Political Leadership: from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic

Abstract

We take here a broadly based definition of leadership, which we see as involving two broad facets. The first is a high capacity for communication. A political leader needs to be able to persuade voters and activists of his/her capacity to govern effectively; this image of competence is usually embodied in a distinct style. When the overworked word ‘charisma’ is employed to describe certain leaders, it usually does no more than underline their particular style. Leadership is first and foremost possession of a style. Only possession of such a style can allow the second facet of leadership to operate properly, namely, the capacity to decide effectively. This activity clearly involves such tasks as prioritising, delegating and generally animating and supervising the work of subordinates. This two-pillar model of leadership applies in our view just as well to business or any large organisation as to politics. The first, stylistic function tends to be more associated with election campaigning, the second more with governing; this function is often discussed under the heading of policy leadership (Elgie 1995, 9). Obviously this distinction is to an extent artificial, as leaders need to be able to show decision-making skill within their own party before they ever achieve office; and even when governing, they still need all their communicative skills and style.