The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age

Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

Selected as one of Bill Gates' Books of the Year 2016

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.

Reviews provided by Syndetics

Library Journal Review

The idea of "leadership" continues to be a hot point of debate for politicians, op-ed writers, and political scientists alike. Brown (politics emeritus, Oxford Univ.; The Rise and Fall of Communism) explores the idea of the modern "strong leader" in world politics. He pushes a strong but counterintuitive theme that voters and political observers alike overrate "strong" leadership, traditionally defined by the characteristics of charisma, decisiveness, and centralized decision-making. Brown's central thesis is primarily based on 20th-century case studies of what he calls transforming and redefining leaders in the United Sates, the UK, and Europe; a smaller section of the book is devoted to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes from around the world. A fairly convincing case is made, though occasionally dubious logic (for example, that political leaders have little effect on election results) does prevail, and most discerning readers will detect a leftward bias that is clearly present, though not polemical in nature. Verdict While its clear narrative and discussion of well-known leaders may appeal to readers with an interest in modern political history, this title is most likely to find its audience among those who are attracted to serious political science titles.-Ben Neal, Richland Lib., Columbia, SC (c) Copyright 2014. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Publishers Weekly Review

Oxford University emeritus politics professor Brown (Rise and Fall of Communism) offers a panoramic view of global leadership mixed with a survey of 20th-century political systems. Brown weighs individuals and governing styles in brief, densely packed studies of Franklin Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, and others change-makers, examining Turkey and Ataturk, Russia and the Bolsheviks, and leaders in totalitarian regimes, including Adolph Hitler. While Brown's beau ideal of the transformational leader is the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev, he praises Nelson Mandela for the relatively peaceful transition from apartheid in South Africa, and Deng Xiaoping for decisive changes in Chinese communism. Rich in historical detail and insight, Brown's volume reminds us that face-to-face meetings of world leaders were rare before 1945 and that Neville Chamberlain was the first prime minister to use an airplane in international diplomacy. British politics animate much of the book, with Brown expressing disdain for "strong leaders" with "foreign-policy illusions," and pointing the finger at Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, and more recently, Tony Blair, whom he accuses of "Napoleonic ambitions." Brown argues that no American president can be transformational and no president has been so since Abraham Lincoln, a proposition that many U.S. historians will contest. In addition, he sidesteps appraisal of Barack Obama on the premise it's too early to tell, a caution that will leave some readers unfulfilled. Agent: George Lucas, Inkwell. (Apr.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

CHOICE Review

In this broad, sweeping, even magisterial book, Brown (emer., Oxford Univ.) asks readers to reconsider what they understand as "strong leadership," and whether it is desirable. He pokes holes in the "central misconception" that "strong leaders ... who get their way, dominate their colleagues, and concentrate decision making in their hands, are the most successful and admirable." Often, Brown warns, such centralized power leads to major mistakes. Better the "redefining" leader such as FDR in the US and Thatcher in the UK, and better still, the "transforming" leader such as Charles De Gaulle, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, and Deng Xiaoping. A transformational leader "plays a decisive role in introducing systemic change" (italics in original). The central paradox is that while these transforming leaders were indeed strong, their strength was not in imposing an authoritarian vision onto their systems, but in substantially changing the fundamental way the system operated in a way that both made a difference and improved the lives of ordinary people. Impressive in scope and sophistication, Brown offers a model of leadership that is both strong and purpose driven. --Michael A. Genovese, Loyola Marymount University

Booklist Review

Oxford politics scholar Brown (The Rise and Fall of Communism, 2009) examines the nature of political leadership and challenges the notion that so-called strong leaders are the most effective. Even in a democracy, he suggests, we the people often prefer to hand executive power to charismatic, opinionated, sometimes even aggressive individuals, who dominate other policy-makers to achieve their agendas. But setting leaders above and apart from the ruling group as a whole makes leaders prone to vanity and self-deception and, in antagonizing other policy-makers, sets daunting obstacles in even the most driven leader's path. Such has been the case for many U.S. presidents whose ambitious agendas were ultimately thwarted by Congress or the Supreme Court. Those political leaders who are best able to effect dramatic change may be those who, like Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping, understood the importance of collegiality and collaboration even as they transformed the systems that brought them to power. Reviewing and categorizing dozens of heads of state past and present, Brown raises important questions about the nature of leadership and the expectations we have for our leaders.--Driscoll, Brendan Copyright 2014 Booklist