Leadership in a Pluralistic Society' Part 3. An Academic Perspective
Unknown
7:24 AM
0
.jpg)
.png)
Political culture, according to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, refers to the set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system. The nature of the political culture in any nation or society is directly influenced and shaped by the extent to which citizens are inclined to participate in their own governance. In an oppressive, dictatorial regime, citizens do not have the freedom to exercise any civic duty or to call on representatives for their needs, rights, and causes.
The political culture in such a case tends towards parochialism wherein citizens have no vested interest in the affairs of the state beyond being bound by laws and regulations and consequently may lack trust and confidence in leaders and their leadership styles. Other types of cultures that exist are subject, where the populace has more knowledge and interest in the state however their involvement only occurs cyclically, normally every election period, and participant, wherein citizens vigorously lobby for rights, form activist groups, and contribute their views on governance in public forums, not only during an election period but consistently throughout the years. Rarely does one type of political culture pervade a state exclusively; rather groups of each coexist within every society.
Out of these political climates emerge respective types of leaders as designated by Max Weber (1958) in his essay entitled The Three Types of Legitimate Rule. A traditional leader, as outlined by Weber, is characterized by an authoritarian control, an inflexible stance of disallowing any opposition, and not inviting any other opinions and thoughts towards policy formation and implementation. Hence, this type of leader is more often seen in parochial states.
A legal authority or bureaucratic leader is one who functions through administrating the procedural and regulatory aspects of the government by controlling the flow of information and sticking to “by the books” principles, often stagnating any chance of variations within the operational structure of the government itself. The third type of leader identified by Weber is the charismatic leader.
This leader typically displays an alluring, engaging personality and is able to sway opinions and perspectives through effective communication and with an understanding of how to appease and placate others while still essentially achieving their own objectives. Another type of leadership worth mentioning is the laissez-faire approach, characterised by no direct involvement of the person who is in charge, hence the tasks and responsibilities of governing are placed mostly upon subordinate employees.
Weber divided all leaders into two broad categories, transactional and transformational. Transactional leaders rule by applying their knowledge and technical know-how to problem solving and policy making, whereas transformational leaders rely more on cultivating a magnetic persona that would appeal to more followers.
Transactional leaders tend to focus on building relationships with those they lead while transformational leaders may be more concerned with the needs, values and beliefs that are prevalent amongst their followers. Of course, these classifications are not definitive since many exceptions and variances would arise as state and world leaders come and go. Despite the social dynamics of leadership we can still attempt to examine the present political culture in Trinidad and Tobago through the models espoused by Weber.
In Trinidad and Tobago we see a blend of the three main categories of political cultures that may be present within a nation. A relatively small number of citizens ascribe to the parochial mentality and do not concern themselves with the government and its dealings. Others are only civic minded during election periods and of course there is a significant subset of participants when it comes to political activism.
Citizens are not afraid to or impaired at voicing their opinions, concerns, and utter dismay about politicians and their behaviours as both elected officials and private citizens, or from protesting and picketing for their perceived rights. So what style of leadership does this reflect in the political culture of Trinidad and Tobago? We should answer this by analysing the actions and reactions of the government itself in response to behaviours of its members. It may be argued that one of the major defining legacies of the present government is the seemingly consistent reshuffling and reformation of its Cabinet members since taking up office in 2004.
Initially the Cabinet firings were viewed positively, as they appeared to substantiate a mandate of fair and transparent management of those who were entrusted with certain duties. The actions may be seen characteristic of a blend of an authoritarian/traditional leader (as the Prime Minister weeded out unwanted elements) and charismatic leader (since the Prime Minister understood that the public would not tolerate anything less than the expulsion of the offending member and subsequently did what was necessary for placation). These characteristics seem to fit the transformational leadership category.
As the government progresses through its term of office some of the team of ministers selected to serve have became problematic for the administration. The Prime Minister seems to not have the ability to keep these ministers in check and thus might be said to have a laissez faire approach when it comes to maintaining control and policing inappropriate behaviour. What adds to this negative analysis is the fact that the Prime Minister, most times, denies any knowledge of ministers’ alleged wrongdoings, presenting the face of a blameless superior being duped by her less honourable colleagues.
For example, Trinidad and Tobago’s participant political culture was highlighted recently when a vociferous public faction began a clamouring campaign for the removal of a particular minister. The Prime Minister, it may be asserted, never officially heeded citizens’ calls, instead allowed the pressure to escalate to the point where it became almost absurd that the minister would feel comfortable remaining in office and therefore choose to resign.
This is an authoritarian type of rule in the sense that the ruler never swayed to overwhelming public demand. However, the fact that the offending minister eventually choose to vacate all positions, may be seen as a facet of a democratic society and thus undermines or invalidates this branding of authoritarian rule.
Many other leaders in our society subscribe to these types of leadership styles. It is important to note that definitions and labels are nebulous. What helps to define a leader is the political culture out of which the leader holds dominance. The ever evolving political climate is what forces leaders to adapt styles and interchange them as situations come and go, thus determining how leaders define themselves and establish their legacies.
.jpg)
No comments