Questioning the mythology of the strong leader

Abstract

The cult of the strong leader is dangerous not only in dictatorships but also in democracies. Political commentators too readily equate ‘strong’ with successful leadership. Yet, the idea that one person is entitled to take all the big decisions is antithetical to good governance and at odds with democratic values. In the British case, contemporary obsession with the one person at the top of the political hierarchy has led to anachronistic attribution of past policies to prime ministers when in reality they were very much the product of collective government deliberation. Thus, it is totally misleading to credit Clement Attlee with the creation of the National Health Service and the post-war British welfare state. Attlee's considerable achievement was to hold a strong and disparate team together. He did this without dominating his party or determining all major policy, and without aspiring to do so. Recent commentary, which uses the prime minister's name as a synonym for the government, exaggerates the actual determination of policy by that one person – and overstates also the significance of party leaders for electoral outcomes. There is one area of policy where heads of government have, indeed, acquired greater power and authority ever since the late 1930s – namely, foreign policy. Even in this sphere, however, the consequences can be disastrous when prime ministers are allowed to pull rank, to sustain an unrealistic belief in the exceptional quality of their own judgements, and to assert a corresponding right to discount intra-governmental, party and specialist opinion.