The Great Leader Revival
LONDON
– Two hundred years have passed since the battle of Waterloo, where
Napoleon’s calamitous defeat made such a huge dent in his country’s
self-image that General Charles de Gaulle, in his history of the French
army, simply omitted it. Nonetheless, Napoleon, like de Gaulle, would
both easily make it onto any list of history’s great leaders – assuming,
of course, that one considers “greatness” to be an individual trait.
Marx
and Tolstoy would say that there is no such thing as a “great leader.”
For Marx, the class struggle in France created the circumstances in
which a “grotesque mediocrity” – that is, Napoleon – was morphed into a
hero. As far as Tolstoy was concerned, Napoleon was not a particularly
good general, and was carried to victory by the courage and commitment
of all of the individual French soldiers who won the Battle of Borodino.
Whether or not Napoleon was great, the question remains whether any leader could merit that description. And if so, who?
There
seem to be two particularly important criteria for great leadership,
both noted by the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin. First, does the
leader recognize which way the winds of history are blowing? Otto von
Bismarck did, as did his fellow German Konrad Adenauer; both, in
Bismarck’s memorable phrase, could hear “the rustle of God’s cloak.”
Second,
does a leader have important choices to make? Of course, if decisions
are forced upon a leader, he or she cannot really be credited with (or
blamed for) them. So the key is that the leader has the opportunity to
consider alternatives, and choose the right one for his or her country.
This
is why de Gaulle is almost certain to be on any list of great leaders.
Almost single-handedly, he rescued France from the relegation zone after
World War II. After returning to power in 1958, he rescued his country a
second time, putting down two attempted coups, ending the war in
Algeria, and inspiring the Fifth Republic’s constitution.
Much
like British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, de Gaulle gave the
French a new worldview that established their place in the post-war
global order. In fact, the worldviews that de Gaulle and Churchill
established for their countries turned out to be a little too
influential. Their successors continued to perceive the world – and
their countries’ role in it – in ways that constrained rational
discussion and distorted decision-making for years. As a result, no
subsequent leader of either country has matched them.
But
there is one other British prime minister who may come close: Margaret
Thatcher, a highly contentious figure, who was loved by some and loathed
by others. Even her resignation, 25 years ago this year, was spurred by
a mutiny in her own cabinet and party. But one does not need to be
universally liked – or even likable – to be a great leader. And the fact
is that not even Thatcher’s detractors can deny her impact.
Beyond
being the first woman prime minister in Britain, and among the first
anywhere, Thatcher helped to reverse Britain’s economic decline. Her
assault on excessively powerful trade unions, moreover, made Britain
governable, at a time when the country seemed to be slipping into drift
and disorder. Given this, she is certainly a candidate for “great
leader” status.
Similarly,
China’s Deng Xiaoping may qualify as a great leader, despite having a
record that is far from squeaky clean. Beyond undertaking dark deeds as
one of Mao’s lieutenants, Deng played a decisive role in ordering the
massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989. But Deng also unleashed the
market, setting the country on the path toward unprecedented growth and
prosperity that ultimately lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of
poverty.
Many
would regard Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founder and longtime prime
minister, as great, though he probably would have welcomed the
opportunity to test his mettle in a larger arena. And, in fact, it seems
that size does affect one’s ability to secure great-leader status. I
mean no insult to the House of Luxembourg when I say that it is unlikely
that a great leader will emerge from that tiny country, especially
given its generally uncontentious politics.
The
United States is certainly big enough to produce great leaders. And
some presidents have indeed done great things. Harry Truman and Dwight
Eisenhower – no intellectual giants, to be sure – showed excellent
judgment as they established the post-war international order that has
supported peace in much of the world for decades. Others, including
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, have had great gifts – say, the ability
to inspire or a talent for persuasion.
John
F. Kennedy was a little of both. He did one great thing: resolving the
Cuban Missile Crisis. And his gift for motivating people was unmatched;
indeed, it outlasted him, with his assassination cementing a powerful
legacy.
In
Africa, there has been no great figure since the death of South African
President Nelson Mandela, who combined courage, authority, and
magnanimity in graceful abundance. In fact, he is among the most
charismatic and charming leaders I have met; the other two – former
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former US Secretary of State Colin Powell – also are either African or African-American.
And
what of today? The only contemporary European who can lay claim to the
mantle of greatness is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the European
Union’s de facto leader. Like former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, she
tends to be underestimated at first, but gets the big decisions right.
Kohl delivered generous terms for German reunification; Merkel has stood
up to Russian President Vladimir Putin on his interventionism in
Ukraine, and she has taken a generous approach to the migration crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment