The
50 books Challenge is an internet challenge whereby I should read 50 books in a
year or roughly 1 book per week and right now I’m on my 11th week
but I just finished my 6th book! I’m way behind…..
I bought this book when both presidents,
Duterte and Trump were both elected to office. The title of the book piqued my
curiosity but somehow I’m not convinced by the author’s conclusion. Anyway,
first of all, the book is epic! Aside from the fact that it is voluminous, some
400 pages, the book is well researched with something like 20 or more political
leaders examined or discussed. The author poured through biographies of late 20th
century political leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Clement
Atlee, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorvachev to name a few. Where biographies
are absent, the author relies on historical narrative to examine the leadership
styles of political leaders in the likes of Deng Xiao Ping, Mao Ze Dong, Josef
Stalin. Furthermore, the author didn’t limit his studies to western leaders but
also include those from the rest of the world like Nelson Madela (however,
there is a preponderance of western leaders in his examination). The author
also studies leaders both in democracies and in authoritarian/ totalitarian
regimes. The sheer magnitude of his examination is truly epic. The author
writing style is easy to read, no mumble jumble hard to understand jargon. These
however are the positive things that can be said of the book. Personally, I felt
that the author tend to muddle through with his examination, with a lot of
digressing. He seemed to be more interested in telling a story than analyzing
(hence my term examination instead of analysis). It is not boring to read per
se but it is difficult to grasp what the author is trying to imply much less
convey (to be fair though, with the first chapter, the author stays true to his
purpose). In the latter end of the book, the book became a sort of political
tirade of Tony Blair which further muddle the intent of the author in writing
the book in the first place not unless the author really meant to diss Tony Blair!
Furthermore, the author seemed to have a penchant of giving sweeping
conclusions. For example, the author concluded that revolutions invariably give
way to authoritarian regimes giving the examples of the Russian Revolution, the
Chinese Revolutions, etc. But while the observations are true, it is equally
true that not all revolutions end up being authoritarian, the foremost example
being the American Revolution (to the author, peaceful revolutions like the
ones sweeping the Eastern Block during the twilight of the Cold War and decline
of the Soviet Union are not revolutions per se). Aside from that, I felt the
author is looking at things through a tainted spectacle, i.e., the author’s
view are ideologically skewed. I suspect that his political sympathy belong to
that of the left wing of the British Labor Party (hence his disapproval of Tony
Blair) or more aptly, the author is a Liberal Social Democrat in political
persuasion. His conclusions are skewed towards his persuasion and hardly
objective in assessment although he tried to present objectivity in his
writings. Also, I have serious question as to the author’s definition of a “strong
leader”. To the author, a “strong leader” is a leader who dominates over his
colleagues in government and tend to concentrate power in his own hands. This definition
tends to equate “strong leader” with “strongman”, which is pretty much a
stretch. Furthermore, the author seemed to equate influence with power which
are two totally different things. It could be that the author is defining the “strong
leader” from the standpoint of political science but for the “masses” whether
they get or able to vote or not in an election if there is one to begin with, a
“strong leader” is someone who get things done, who stood up for his belief,
and defend the dignity of the state he or she represents to put it mildly. Another point to make is that every leader whether
strong or weak, democratically elected or in an authoritarian/ totalitarian
regime tend to maneuver themselves to a position of dominance in order to “push”
their agendas. Hence, to use the accrual of power or gaining dominance over
rivals and colleagues in government as a yardstick in defining a “strong leader”
is inaccurate. Lastly, the author in conclusion favors a collegial decision
making with consensual leadership being the best as against “strong leaders”. Yet,
the author in his examination of “transformative leadership” and “redefining
leadership” didn’t specifically emphasize the consensual nature of leadership
but is quite adamant in later chapters in relationship to democratic,
authoritarian, totalitarian leaders pointing to the failures of specific “strong
leaders” due to them “going alone” or surrounded by “yes man”. There is a flaw
here in his argument for one, no man is an island and that includes leaders
too. A leader however strong cannot literally go it alone. The leader is just
one man and as the author succinctly pointed out, his reach is only arms – length.
No matter how autocratic a leader is, some form of a policy debate occur and
some form of consensus is reached even if the word consensus barely applies to such
an agreement. Surrounding a leader with yes man maybe true but so as the
reality of myopia wherein the ruling clique is populated with people having the
same ideological persuasion or same cultural view. Aside from that, navigating
a fractious group with varied interests and agendas and trying to get a
consensus to a final decision can cause deadlock and paralysis and is hardly a
ringing endorsement of collegial decision making. Just look at Brexit. As a
conclusion, if the author’s criteria were to be used in evaluating both Trump
and Duterte, one can easily conclude that both are “redefining leaders”. To agree
or not in the assessment is another issue.
