the world and through time in a way that made me unsure of the book's structure. I'm glad I read it, though. This book filled in many gaps in my understanding about names I would recognize but be able to tell you very little about - Gorbachev, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Thatcher, Blair, Atlee, Mandela, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and so on... much ground and time is covered, and many connections were made in my mind. I couldn't help but read about each leader and compare/contrast with our current national disaster, Donald Trump. It was a delight to discover that Brown had written an article about him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/d...
July 30, 2014
This book is much easier to read than I originally thought it might be. The language is accessible rather than overly academic. It is interesting to read the analyses of various world leaders of the last century and how they were able to affect change within the structures of their own governments. In light of the current situation in Russia, it was especially interesting to read about Gorbachev and how he was able to revolutionize a firmly established Communist regime almost without his ministers realizing what was actually happening until it was too late. Unfortunately, Russia has not had such a revolutionary leader since, but the road to lasting democracy can be hard and long, as we're seeing.
March 22, 2022
In The Myth of The Strong Leader we learn about
1)Individual and Collective Leadership
2) Leadership and Power
3) Choosing Leaders in Democracies
Author Brown gives us examples of the above.
The Myth of The Strong Leader is a good read for those contemplating becoming a leader.
1)Individual and Collective Leadership
2) Leadership and Power
3) Choosing Leaders in Democracies
Author Brown gives us examples of the above.
The Myth of The Strong Leader is a good read for those contemplating becoming a leader.
Want to read
December 7, 2016"Bill Gates says the author of this book ‘could not have predicted how resonant’ it would be in 2016"
in:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/o...
in:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/o...
February 14, 2018
I was disappointed by this book. The author repeats his point over and over and over again. I don't feel as though it was ever really developed upon. The anecdotes are interesting sometimes but somehow it just felt like I was reading the same chapter copy-pasted a dozen times.
September 21, 2017
Not that long ago, the incumbent Prime Minister of Australia, for some time under duress from within and without his own party , proclaimed himself a "strong" leader, proceeding to distinguish between what weak and strong leaders (such as he) might do. In so doing, he appeared to create a mixture of perplexity and amusement amongst those who comment ion these issues, some quietly and bemusedly stating that if you were actually a strong leader you wouldn't need to say it, and that the facts of the matter suggested otherwise anyway.
Making this statement, of course, was intended to claim something positive – a strong leader is supposed to be an ideal, although one wonders about the calibre of the advice that led to this particular moment.
Archie Brown, previously unknown to me but from all accounts eminently qualified in the history, thought and experience of contemporary politics, sets out to challenge this myth, with a comprehensive survey of various political leaders over the past century or so, what they did, how they did it and with whom, compared against different kinds of leadership viz. democratic, transformational, revolutionary, totalitarian, authoritarian – which he defines, explains and provides examples. He finishes with what might be desirable in leadership.
Brown's substantial expertise in discussing and dissecting the acts and fortunes of leaders of the USA, UK, USSR/Russia and the Soviet Bloc, China, Korea, Mexico, Iraq, Iran etc. etc. is clearly on display here, although you may need to have some background or interest in the characters and players to appreciate what he's saying: I knew little about the Mexican situation for instance, other than a name or two. He disabuses us of the idea that Churchill was a strong leader (as generally understood) by explaining how he operated, for instance, as far as autonomy, seeking advice and so on. A neat comparison can be made here with Tony Blair, not one of the great listeners.
You also get examinations of Truman, Johnson, Reagan, G.W. Bush (including the unreality of the "realists" pushing for the invasion of Iraq); Chamberlain, Eden, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher; Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev; Mao, Deng; Chiang and so on.
The author uses understandable, clear language throughout, including some sharp comments and judgements at appropriate times, usually the selection of a particular word or phrase with the next sentence following as usual. Actually, I was deeply impressed with his use of language. It's not a poetic style or anything like that, but in reading him you quickly become aware that he is a master of English, where the right word occurs at the right time.
The book is broken up into easily accessible chapters and sub-chapters, so that you can read a few pages at a time without difficulty, or a whole chapter or more. It's not a polemic, but it does have, as he says at the start, an argument, which is presented reasonably and objectively, as you would expect in a way, or at least hope for.
If you're interested in contemporary politics, this is an essential text, even as a reference to be dipped into from time to time, which is pretty good for an accidental buy in a rarely-visited local bookshop..
Making this statement, of course, was intended to claim something positive – a strong leader is supposed to be an ideal, although one wonders about the calibre of the advice that led to this particular moment.
Archie Brown, previously unknown to me but from all accounts eminently qualified in the history, thought and experience of contemporary politics, sets out to challenge this myth, with a comprehensive survey of various political leaders over the past century or so, what they did, how they did it and with whom, compared against different kinds of leadership viz. democratic, transformational, revolutionary, totalitarian, authoritarian – which he defines, explains and provides examples. He finishes with what might be desirable in leadership.
Brown's substantial expertise in discussing and dissecting the acts and fortunes of leaders of the USA, UK, USSR/Russia and the Soviet Bloc, China, Korea, Mexico, Iraq, Iran etc. etc. is clearly on display here, although you may need to have some background or interest in the characters and players to appreciate what he's saying: I knew little about the Mexican situation for instance, other than a name or two. He disabuses us of the idea that Churchill was a strong leader (as generally understood) by explaining how he operated, for instance, as far as autonomy, seeking advice and so on. A neat comparison can be made here with Tony Blair, not one of the great listeners.
You also get examinations of Truman, Johnson, Reagan, G.W. Bush (including the unreality of the "realists" pushing for the invasion of Iraq); Chamberlain, Eden, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher; Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev; Mao, Deng; Chiang and so on.
The author uses understandable, clear language throughout, including some sharp comments and judgements at appropriate times, usually the selection of a particular word or phrase with the next sentence following as usual. Actually, I was deeply impressed with his use of language. It's not a poetic style or anything like that, but in reading him you quickly become aware that he is a master of English, where the right word occurs at the right time.
The book is broken up into easily accessible chapters and sub-chapters, so that you can read a few pages at a time without difficulty, or a whole chapter or more. It's not a polemic, but it does have, as he says at the start, an argument, which is presented reasonably and objectively, as you would expect in a way, or at least hope for.
If you're interested in contemporary politics, this is an essential text, even as a reference to be dipped into from time to time, which is pretty good for an accidental buy in a rarely-visited local bookshop..
March 19, 2017
Throughout centuries, humanity has lived under leaders, great and small. In the stone age times, when we used to live in caves, the "leadership" qualities would have amounted to who had the fastest reflexes, who was huge among other things, there was little point in appointing a leader who was a great orator but poor in reflexes and who wasn't huge in size and powerful in strength.
Over the millennia, our lives have substantially changed. But sadly, we have the notion of our leader in the old archaic way, we demand "strong" leader. While we do that, we don't even know what a strong leader really means. Leaving aside our idea of a strong leader, this book does a great job at detailing at how we are all wrong when we regard some leader as a great one, for instance Stalin and Mao, who killed millions and ruined a big part of their country over presidents who were soft spoken and thus brushed aside as "weak", it was due to his will of not being thought of as a "weak" leader that Tony Blair didn't back down from the ill fated wars that UK participated. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein, albeit the war on Iraq was illegal according to international law, he had many chances of ceasefire before they even started the war, but he refused to take them just because of the fear of being shown as a weak leader.
The book correctly tells that a leader need not be "strong" in the general sense, the work that a government does has little to do with the leader, it has a lot to do with the subordinates of the leader, when they come into the picture, the job of the leader isn't to be "the supreme judge of the German people" like Hitler claimed he was, but to be the facilitator of other ministers as President Johnson was. Leaders like Stalin, Hitler, and to some extent Margaret Thatcher who refused to listen to advice from experts are doomed to fall some day or the other, precisely because they fall into the myth that they create around themselves in their brain, their vision for the country and their thoughts outweigh the opinions of even the experts.
The book also opens our eyes, we had elections in India as I read this book and the state of Uttar Pradesh was swept in a historic win by the incumbent Prime Minister of the BJP party. I wasn't surprised at the outcome of the elections as I was just a month ago when there were small scale elections where BJP won the major mandate in my home state. This is because people vote for dream, party, leader in that order. The book also stated in the most blunt way that people often vote for parties which show them dreams which aren't possible to meet even if the party and their actions are known to be detrimental to the country in the future, this is the irrationality of the human mind, and those politicians who can exploit this irrationality win the elections.
In short, leaders who bring in change are rarely dictatorial in nature, they listen to others and faciliate the work done by others in their government, if a person is dictatorial in nature, then they are doomed.
Over the millennia, our lives have substantially changed. But sadly, we have the notion of our leader in the old archaic way, we demand "strong" leader. While we do that, we don't even know what a strong leader really means. Leaving aside our idea of a strong leader, this book does a great job at detailing at how we are all wrong when we regard some leader as a great one, for instance Stalin and Mao, who killed millions and ruined a big part of their country over presidents who were soft spoken and thus brushed aside as "weak", it was due to his will of not being thought of as a "weak" leader that Tony Blair didn't back down from the ill fated wars that UK participated. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein, albeit the war on Iraq was illegal according to international law, he had many chances of ceasefire before they even started the war, but he refused to take them just because of the fear of being shown as a weak leader.
The book correctly tells that a leader need not be "strong" in the general sense, the work that a government does has little to do with the leader, it has a lot to do with the subordinates of the leader, when they come into the picture, the job of the leader isn't to be "the supreme judge of the German people" like Hitler claimed he was, but to be the facilitator of other ministers as President Johnson was. Leaders like Stalin, Hitler, and to some extent Margaret Thatcher who refused to listen to advice from experts are doomed to fall some day or the other, precisely because they fall into the myth that they create around themselves in their brain, their vision for the country and their thoughts outweigh the opinions of even the experts.
The book also opens our eyes, we had elections in India as I read this book and the state of Uttar Pradesh was swept in a historic win by the incumbent Prime Minister of the BJP party. I wasn't surprised at the outcome of the elections as I was just a month ago when there were small scale elections where BJP won the major mandate in my home state. This is because people vote for dream, party, leader in that order. The book also stated in the most blunt way that people often vote for parties which show them dreams which aren't possible to meet even if the party and their actions are known to be detrimental to the country in the future, this is the irrationality of the human mind, and those politicians who can exploit this irrationality win the elections.
In short, leaders who bring in change are rarely dictatorial in nature, they listen to others and faciliate the work done by others in their government, if a person is dictatorial in nature, then they are doomed.
Read
August 20, 2017Debunks the myth that individual leaders are personally and alone important for what they achieve. Builds on work by Barbara Kellerman and others that leadership takes a coalition to be effective. Leaders that rule mainly alone, eg Hitler, Stalin, Trump, make lots of mistakes and often don't achieve what they promise or hope for. This principle also applies to democratic leaders in foreign policy, with examples from Chamberlain (trusted Hitler), Eden (Egypt) and blair (Iraq} where they made huge mistakes because didn't listen to experts who knew better.
Building on this premise, Brown categorizes different leadership types, including redefining leadership (leaders who change the notion of what is possible, and bring in radical change: FDR, Lyndon Johnson), transformational leadership (peaceful systemic change, like Lincoln, nelson mandela, Ghandi), revolutionary leadership (systemic change with violence: Lenin, Castro). In case of dictators, distinguishes those that rule mainly alone (Sadaam Hussein), from those relying on consensus of an oligarchy (Gorbachev), showing that latter are more effective.
The book could have been more focused on the core argument. The wide ranging historical examples show off the breadth of the author's knowledge, but sometimes distract from a clear understanding of the argument.
Building on this premise, Brown categorizes different leadership types, including redefining leadership (leaders who change the notion of what is possible, and bring in radical change: FDR, Lyndon Johnson), transformational leadership (peaceful systemic change, like Lincoln, nelson mandela, Ghandi), revolutionary leadership (systemic change with violence: Lenin, Castro). In case of dictators, distinguishes those that rule mainly alone (Sadaam Hussein), from those relying on consensus of an oligarchy (Gorbachev), showing that latter are more effective.
The book could have been more focused on the core argument. The wide ranging historical examples show off the breadth of the author's knowledge, but sometimes distract from a clear understanding of the argument.
June 17, 2017
En su capítulo sobre tiranía, habla de personajes como Mussolini, Hitler (obvi), Franco, et al y como bajo su bandera de que han sido victimas toda la vida, tienen licencia para hacer y deshacer, todas las maldades que conocemos. Ahora, creo que hoy en día tenemos un personaje en la política mexicana que es víctima de la mafia del poder, (según el).
De México pasamos por el capítulo de la revolución, ahora sobre lideres modernos mexicanos, chance deberíamos esperar para el siguiente libro, El Mito del Lider Meh - Mediocre.
De México pasamos por el capítulo de la revolución, ahora sobre lideres modernos mexicanos, chance deberíamos esperar para el siguiente libro, El Mito del Lider Meh - Mediocre.
June 27, 2022
UK and USA centred book with the overarching theme that democracy is better than authoritarian governments and even in democracy, collective decision making being the best. Apart from these the author gives examples from different parts the world of revolutionary and transformative leaders.
January 7, 2017
Great analysis of the political leaders of the 20th century. I learned more about the most prominent US presidents, UK's Prime Ministers, Germany's Chancellors and (a) their achievements, (b) reasons they were successful, (c) interesting historical comparisons within contexts. Read this book if you're interested in history, leadership and/or politics. Archie Brown put 50 years of top-level academic experience into it.
December 20, 2016
In the era of Trump anyone who is interested in politics should read this book. Pertinent is his analysis of Tony Blair. Blair was afraid of appearing weak and this was a motivating factor in his decision to support George W. Bush with the invasion of Iraq. The US now has a president elect who values appearing strong. Whilst Trump presents himself as an isolationist the temptation to act the strong man will over ride this. The American presidents powers are limited in domestic affairs but in foreign affairs is the area where the President is restrained by the constitution. Trump will all too easily blunder into foreign quagmire.
October 13, 2018
The Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu once said that "a leader is best when men barely know that he is there, not so good when men obey and acclaim him."
Safe to say that Lao-tzu would not be impressed by our modern-day definition of leadership.
Not even four years old (as of this writing), Archie Brown's "The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age" is now somehow both prescient and out-of-date. Brown reaches back into near-history -- 20th and 21st centuries, primarily -- to answer questions about the efficaciousness of so-called "strong leaders." In addition to the history lesson, Brown explores the very idea of "strong leadership" -- what components of leadership are helpful and/or hurtful, and what kind of leader is best, in the political sense.
It is not light reading. Though occasionally difficult to follow and understand, were I a political science professor teaching a class on political leadership theory (or something along those lines), chapters from this book would be essential reading for my students.
There is an assumption across the spectrum of political ideology that strong leadership is desirable and essential. Isn't that strange? You'd expect such a desire from states like Russia and China -- where there is a history of heavy-handed, authoritative leadership. But strong leaders are just as coveted and fawned over in freer societies -- the United States for instance, as well as Great Britain. Of course, there is a difference between strong democratic leaders (Margaret Thatcher or Lyndon Johnson) and strong autocratic leaders (Joseph Stalin or Benito Mussolini). But the underlying principle of "we need someone who's tough and will fight for our best interests" applies across the spectrum.
There are different categories of strong leaders, as defined by Brown. Much of the book is devoted to highlighting characteristics of what he calls "transformational" and "redefining" leaders. According to Brown, redefining leaders are influential enough to shift the political center in their direction. Lyndon Johnson, for example, managed to pull public opinion leftward enough to enable the passage of civil rights legislation and Medicare/Medicaid. He did this through little more than arm-twisting and force of personality.
Transformational leaders achieve even more than this. These are the leaders who succeed in transforming a nation-state's economic or political system in some fundamental way. They might even have altered the international order. Vladimir Lenin, for example, was a transformational leader -- having fundamentally altered the Russian political and economic system, and pushing forward an international wave of communism that roiled history for most of the 20th century.
I found Brown's book particularly prescient with regard to Russia. How often have we in the West pondered the rise and continued stability of Vladimir Putin -- a leader who really seems to be doing the Russian people few favors domestically (or internationally, for that matter)? One look at the research cited by Brown in his chapter on putting leaders in context solves this mystery. He cites a study conducted at various points between 1993 and 2004 that found more than 80 percent of Russians agreeing with the statement that "talented, strong-willed leaders always achieve success in any undertaking." Moreover, about 75 percent of Russian citizens agreed with the statement that "a few strong leaders could do more for their country than all laws and discussion."
So, there you have it.
Prescient in some respects, yes – but anachronistic in others. Of course, in terms of political leadership theory, 2014 seems as far removed from 2018 and 1914 does. Several of the heads-of-state Brown cites as being leaders of the future -- Dilma Rousseff, Park Geun-hye, and (particularly) Aung San Suu Kyi -- are now deposed and/or disgraced.
And, of course, the thread running through every narrative about politics in the current age -- where does a Donald John Trump fit into the spectrum of political leadership?
The answer is simple -- nowhere.
Over the past two, going on three, years of the Trump presidency, one thing has become clear: the comparisons of Trump to any past authoritarian leader like Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, etc. -- are invalid. Awful though they were, those two despots were political leaders in the classic sense of the term. They had well-defined goals, were highly focused on what it took to achieve those goals and were relentless in accomplishing their goals. Mr. Trump is no leader. He is a follower of whomever happens to be in close proximity at any given moment. His goals are his only in the sense that the administration is his – his aspirations were foist upon him by sycophantic advisors and staff.
His lack of focus is widely-acknowledged and disturbing – even his inner-circle admits this. And his fealty to people and causes is notoriously fickle. An aide who was once lauded as a "killer" is suddenly criticized as "weak." An idea that the president supported yesterday is forgotten tomorrow. That's not a style of leadership – that's an absence of leadership. It is ironic that the American political party perhaps most amenable to having a prototypical "strong leader" has elected what amounts to a human windsock.
Safe to say that Lao-tzu would not be impressed by our modern-day definition of leadership.
Not even four years old (as of this writing), Archie Brown's "The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age" is now somehow both prescient and out-of-date. Brown reaches back into near-history -- 20th and 21st centuries, primarily -- to answer questions about the efficaciousness of so-called "strong leaders." In addition to the history lesson, Brown explores the very idea of "strong leadership" -- what components of leadership are helpful and/or hurtful, and what kind of leader is best, in the political sense.
It is not light reading. Though occasionally difficult to follow and understand, were I a political science professor teaching a class on political leadership theory (or something along those lines), chapters from this book would be essential reading for my students.
There is an assumption across the spectrum of political ideology that strong leadership is desirable and essential. Isn't that strange? You'd expect such a desire from states like Russia and China -- where there is a history of heavy-handed, authoritative leadership. But strong leaders are just as coveted and fawned over in freer societies -- the United States for instance, as well as Great Britain. Of course, there is a difference between strong democratic leaders (Margaret Thatcher or Lyndon Johnson) and strong autocratic leaders (Joseph Stalin or Benito Mussolini). But the underlying principle of "we need someone who's tough and will fight for our best interests" applies across the spectrum.
There are different categories of strong leaders, as defined by Brown. Much of the book is devoted to highlighting characteristics of what he calls "transformational" and "redefining" leaders. According to Brown, redefining leaders are influential enough to shift the political center in their direction. Lyndon Johnson, for example, managed to pull public opinion leftward enough to enable the passage of civil rights legislation and Medicare/Medicaid. He did this through little more than arm-twisting and force of personality.
Transformational leaders achieve even more than this. These are the leaders who succeed in transforming a nation-state's economic or political system in some fundamental way. They might even have altered the international order. Vladimir Lenin, for example, was a transformational leader -- having fundamentally altered the Russian political and economic system, and pushing forward an international wave of communism that roiled history for most of the 20th century.
I found Brown's book particularly prescient with regard to Russia. How often have we in the West pondered the rise and continued stability of Vladimir Putin -- a leader who really seems to be doing the Russian people few favors domestically (or internationally, for that matter)? One look at the research cited by Brown in his chapter on putting leaders in context solves this mystery. He cites a study conducted at various points between 1993 and 2004 that found more than 80 percent of Russians agreeing with the statement that "talented, strong-willed leaders always achieve success in any undertaking." Moreover, about 75 percent of Russian citizens agreed with the statement that "a few strong leaders could do more for their country than all laws and discussion."
So, there you have it.
Prescient in some respects, yes – but anachronistic in others. Of course, in terms of political leadership theory, 2014 seems as far removed from 2018 and 1914 does. Several of the heads-of-state Brown cites as being leaders of the future -- Dilma Rousseff, Park Geun-hye, and (particularly) Aung San Suu Kyi -- are now deposed and/or disgraced.
And, of course, the thread running through every narrative about politics in the current age -- where does a Donald John Trump fit into the spectrum of political leadership?
The answer is simple -- nowhere.
Over the past two, going on three, years of the Trump presidency, one thing has become clear: the comparisons of Trump to any past authoritarian leader like Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, etc. -- are invalid. Awful though they were, those two despots were political leaders in the classic sense of the term. They had well-defined goals, were highly focused on what it took to achieve those goals and were relentless in accomplishing their goals. Mr. Trump is no leader. He is a follower of whomever happens to be in close proximity at any given moment. His goals are his only in the sense that the administration is his – his aspirations were foist upon him by sycophantic advisors and staff.
His lack of focus is widely-acknowledged and disturbing – even his inner-circle admits this. And his fealty to people and causes is notoriously fickle. An aide who was once lauded as a "killer" is suddenly criticized as "weak." An idea that the president supported yesterday is forgotten tomorrow. That's not a style of leadership – that's an absence of leadership. It is ironic that the American political party perhaps most amenable to having a prototypical "strong leader" has elected what amounts to a human windsock.
November 21, 2017
Kind of a weird implementation for this text. The premise is, basically, that the role of leadership is not as direct or positive as is often assumed, and that such a reading of history (and current events) is essentially erroneous. It's a more nuanced argument than that, of course. There are a lot of particulars the author addresses throughout, and he names names, defines his terms like "transformational leaders" and presents his evidence like a good scholar, even if that evidence is often anecdotal and interpretive.
What's odd, however, is that for a book that is notionally about how leaders aren't always as influential as they are presented as being, or that people (the leaders themselves included) may believe they are, this book is entirely a "big man" history. That is, there is relatively little discussion of what other forces are at work. No discussion of the influence of market forces on political change, no meaningful analysis of technological development, no overview of the features of the history being discussed other than the putative movers and shakers of those events. Where that discussion does take place in relation to, say, the powers of parliaments, Congress or comparative republican institutions, these things exist as foils to the leaders, and serve mostly to prove that even in the case of some of the most absolute dictators and charismatic leaders of the 20th century, those leaders' powers weren't really quite as absolute.
Much more time and attention is given to the leaders themselves; their characters and ideas; their mistakes, of course, but also their successes, and how these leaders actually did change the societies in which they lived. They didn't merely oversee those events coming from the bottom up, or based upon outside influences, but were deterministic in their influence. That's a somewhat odd approach for a book that is meant to be suggesting that strong leadership is a myth. More often than not the book winds up arguing the opposite, and in several cases would seem to prove that point much more than counter it.
What's odd, however, is that for a book that is notionally about how leaders aren't always as influential as they are presented as being, or that people (the leaders themselves included) may believe they are, this book is entirely a "big man" history. That is, there is relatively little discussion of what other forces are at work. No discussion of the influence of market forces on political change, no meaningful analysis of technological development, no overview of the features of the history being discussed other than the putative movers and shakers of those events. Where that discussion does take place in relation to, say, the powers of parliaments, Congress or comparative republican institutions, these things exist as foils to the leaders, and serve mostly to prove that even in the case of some of the most absolute dictators and charismatic leaders of the 20th century, those leaders' powers weren't really quite as absolute.
Much more time and attention is given to the leaders themselves; their characters and ideas; their mistakes, of course, but also their successes, and how these leaders actually did change the societies in which they lived. They didn't merely oversee those events coming from the bottom up, or based upon outside influences, but were deterministic in their influence. That's a somewhat odd approach for a book that is meant to be suggesting that strong leadership is a myth. More often than not the book winds up arguing the opposite, and in several cases would seem to prove that point much more than counter it.
January 2, 2019
This book covers a great deal on political leadership and helps the reader to understand the political landscape of multiple nations. The crux of this, it is not a strong leader that brings a net positive change, but a leader who is flexible, who understands the situation well, goes into the details, establishes that the processes, and follows it through that will bring the net positive change. The way, the different leaders have accomplished is quite varied, and depends on the situation and the time.
This book introduces some amazing real life characters like, Adolfo Suárez of spain who transformed the country to Democracy from the previously established monarchy in a peaceful manner. It also shares how Deng Xioping is the person behind the economic advancement of China from 1970 onward. It shares the perspective on how Fidel Castro overthrew the dictatorship in his country, and how lived by his principles, and did not accumulate any wealth for himself.
One thing that struck with me, when this book was written, Obama was the president of USA, and even then, the system in place in USA was such that, no one particular person was ultimately responsible everything in the government. It has been understood that answer for "who controls the whitehouse of USA", seems " no one knows". This is not a snarky comment, but a statement that workings of the government in USA is very complex, and there are multiple forces in effect at any time, including political parties, supporters, lobbyists, and corporations with interests, and it will be too much to give credit and put focus on a single person.
This book covers lot. It covers Britain, USA, Europe, South America, South Africa, China, Russia, touches upon New-Zealand, India and other nations. The author explores how various leaders in these countries have shaped the political landscapes of these places for better.
This book introduces some amazing real life characters like, Adolfo Suárez of spain who transformed the country to Democracy from the previously established monarchy in a peaceful manner. It also shares how Deng Xioping is the person behind the economic advancement of China from 1970 onward. It shares the perspective on how Fidel Castro overthrew the dictatorship in his country, and how lived by his principles, and did not accumulate any wealth for himself.
One thing that struck with me, when this book was written, Obama was the president of USA, and even then, the system in place in USA was such that, no one particular person was ultimately responsible everything in the government. It has been understood that answer for "who controls the whitehouse of USA", seems " no one knows". This is not a snarky comment, but a statement that workings of the government in USA is very complex, and there are multiple forces in effect at any time, including political parties, supporters, lobbyists, and corporations with interests, and it will be too much to give credit and put focus on a single person.
This book covers lot. It covers Britain, USA, Europe, South America, South Africa, China, Russia, touches upon New-Zealand, India and other nations. The author explores how various leaders in these countries have shaped the political landscapes of these places for better.
June 25, 2018
Lots of books and films have been acclaimed as foreshadowing the success of people like Donald Trump, and this could be another.
It sets out why so-called strong leaders are attractive, the conditions for their success (including in democracies) and makes a pretty convincing historical argument that they make bad decisions. And by the by, UK-centric co-reading would be The Blunders Of Our Governments.
I think the basic point is that popular view of strength as single-minded purpose, success of your views over others', and centralised control, is a really bad way to run a country. Unfortunately, though, instant communication between states and from leaders to the public has meant that we expect our leaders to be perfectly in control, with firm and unchanging policies, and deliver on them immediately. There's also the temptation for leaders to fall to hubris and surround themselves with yes-men.
In fact, mistakes are made when an individual or small cabal ride rough-shod over due process and consultation with experts within and outside government and end up making terrible decisions often in the name of speed and strength of command. And though he doesn't touch on this so much, there's also a peculiar justification today that it is the people's will - or the subsegment that voted for you - to do something quickly and badly (see trump, brexit), and that said leader somehow know what those people want without asking.
"Strong leadership" isn't about getting your way on everything - that is impossible and childish - but rather being the person most able to help a group successfully to achieve shared goals. That requires a much more collegiate and collaborative approach that modern media doesn't always look so kindly upon.
It sets out why so-called strong leaders are attractive, the conditions for their success (including in democracies) and makes a pretty convincing historical argument that they make bad decisions. And by the by, UK-centric co-reading would be The Blunders Of Our Governments.
I think the basic point is that popular view of strength as single-minded purpose, success of your views over others', and centralised control, is a really bad way to run a country. Unfortunately, though, instant communication between states and from leaders to the public has meant that we expect our leaders to be perfectly in control, with firm and unchanging policies, and deliver on them immediately. There's also the temptation for leaders to fall to hubris and surround themselves with yes-men.
In fact, mistakes are made when an individual or small cabal ride rough-shod over due process and consultation with experts within and outside government and end up making terrible decisions often in the name of speed and strength of command. And though he doesn't touch on this so much, there's also a peculiar justification today that it is the people's will - or the subsegment that voted for you - to do something quickly and badly (see trump, brexit), and that said leader somehow know what those people want without asking.
"Strong leadership" isn't about getting your way on everything - that is impossible and childish - but rather being the person most able to help a group successfully to achieve shared goals. That requires a much more collegiate and collaborative approach that modern media doesn't always look so kindly upon.
December 24, 2022
There have been times in recent and not so recent history when countries have faced difficulties there has been popular support for a person perceived to be a "strong leader", presumably in contrast to weak leader. However, as assessments of the merits of leaders is rarely a simple contrast between strong and weak, just how well a leader performs requires a much more complex and nuanced assessment which is what this book provides.
The book covers the gradual change in the UK from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy, the creation of the American republic and the French revolution, the evolution of political systems especially those in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, differences between different government structures in particular presidential and parliamentary systems and the increase, especially in the 20th century, of government powers. The book examines leaders who redefined what leadership meant in their countries, leaders who transformed the countries they led, leaders that led revolutions, totalitarian and dictatorial leaders and the foreign policies of strong leaders, all with significant focus on such leaders as FD Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, JB Johnson, Churchill, Attlee, Stanley Baldwin, Gorbachev, Blair, Thatcher, Adolfo Suarez, Deng Xiaoping, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao. He concludes his analysis by posing and attempting to answer the question of what kind of leader is most desirable and suggests that of an effective leader.
The work is thoroughly researched, well structured and written and wide ranging in its analysis of leadership styles and the outcomes that resulted. My only criticism, albeit a minor one, is that there was next to no mention, let alone analysis, of any of the leaders of either Canada or Australia.
The book covers the gradual change in the UK from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy, the creation of the American republic and the French revolution, the evolution of political systems especially those in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, differences between different government structures in particular presidential and parliamentary systems and the increase, especially in the 20th century, of government powers. The book examines leaders who redefined what leadership meant in their countries, leaders who transformed the countries they led, leaders that led revolutions, totalitarian and dictatorial leaders and the foreign policies of strong leaders, all with significant focus on such leaders as FD Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, JB Johnson, Churchill, Attlee, Stanley Baldwin, Gorbachev, Blair, Thatcher, Adolfo Suarez, Deng Xiaoping, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao. He concludes his analysis by posing and attempting to answer the question of what kind of leader is most desirable and suggests that of an effective leader.
The work is thoroughly researched, well structured and written and wide ranging in its analysis of leadership styles and the outcomes that resulted. My only criticism, albeit a minor one, is that there was next to no mention, let alone analysis, of any of the leaders of either Canada or Australia.
July 12, 2017
(Audiobook) A good and enlightening read on political leadership, a writing that it very timely and relevant to today's headlines. Primarily concerned with the 20th century (and into the 21st), Brown looks at various political leaders over multiple countries and eras, comparing and contrasting the perception that they are strong or week with their actual accomplishments. For Brown, demonstration of strength is relative and what appears to be a strong leader does not always equal effective. For Brown, he goes into detail discussing seemingly "strong" leaders and noting that leaders that appear strong are not always the ones who make the greatest impact. He tends to take a more positive view on those who may not appear or be seen as "strong", but more transformative, those who make the biggest impacts and changes. However, the modern political system, especially in America, values the perception of strength, whether or not a leader can actually be effective. Also, Brown discusses the various political systems, and how leaders who strive to make the greatest impacts must learn to work with those systems, or at least understand them, so that they can either leverage them or know how to effectively get around them to achieve their goals. The reader does a good job with material that some could consider dry. Worth a read for those studying leadership.
October 22, 2017
Fascinating review of 20th century history
The book starts with a simple statement which to me was only obvious after I had read it: concentrating power in a “strong leader” means allocating it arbitrarily to the leader’s personal assistants.
Because no single human can cope with the increased volume of information and decisions - despite the myths these “strong leaders” like to perpetuate about themselves - the decisions get made by the close staff of these leaders.
This leaves out the other people who should have led on these decisions, eg cabinet members who are of higher calibre and expertise and experience than the advisers.
Furthermore, more discussion with more people gets better decisions. This is obvious with the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin as leaders who accumulated power. But the book is full of examples of other leaders to make the case.
I wish history at schools was taught about these leaders and events, the 20th century is about more than Hitler but sadly that’s too often all children are taught about.
I don’t know that the author’s case is conclusively proven - it’s hard to make this into a scientific argument. But it’s fascinating to read and - especially as the author dislikes Tony Blair greatly - to read it in light of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership style. A really enjoyable and thoughtful book.
The book starts with a simple statement which to me was only obvious after I had read it: concentrating power in a “strong leader” means allocating it arbitrarily to the leader’s personal assistants.
Because no single human can cope with the increased volume of information and decisions - despite the myths these “strong leaders” like to perpetuate about themselves - the decisions get made by the close staff of these leaders.
This leaves out the other people who should have led on these decisions, eg cabinet members who are of higher calibre and expertise and experience than the advisers.
Furthermore, more discussion with more people gets better decisions. This is obvious with the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin as leaders who accumulated power. But the book is full of examples of other leaders to make the case.
I wish history at schools was taught about these leaders and events, the 20th century is about more than Hitler but sadly that’s too often all children are taught about.
I don’t know that the author’s case is conclusively proven - it’s hard to make this into a scientific argument. But it’s fascinating to read and - especially as the author dislikes Tony Blair greatly - to read it in light of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership style. A really enjoyable and thoughtful book.
March 1, 2020
I saw the title of this staring out at me from a second hand book shop and bought it to see if it overturned my views on the value of leadership. Despite it containing a large number of stories about mistakes made by a single leader who overruled and ignored advice, I found it more of a "Yes, but..." to leadership itself. I have come to value leadership to provide consistency and to ensure that _something_ gets done, and I see nothing here to challenge this. I _do_ see advice that leaders should seek and value counsel, which is useful advice, but not an innovation of the author. I note Proverbs 15:22 "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." I also note that Machiavelli has advice for navigating the barriers thrown up by the ceremony of the powerful leader - the leader should specifically request truthful advice from counselors with a track record, thus allowing the leader to reject both flattery and insubordination - a websearch should find the chapter title in "The Prince": "That flatterers should be shunned"
October 16, 2022
This book is covering an interesting and important topic. More and more, especially things to media reporting, the focus of political conversation is on finding a strong leader. The assumption of people seems to be that governments, and therefore nations are shaped by strong individuals. However, this author painstakingly Shows that the impact of a single leader is far less than we imagined it to be. The forces that actually do shape the course of nations has more to do with loyalty to an overall party or an overall idea than the individual person. We tend to make a human the icon or scapegoat of our ideology, but they don’t actually command as much influence as they or we would like to believe.
It’s an important topic, but it didn’t need to be this long of a book. He shares an over abundance of examples for each point, and repeated points at times. Probably 50% of the book could have been cut in the same points would have been made. For this one, it is probably best to read the executive book summary.
It’s an important topic, but it didn’t need to be this long of a book. He shares an over abundance of examples for each point, and repeated points at times. Probably 50% of the book could have been cut in the same points would have been made. For this one, it is probably best to read the executive book summary.
April 27, 2020
Blinkist:
The more desperate people are, the more likely they are to follow a charismatic leader who offers quick, simple solutions to complicated problems.
Adolf Hitler, for example, while a charismatic speaker, owed much of his political success to the widespread economic desperation Germans suffered following the country’s defeat in World War I.
Summary
Don’t be fooled into thinking that the best political leaders are those who are “strong.” In democratic systems, the most effective leaders are those who are modest, can listen to experts and unite groups with opposing views. Societies in duress are particularly vulnerable to being taken in by “strong” personalities, and this can cause major problems both at home and abroad.
The more desperate people are, the more likely they are to follow a charismatic leader who offers quick, simple solutions to complicated problems.
Adolf Hitler, for example, while a charismatic speaker, owed much of his political success to the widespread economic desperation Germans suffered following the country’s defeat in World War I.
Summary
Don’t be fooled into thinking that the best political leaders are those who are “strong.” In democratic systems, the most effective leaders are those who are modest, can listen to experts and unite groups with opposing views. Societies in duress are particularly vulnerable to being taken in by “strong” personalities, and this can cause major problems both at home and abroad.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 14, 2021
Popular political opinion is shaped by certain influences, such as public speeches, media reports and lobbying efforts. Most of the democratic superpowers also manufacture propaganda. It uses mass media for mass mobilization of the majoritarian ideology. But as a society, we’re not swayed into supporting particular leaders but often a certain kind of leader. The media tends to portray a political leader as more powerful than the sum of the leader’s political party. This makes the public less likely to consider the inner workings of any democratic system, as the most attention is given to the leader at the top.
The books takes into stab at characters that make an image of a leader "Strong". It is not always necessary that the leader has the strength but has the resources. A must read!
The books takes into stab at characters that make an image of a leader "Strong". It is not always necessary that the leader has the strength but has the resources. A must read!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 21, 2018
Definitely a must read. The book chronicles the so called strong leaders across different types of governing systems and showcases with examples how the so called strong leaders and products of self driven propaganda.
Additionally given the current political scenario in India it is almost scary to realize that some of the tactics being employed by the current powers to be have been deployed by regimes in other parts of the world with almost universally disastrous results.
Though the book does not even feature a single Indian politician which is surprising given that the world's largest democracy too has produced it share of strong leaders most notably Indira Gandhi.
Additionally given the current political scenario in India it is almost scary to realize that some of the tactics being employed by the current powers to be have been deployed by regimes in other parts of the world with almost universally disastrous results.
Though the book does not even feature a single Indian politician which is surprising given that the world's largest democracy too has produced it share of strong leaders most notably Indira Gandhi.
October 14, 2019
كتاب ثري وغني على شكل دراسة تاريخية للقيادات السياسية من قادة وأنظمة.
سوف يقدم الكتاب دراسة لأهم وأعرق الأنظمة السياسية مثل البريطانية والأمريكية والألمانية والإيطالية والسوفييتية وغيرها .. في محاولة دقيقة لفهم العملية السياسية وفيما هي مرتبطة .. أهي ديمقراطية أم ديكتاتورية .. تعتمد على نوع القائد أو الزعيم .. أكان رئيس دولة أو رئيس وزراء.
الخرافة التي يتحدث عنها الكاتب .. هي بوجود العوامل المتعددة للوصول إلى لقب زعيم قوي .. نظام الحكم وثقة الشعب ومرحلة السيادة وشخصية القائد .. وتتعد في فصول الكتاب التفاصيل والشروحات.
تمتاز الدراسة بعمقها وشمولها من الشرق إلى الغرب وحتى الشرق الأوسط.
كتاب مفيد.
سوف يقدم الكتاب دراسة لأهم وأعرق الأنظمة السياسية مثل البريطانية والأمريكية والألمانية والإيطالية والسوفييتية وغيرها .. في محاولة دقيقة لفهم العملية السياسية وفيما هي مرتبطة .. أهي ديمقراطية أم ديكتاتورية .. تعتمد على نوع القائد أو الزعيم .. أكان رئيس دولة أو رئيس وزراء.
الخرافة التي يتحدث عنها الكاتب .. هي بوجود العوامل المتعددة للوصول إلى لقب زعيم قوي .. نظام الحكم وثقة الشعب ومرحلة السيادة وشخصية القائد .. وتتعد في فصول الكتاب التفاصيل والشروحات.
تمتاز الدراسة بعمقها وشمولها من الشرق إلى الغرب وحتى الشرق الأوسط.
كتاب مفيد.
July 13, 2017
It comes across as a history lesson analysing different world leaders from De Gaulle to Deng Xiaoping on their leadership style, identify who were the transformational ones. Nonetheless, the book explains the characteristics of Fascism and the dangers of having 'strong' leaders who appear to be decisive but misguided like Tony Blair during Iraq War. The author prefers a consensus-based leadership approach and one that keeps leaders accountable for decisions made. It may seem dry at times but still an important book that deserves to be read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews