Comments 11

我们想要强力领导人吗？

Jun 3, 2016 Joseph S. Nye

坎布里奇—一股转向更大极权的趋势似乎正在全世界蔓延。普京成功地利用民族主义收紧了他对俄罗斯的控制，并且似乎还很受民众支持。习近平被认为是自毛泽东以来最强力的中国领导人，主持着越来越多的关键决策委员会。土耳其总统埃尔多安最近把总理换成了更适合他集中行政权力的人。更有一些评论家担心，如果唐纳德·特朗普赢得11月美国总统大选，有可能成为“美国墨索里尼”。

权力的滥用和人类历史一样久远。圣经告诉我们，大卫击败歌利亚并在随后成为过国王勾引了拔士芭，并故意把她的丈夫派上战场送死。领导力包括权力的使用，而阿克顿勋爵有一句名言，权力产生腐败。但权力乃是让人们按照你的意图行事的能力，没有权力，领导人无从领导。

哈佛大学心理学家大卫·麦克柯兰德（David C. McClelland）曾经用动机把人分为三类。最关注把事情做得更好的人有“成就需求”。最注重和他人的友好关系的人有“结盟需求”。最关注影响他人的人有“权力需求”。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 12 in all 12 Comments on this article

Jose araujo Jun 7, 2016

"power – the ability to cause others to do what we want" WRONG, power is the ability to make others do what they don't want.

What a collection of BS... from start to bottom, there have been many powerless leaders, Jesus Christ, Claudius, etc Leadership isn't a trait, its a condition, we are all leaders under certain situations, and there is no right nor wrong, its just what works and what doen't work.

Now I would really preferr not to see if Trumps leadership works...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry F. Hough Jun 7, 2016

This avoids all the problems. The Founders created a system of absolute veto for the South to protect slavery. They informally agreed on an even number of states (12 at first, the 16 with the addition of Vermont, Rhode Island, Kentucky, and Tennessee) half free and half slave so each section would have a veto in the Senate and thus Congress. They wanted a Congressional election of President for the same reason, but Washington with control of the army (1787 was really a military coup) refused. They hoped the Electoral College would have the same result with a one-state, one-vote runoff in the House.

They strengthened the Southern veto by decentralizing military power to the states and giving the federal government almost no power in the domestic sphere. The income tax and the Social Security program were unconstitutional by original intent.

FDR partially overthrew the Constitution in 1937 with a pro-democracy revolt. It has been reversed. The left-wing party is back with Eisenhower on economic policy, and the right-wing is back to Goldwater. This began under Bill Clinton who moved economic policy to Eisenhower in order to win the northern Country Club Republicans. The minority working class gets identity politics and white working class core 0f the New Deal gets nothing. Westchester and Newton gets a
Dow that was in 750 in 1982 and is now at 18,000 The Democratic nominee is a Goldwater activist who retains his earlier domestic and foreign policy views. Her most vocal proponent who speaks of Trump as Mussolini (Paul Krugman) says her chief virtue is that she will do nothing. That is not fair. She would negotiate with Paul Ryan to get an increase in the minimum wage for immigrants in exchange for the cut in Social Security and Medicare they both want.

In Eur0pe the policy is even more explicit in taking power from elected government and giving it to the EU bank and finance ministers.

Let us pray that Trump wins. The West is not far from 1928 in
Germany and France in 1785 or Europe in 1846. We need the European democratic solution of the 19th century, not that of the other two.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Morris Jun 7, 2016

The constitutional political economy of this problem is quite straightforward. We find very effective "powerless leaders" in genuine democracies like Switzerland.

To begin with one must dispense with non-tractable concepts such as "liberty". Such slogans may appeal to those who love rhetoric, but they yield no solutions. The great contribution of Ronald Coase to the subject of constitutional political economy was to identify the essential symmetry (what we might call "Coasian Symmetry") of right-obligation pairs: each individual's "liberty" comes at the cost of infringing the corresponding liberty of other individuals. (For more detail discussion see here: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/thinking-like-coase-not-an-economist/#comment-276447 and here: http://www.economist.com/comment/628319#comment-628319).

Having disposed of non-tractable rhetoric we may go on to consider the issue of "adverse selection" of leaders as described by Nobel laureate James Buchanan:

"“[S]uppose that a monopoly right is to be auctioned; whom will we predict to be the highest bidder? Surely we can presume that the person who intends to exploit the monopoly power most fully, the one for whom the expected profit is highest, will be among the highest bidders for the franchise. In the same way, positions of political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices. . . . Is there any presumption that political rent seeking will ultimately allocate offices to the ‘best’ persons? Is there not the overwhelming presumption that offices will be secured by those who value power most highly and who seek to use such power of discretion in the furtherance of their personal projects, be these moral or otherwise? Genuine public-interest motivations may exist and may even be widespread, but are these motivations sufficiently passionate to stimulate people to fight for political office, to compete with those whose passions include the desire to wield power over others?” (James Buchanan and Geoffrey Brennan, “The Reason of Rules”, Cambridge University Press, 1985, p64.)

It is the prospect of exercising "a monopoly on power" which tends to adversely select aggressively narcissistic, machiavellian (and possibly psychopathic!) political agents. Conversely, it is the elimination of the monopoly which eliminates adverse selection.

As Buchanan himself remarked: "In sum, the effects of direct democracy add-ons to existing decision rules surely work toward reducing the range and scope for politicization, a result supported by classical liberals."

To see this in operation one only need look at the multi-partisan Swiss Federal Council which comprises 7 members drawn from the 5 largest parties across the political spectrum. It is not uncommon for Swiss Cabinet Ministers to implement policies that are contrary to their own parties’ platforms.

Megalomaniacs are not adversely selected because under the system of direct democracy there is no prospect of wielding the sort of political power typical in purely elective systems. Thus the purpose of genuine democracy is not so much to empower the people as to dis-empower potential megalomaniacs.

The question remains, "Do the People prefer powerless politicians or do they wish to be 'led'?"

The answer may be found by asking them! And it is fairly unequivocal.

Where people have been given a free choice in the form of government they prefer for their country of state (with the options not pre-vetted by entrenched politicians) they almost invariably choose direct democracy to the greatest extent made available to them.

More importantly, where people enjoy such democratic rights they never vote to abolish them, even though it is a straightforward process to call a referendum for that purpose.

Thus genuine democracy demonstrates the ongoing consent of the citizens being governed in a way that non-democratic elective government does not.

In light of this, the anti-democrats have a battle on their hands to explain why they deny the people the right to choose their preferred form of government. We might well ask, "Where did they get their Monopoly on Wisdom? When were they granted a 'Charter from Heaven' to make these decisions on behalf of everyone else?"

So what sort of government do the people want?

Answer: ask them.

It is, after all, their country.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matthew McCarthy Jun 6, 2016

What exactly is the fear if Donald Trump wins the presidency? The idea that he will unilaterally override the legislative branch? Apparently that is not an issue, since when Obama unilaterally overrode the legislative branch the press encouraged him. The idea that he will silence the press? How would he do it? Ban particular press groups from press conferences? Coincidentally that was the only thing that got a half-hearted criticism of Obama out of the press. And many members of the press encouraged him since it was FOX news anyway. My point is not that Trump would make a good president - I am quite certain he would not. My point is that Trump might make you a better press. Clinton will just encourage you to 4 more years of defending the status quo regardless of how corrupt or unconstitutional its behavior is. With a functioning press even a Donald Trump would not be a problem as president under our constitutional system. The real issue is can our system survive a Donald Trump when the press has been encouraging abuse of the system for the last seven years.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Sheehy Jun 6, 2016

I think Lord Acton said that power 'tends' to corrupt.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 5, 2016

Joseph S. Nye believes we do want powerful leaders, because leaders "without power...can not lead" - even in a Western democracy. We can't always rely on the uncertainty whether a leader uses his power properly, although "emotional maturity and training are important means of limiting a narcissistic lust for power." There are fortunately "appropriate institutions" that serve to get "the balance right" and to rein in the power of the executive.
In recent years we are seeing a "trend toward greater authoritarianism" across the globe. If Vladimir Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan lead the club of autocrats, they definitely kept a low profile a decade ago, when they came to power. Enjoying popularity during the boom years, their narcissism and authoritarian streak began to emerge when their citizens took to the streets and showed their discontent. When they responded with violence and earned international condemnation, they became truculent. By the time Xi Jinping assumed power in March 2013, China's double-digit growth began to recede. He knew he had to "tighten his control" over the "crucial decision-making committees" to prevent popular protests from breaking out. Now some fear that Donald Trump might become an "American Mussolini" should he be elected.
Nye points out that "motivations" play a role in shaping leaders, and there are three types - "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.'" The latter seems to be common among "the most effective leaders." According to Lord Acton, "power corrupts," and Nye compares the right amount of power to "calories in a diet, too little produces emaciation, and too much leads to obesity."
"Ethics and power can be mutually reinforcing" according to Niccolo Machiavelli, whose monumental work, "The Prince" revealed the realities of politics. Machiavelli tells us what a ruler should be like, how elastic his integrity or ethics should be. It helps to appear virtuous, compassionate, loyal, humane and honest - the "soft power attraction." The make-believe game is that "a leader doesn't have to possess all the virtuous qualities I've mentioned, but it's absolutely imperative that he seem to possess them." At the same time "the hard power of coercion" is equally important. "It is better to be feared than to be loved" - Today few leaders have the acument to adopt Machiavelli's playbook satisfactorily.
Nye says today's autocrats do heed their supporters' demands, and their "leadership is a combination of leaders’ traits, followers’ demands, and the context in which they interact." While the people in Russia, China and Turkey have different grievances, they "create enabling environments for leaders who feel a psychological need for power." In equal measure Trump "magnifies the discontent of a part of the population through clever manipulation of television news programs and social media" in order to "satisfy his narcissistic need for power."
Thanks to the founding fathers' prescience, James Madison had decided "how powerful we want our leaders to be." In order to "preserve liberty, not maximize government efficiency" the Constitution provided for a "system of institutional checks and balances ensuring that the US would never resemble Italy in 1922 – or Russia, China, or Turkey today." Americans will soon learn "how resilient" their founding fathers' "framework for power and leadership really is," despite complaint about "institutional decay."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Jun 5, 2016

Putin, Xi and Trump.
Wow. Why not throw in Hitler as well.
There is NO basis for comparison. Obama made up the rules as he went along, and not a peep.
Translation: as long as the power does what The Elite want, all is well.
If the power does what the People want, that's bad.
One more reason to vote Trump. Glad you are showing your true colors.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Holly Jun 5, 2016

The problem is the world lacks people, let alone leaders, in group one, with a need for accomplishment. We have mostly group two crony capitalists, which has led to the rise of group three authoritarians.
- Mike Holly Jun 5, 2016
  
  The crony capitalists have destroyed market controls by first using regulations to monopolize industries and then trying to stimulate a monopolized economy with low interest rates that create perverse incentives like the short term bleeding of corporations.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Doug Huggins Jun 4, 2016

Nice analysis. My perspective is that institutions alone can deliver neither democratic legitimacy nor good governance. For these, we also need virtue (or its appearance), as Nye cites Machiavelli. And it's this latter quality that appears to be in short supply these days.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jun 3, 2016

It Is always good to learn from history and from other people's experiences however what the world needs today more than ever are mature, sain and honest leadership and these are not only in short supply, they are non existent.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
christopher tingus Jun 3, 2016

....and the same 'ol corruption we see even here w good 'ol Ms. Hillary and the coffers of the Clinton Foundation continue and those less fortunate continue to be ignorant of the facts and support those in politics who could give a damn!

Www.bigdiglifevest.com
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/Rjgw90x/zh;

我们想要强力领导人吗？

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Science and Subterfuge in Economics

What Will Succeed GDP?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register