I ask the forbearance of readers with good memories for I touched on some of the themes in this essay about a year ago. But I think the themes are worth developing and relating to the present context. How should we view the leadership of some current political leaders in the contemporary crisis?
A good leader requires authority, power and communication skills. Luck as well, although luck is, well, luck, so it is not possible to say anything about it. But authority, power and communication skills require more analysis. Authority and power overlap and there are varieties of each and different possible forms of justification for each. Communication skills must be distinguished from sound bites and lies. I shall illustrate the issues by referring to the leaderships of Presidents Putin and Zelensky, Prime Minister Johnson and President Biden. There are other European leaders who have made important contributions, such as President Macron.
An authority is a person or group having a right to do or demand something, including especially the right that other people do something. Authority is usually discussed alongside power. The joint discussion is justifiable not only because the concepts overlap in confusing ways but also because both are essential for an adequate analysis of successful leadership.
Authority is used in contexts other than the political. We speak in various contexts of someone being 'in authority', 'having authority', 'being authorised' and 'being an authority on'. What is common to all these usages is the essential idea of someone having a right or entitlement to behave or pronounce in the way indicated, or that the behaviour is in some way 'legitimate', another concept essentially related to authority.
The sociologist Max Weber distinguished three kinds of authority: rational-legal, traditional and charismatic. Rational-legal authority confers the right to give orders and the authority derives from an office or role within a set of rules stipulating rights and duties. Traditional authority exists because those accepting the authority see it as deriving from a long and hallowed tradition of obedience.
Charismatic authority exists where exceptional personal qualities, and perhaps circumstances, cause a person to be followed or obeyed; and the exceptional qualities and circumstances are perceived as conferring a right to be obeyed. The term applies in particular to certain types of religious movements but it is now used more generally and means someone having an appealing or strong personality. Charisma or personal magnetism can result in successful communication; not just communication of information but of appropriate attitudes. I should add to Max Weber's list of qualities that continuing authority also requires that the leader be trusted.
How do the current leaders measure up to the terms of this short analysis of authority? Putin would claim to possess the rational-legal (or electoral) type of authority. But, to put it mildly, his electoral credentials would not be universally accepted. It may also be the case that in Russia the ghost of the Czarist regime still haunts politics. That ghost may confer some traditional authority on the autocracy of Putin. He certainly does not derive his authority from charisma. And he is not to be trusted. His support is based on fear rather than trust.
Zelensky does much better on all criteria. Although an unusual candidate in terms of his previous occupation, he was freely elected by the new democratic tradition of that country. He greatly excels all the leaders I have mentioned in terms of charisma or personal magnetism. This leads to the successful communication of his message and the positive attitude that goes with it. His followers trust him to the extent that they are willing to die for what he embodies.
Johnson and Biden gained their authority through their different, but in each case much-criticised, electoral systems. In the UK, the 'first past the post' system is not a fair reflection of views in the UK, and in Biden's case, his Republican critics doubt if his success was even legal.
Biden's personal magnetism is hardly his strong point whereas Johnson's is a Marmite affair. Zelensky dropped the comedian act when he became President; his charisma derives from his inspiring patriotism. Johnson, on the other hand, continued the ruffled hair buffoonery as Prime Minister. Some supporters say that there has been less buffoonery in the present dire circumstances. But his comparison of the struggle of Ukraine to Brexit is crass beyond belief and has further damaged our relationship with Europe.
As for trust, there are a few signs that some Russians are beginning to doubt Putin, whereas Zelensky retains the trust of his people and the world. By contrast, Johnson is not noted for truth-telling or reliability.
If authority is to be effective, the person in authority must also possess power. But the two are distinct. If the Zelensky Government had to go into exile they would remain legitimate, be in authority, or be
de jure, whereas the
de facto rulers would have power but lack rational-legal authority.
But while this is true as far as it goes, the situation is more complex than this neat distinction suggests. For example, a school teacher may be in authority, but have no authority with his/her pupils. This means not only that he/she lacks the power to influence them, but also that in some sense the pupils do not regard him/her as legitimate. The same could happen politically with a leader who was elected in terms of the legal procedures or was in authority, but was perceived as weak and ineffectual, and therefore as lacking legitimacy.
The point here is that there can be a separation between two kinds of legitimisation: in term of rules (the rational-legal kind of legitimisation) and in terms of popular approval. Being a 'celebrity', or possessing wealth or beauty or having military might, can create a power-base of popular approval. And popular approval provides a kind of legitimacy and authority distinct from those mentioned by Max Weber.
If we stress this line of thought, it would be possible to make 'power' the dominant concept and then 'authority' would become a subset of power; it would become a front for the exercise of power. Some political theorists and sociologists might take this line. How would stressing popular approval as the route to authority affect the standing of the leaders currently in the news?
Popular approval is certainly important to them. The approval ratings of our UK leaders and their parties feature prominently in the newspapers and make the findings of Sir John Curtice of great interest. But popular approval polls could never entirely replace the rational-legal approach because public approval is too fickle to underpin authority.
There is currently an interesting example of these two kinds of legitimation. Some people claim that Prince William and his wife are much more popular than Prince Charles and his wife, and argue that the younger couple should therefore be next in line after the death of the Queen. They would have legitimacy in terms of popular approval. But the Queen herself has gone down the route of the traditional justification for authority. She has done this by stating that, when the time comes, Camilla should be known as Queen and not just as a royal consort.
It is more usual to contrast 'authority' as a
de jure or normative concept, with 'power' as a
de facto or causal concept. But no consistent distinction between authority and power can be derived from ordinary language or political discourse, and the influence of celebrity culture has given a measure of legitimacy to popular approval. Some degree of stipulation is therefore always necessary.
I have concentrated on the concept of authority as it can be found in political discourse but it occurs also in other contexts and is the foundation of leadership in these fields. For example, we have heard the advice of assorted authorities on various aspects of the Covid pandemic. And there can be authorities on birds or 17th-century manuscripts. But this sense can be accommodated in the analysis I have offered.
The authorities in question will have passed many examinations, published in the journals or written books on the subject. They are leaders in their fields. It will be a sad day for all of us if celebrity culture and/or conspiracy theories undermine the authority of accredited experts.
Robin Downie is Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow
