A trend toward greater authoritarianism seems to be spreading worldwide. Russian President Vladimir Putin has successfully used nationalism to tighten his control over Russia and seems to enjoy great popularity. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is regarded as China’s most powerful leader since Mao Zedong (毛澤東), presiding over a growing number of crucial decisionmaking committees. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently replaced his prime minister with one more compliant with his drive to concentrate executive power, and some commentators fear that if Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump wins the US presidency in November, he could turn out to be an “American Mussolini.”
Abuse of power is as old as human history. The Bible reminds us that after David defeated Goliath and later became king, he seduced Bathsheba and deliberately sent her husband to certain death in battle.
Leadership involves the use of power, and, as Lord Acton famously warned, power corrupts.
And yet leaders without power — the ability to cause others to do what we want — cannot lead.
The Harvard psychologist David McClelland once distinguished three groups of people by their motivations. Those who care most about doing something better have a “need for achievement.” Those who think most about friendly relations with others have a “need for affiliation.” And those who care most about having an impact on others show a “need for power.”
This third group turned out to be the most effective leaders, which brings us back to Acton, but power is not good or bad per se. Like calories in a diet, too little produces emaciation and too much leads to obesity. Emotional maturity and training are important means of limiting a narcissistic lust for power, and appropriate institutions are essential to getting the balance right. Ethics and power can be mutually reinforcing.
However, ethics can also be used instrumentally to increase power.
Niccolo Machiavelli addressed the importance of ethics for leaders, but primarily in terms of the impression that visible displays of virtue made upon followers. The appearance of virtue is an important source of a leader’s soft power or the ability to get what one wants by attraction rather than coercion or payment.
Indeed, for Machiavelli, a prince’s virtues should only be apparent, never real.
“I will even venture to affirm that if he has and invariably practices them all, they are hurtful, while the appearance of having them is useful,” he wrote.
Machiavelli also stressed the importance of the hard power of coercion and payment when a leader faces a tradeoff with the soft power of attraction, “since being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself.”
Machiavelli believed that when one must choose, it is better to be feared than to be loved, but he also understood that fear and love are not opposites, and that the opposite of love — hatred — is particularly dangerous for leaders.
The anarchic world of Italian Renaissance city-states was more violent and dangerous than that of today’s democracies, but elements of Machiavelli’s advice remain relevant to modern leaders.
In addition to the courage of the lion, Machiavelli also extolled the strategic deceptiveness of the fox.
Idealism without realism rarely reshapes the world, but as we judge our modern democratic leaders, we should keep both Machiavelli and Acton in mind. We should look for and support leaders who possess an ethical element of self-restraint, and a need for achievement and affiliation as well as for power.
However, there is another aspect of Acton’s dilemma besides the ethics of leaders: the demands of followers. Leadership is a combination of leaders’ traits, followers’ demands and the context in which they interact. A Russian public anxious about its status; a Chinese people concerned about rampant corruption; a Turkish population divided over ethnicity and religion: all create enabling environments for leaders who feel a psychological need for power. Similarly, to satisfy his narcissistic need for power, Trump magnifies the discontent of a part of the population through clever manipulation of television news programs and social media.
This is where institutions play a crucial role. In the early US, James Madison and the new country’s other founders saw that neither leaders nor followers would be angels, and that institutions must be designed to reinforce restraints. They concluded from their study of the ancient Roman Republic that what was needed to prevent the rise of an overweening leader like Julius Caesar was an institutional framework of separation of powers, whereby faction would balance faction. Madison’s answer to the possibility of an “American Mussolini” was a system of institutional checks and balances ensuring that the US would never resemble Italy in 1922 — or Russia, China or Turkey today.
The US founders wrestled with the dilemma of how powerful we want our leaders to be. Their answer was designed to preserve liberty, not maximize government efficiency.
Many commentators have complained about institutional decay, while others point to changes — such as the advent of reality television and social media — that have coarsened the quality of public discourse. Later this year, we might find out how resilient the US founders’ framework for power and leadership really is.
Joseph S. Nye Jr, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath