Winston Churchill’s rhetoric still has the exceptional capacity to move people. The context may have changed, but the language is powerful. Photo: Olga Popova/Shutterstock.com

Politicians who project an image of messianic promise are popular among segments of society where people feel ‘disenfranchised’, ‘downtrodden’ and ‘forgotten’.

They hope for a leader whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light; someone on who to cast their burdens as he leads them into some promised ideal future. The rhetoric used by such leaders is intense. The tone is religious; it speaks of salvation for the political community after a period of sacrifice and hardship. It often leads to hero worship.

Some historical and contemporary examples help to illustrate this point.

Winston Churchill’s rhetoric still has the exceptional capacity to move people. The context may have changed, but the language is powerful, the delivery is dignified, and the tone is reassuring and confident.

His success during World War II is unquestioned; he was an outstanding war leader who contributed to the defeat of the evils of Nazism and fascism.

However, his overall track record is more nuanced. His role in the disastrous campaign in the Dardanelles in 1915, his failure to defend Poland in the post-war period and his questionable peace-time premiership give a fuller picture of a leader who was formidable and admirable but also flawed. Hero worship prevents us from appreciating leadership in all its aspects.

Similarly, the current British Conservative Party lionises the figure of Margaret Thatcher with little regard to the fact that it was her party colleagues who undermined her political leadership.

In the above cases, time provides the perfect excuse for selective amnesia.

In more recent years, the messianic attributes of leaders have led to widespread disappointment.

Since 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi embodied Burma’s aspirations for a democratic and open society. The 1991 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize spent more than 20 years under house arrest for her activism. She wrote romantically about democracy and freedom describing it as “the right to sit down at the tea shop on the campus and talk about whatever you want to”.

Sadly, this was mere rhetoric. Suu Kyi is now the de facto Prime Minister of Burma and holds the title of “State Counsellor of Myanmar” since April 2016. The Rohingya minority in northern Burma faces constant persecution by the military. The population is currently being displaced, and those who are left behind are facing mass killings.

Suu Kyi’s statement vowing to protect human rights strikes a discordant note with her actions. She doggedly refuses to give citizenship to the Rohingya minority while journalists have no access to the crisis areas. She now labelled news reports as an “iceberg of misinformation” fuelled by “terrorists”. Her track record is far from blameless.

No matter how virtuous, competent and inspiring a leader may appear, no single person can be the guarantor and the executor of change and stability

Closer to home, Emanuel Macron promised to be the antidote to the rise of populism in Europe. He was meant to reverse the rising trend of populism, to clean up politics and to push forward fresh centrist politics. He was popular, young, competent and charismatic. Sadly, a few weeks after settling down at the Élysée Palace, Macron left many disappointed.  He refused to hold the traditional Bastille Day press conference claiming that his thoughts are “too complex”. Then news emerged that he was going to carve an official role for his wife. Madame Macron would have received a personal allowance, and her staff would be funded from the public purse. This raised the ire of many and 150,000 persons signed an official petition against this move.

Macron’s popularity was further dented when news emerged that he spent approximately €26,000 on make-up over a four-month period.

The preceding examples point to one glaring fact – that no matter how virtuous, competent and inspiring a leader may appear, no single person can be the guarantor and the executor of change and stability.

In his book, The Myth of the Strong Leader, Archie Brown argues that “the leader’s advertised strength is often an artifice or an illusion”. Brown’s book is one of the most important contemporary contributions to the subject of leadership.

Leaders cannot rely on their strength; they need political parties and internal scrutiny. Political parties “are indispensable to the working of democracy” while colleagues with a degree of political stature should not “hesitate to disagree with the judgement of the person who formally or informally presides over their deliberations”.

Brown argues that the best form of leadership is that which is built on a strong team and the principles of dialogue. For political leadership to be effective, political parties cannot become an extension of the party leader. When power is concentrated in the hands of the party leader, the internal life of the party debilitates. Members would be reluctant both “to criticise the party leadership” and to delegate to the party leader the necessary power needed to exercise the role.

Brown’s parting shot is directed towards “leaders who believe they have a personal right to dominate decision-making in many different areas of policy”. Such leaders “do a disservice both to good governance and to democracy” and “they deserve not followers, but critics”.

As internal party elections become more frequent in Malta, there will be an added focus on the desirable qualities of leaders. Citizens and voters cannot be mere ‘followers’ or ‘critics’. We are also called to scrutinise our political leaders and hold them to account.  Mythologising political leaders serves to weaken the function of scrutiny. Propagating the myth of the strong leader can have the dangerous consequence of undermining a more collegial style of leadership.

This will ultimately impoverish our political culture. It will weaken the same institutions which give authority and influence to the political leader. In due course, those who will be affected most by this situation are the same persons who are in great need of representation.

André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.

andre.deb@gmail.com