联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写澳洲assignment,Are Political Leaders necessarily devious, manipulative and
发表日期:2013-09-30 08:49:02 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写assignment > 澳洲assignment代写 > 正文
Are Political Leaders necessarily devious, manipulative and ruthless?
Politicians are often portrayed and are often thought to be ‘power-hungry’ and willing to stop at nothing to gain office. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether political leaders are devious, manipulative and ruthless; to answer this question this essay will look at the main characteristics that political leaders posses, also the political environments that these leaders operate within will also be explored, finally based on the characteristics of leaders and the environments they work within, a conclusion will be drawn to see whether political leaders are in fact devious, manipulative and ruthless. Political leaders vary from political institution, to political systems and so forth. To give this essay a direct focus; an emphasis will be placed on the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the British political environment in which she operated and led.
Leadership is not exclusive to the political area, it encompasses many aspects of daily life. In the broadest sense of the word; a leaders can be described as a person who has a following; As a result when attempting to define leadership, many notions and concepts spring to mind; leadership is in fact a normative concept, in that it is based around ‘… people’s notions of leadership are images of a social contract…’ (Heifetz 1994 p. 14) so trying to establish an exclusive definition is somewhat of a futile task. However there are theories which attempt to construct value-free definitions of leadership, these theories can be labelled under the following categories; the trait approach, situational approach, contingency approach and the transactional approach. (Heifetz 1994) The trait approach to the study of leadership focuses on the character traits of leaders, proposing that the personality, skills or even physical characteristics, influence an individual’s leadership quest/experience. The situational approach on the other hand argues that it s actually the situation that individuals find themselves that determines their leadership quest/experience. The contingency approach merges both the trait and situational approach and argues that it is both the personal traits and the situation that an individual finds themselves in that actually decides their leadership quest/experience; knowing what skills to use when is the decisive factor in determining leadership. The transactional approach argues that the transactions between leaders and followers actually determine leadership. Heifetz argues;
‘These four general approaches attempt to define leadership objectively, without making value judgements. When defining leadership in terms of prominence, authority, and influence, however, these theories introduce value-biases implicitly without declaring their introduction and without arguing for the necessity of the values introduced.’ (Heifetz 1994 p.18)
This highlights the normative aspect of leadership and the difficulty of establishing a definition. However for the purposes of this essay leadership will be described as ‘…the activity of a citizen from any walk of life mobilizing people to do something.’ (Heifetz 1994 p. 20) On a further note in regard to this essay, political leadership will be viewed as the act of formal political actors mobilizing other actors to achieve particular ends. Due to the normative nature of the concept of leadership, other values attached to leadership must be examined in order to correctly examine leadership traits.
Politics (simply defined) is basically concerned with power relations. Those who exercise power are often thought to be leaders. As discussed previously when trying to understanding leadership, especially political leadership, values associated with the concept of leadership need to be explored. Power is a notion intertwined with leadership. A popular definition of power is the ability and the extent to which one actor (A) can get another actor to something another actor (B) would not have otherwise done. Based on this (simple definition) the actor (A) can be described as a leader, this introduces the concept of authority. Authority although closely associated with power is rather distinct. Heywood succinctly draws the distinction;
‘In its broadest sense, authority is a form of power; it is a means through which one person can influence the behaviour of another. However… power can be defined as the ability to influence the behaviour of another, authority can be understood as the right to do so. Power brings compliance through persuasion, pressure, threats, coercion or violence. Authority, on the other hand, is based on a perceived ‘right to rule’ and brings about compliance through moral obligation on the part of the ruled to obey.’ (Heywood 1999 p. 130)
The sociologist Max Weber goes further and categorises authority under the following types; traditional authority, charismatic authority and legal-rational authority. It is charismatic authority that is of relevance to this essay and is defined as authority that is based on an individual’s personality. Charismatic authority is often viewed suspiciously because it is based on personality rather than specific office, and thus is not bound by rules, which could lead to a situation of totalitarian or authoritarian rule. (Heywood 1999)
Tied in with the notion of leadership, power and authority is accountability. Political accountability deals with the concept of responsibility and means of redress in situations where power and authority been abused. A simple example would be that of Parliament, constituents confer their mandate to MPs under the premise that they will perform certain duties. If constituents feel that MPs have failed to hold their own part of the bargain, they do not vote for the MPs in the following elections. However the definition of accountability is rather fluid depends largely on the political culture of a society;
‘…the public no longer sees accountability in strictly legal and organizational terms. For them, accountability is a broader professional, ethical and moral construct that is achieved only when public officials, both elected and appointed serve with a commitment to do the right things…’ (Hill 2005 p 259)
The changing nature of accountability leads to the widely held view that political leaders are in fact manipulative, ruthless and deceptive. The basis of authority such as charismatic authority on un-enforceable rules also fuels this notion. By examining the relationship between power and leadership it is clear in that mobilizing people to achieve certain goals a degree of manipulation does occur, but this does necessarily have to be a deceptive or negative manipulation.
The political correspondent Margach in his book The Anatomy of Power argues that ambition, courage, character, stamina, patience, the ability to heed the advice of experts and ruthlessness as necessary personal qualities of a Prime Minister. However, he also argues that the above qualities;
‘…are all essential qualities which constitute the Personality of Leadership after the Prime Minister gets into No10 Downing Street. For my money the most precious asset before he makes it luck, and here I draw only on life and experience at first-hand, not academic theory at second. So I can confirm that all but two of the dozen Prime Ministers, and a couple of Opposition leaders, whom I knew well, would have never reached the top without having been blessed with incredibly good fortune for themselves, coinciding with misfortunes of their rivals and sometimes the country as well…The secret of power lies in how the great men exploit their luck once they get there…’ (Margach, 1979 p.2)
Margach’s account of leadership falls within the contingency approach of leadership theory in that both personality and context determine leadership quest and experience of the political leaders in Parliament.
Ambition is the driving force behind leadership, without ambition the desire to lead is nothing more than a mere wish in the mind of an individual. Courage is also an integral characteristic of leadership, leaders must have courage to act on their desire to lead firstly, and when in the position of leadership, they must be willing and able to have the strength to make ‘tough’ or ‘controversial decisions. Character or charisma is another quality needed for leadership. Charismatic authority is based on an individuals personality, so a leader needs to ensure that they exuded charisma; because as Margach argues; ‘ The sophisticated packaging by advertising and public relations experts may succeed temporarily in creating illusion by cardboard images, but first Parliament and then the public have an instinct for detecting defects and counterfeits in character.’ (Margach, 1979 p.1) Whether ‘manufactured’ or naturally endowed, character is imperative in order for leaders to mobilise their followers. The ability to inspire vision is a function of charisma and without this leaders are forgotten in the history books no matter how great administrators or managers they were. (Margach, 1979) Stamina and patience are required qualities for leadership. The road to and the nature of political leadership is not an easy route, thus endurance coupled with ambition is needed to ensure positions and is also needed to maintain the said office. Political Leaders especially Prime Ministers deal and make decisions on diverse and complex policy areas and it is almost impossible for the Prime Minster as individual to be an expert or even conversant in each of these areas, so they must be able to gauge the advice of experts and make decisions accordingly. Ruthlessness is an imperative prerequisite to leadership. Political Leaders need to be able to make tough decisions limited not only to policy areas but also about their colleagues no matter how close they are, and this trait is seen in cabinet reshuffles and leadership contests. For example, in the Conservative leadership contest following the 1974 General election, Margaret Thatcher is argued to have been successful because of the combination of her courage and ruthlessness, unlike William Whitelaw who was also a cabinet member but who decided to stand further into the leadership because he felt that ‘… because of old-style chivalry; he felt it would not be honourable conduct in the mess if the second in command were to seek to get his commanding officer reduced in rank.’ (Margach, 1979 p.3) By the time he decided to enter the contest Margaret Thatcher had garnered enough support for her to go on and win the position of party leader and consequently became Prime Minister.
To fully examine whether political leaders are necessarily manipulative deceptive and ruthless the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher will be used as an example. As an individual Margaret Thatcher conjures mixed opinions, but it is safe to say that she was a prominent political leader. Before going into the detail of her premiership, it is important to understand the context of the role and the environment in which Prime Ministers operate in. In the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary system the executive consists of Prime Minster, The Cabinet and Senior Civil servants; the overall duty of the executive is to initiate and implement policy in contrast to the role of the legislature which is to pass legislation and the judiciary which is to interpret law. In all Liberal Democracies there is a degree of separation of powers, in most cases a complete separation; where members of the legislature, judiciary and the executive are completely separate entities. This is not the case in the United Kingdom; the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) is drawn from the Parliament (the legislature). The notion behind the separation of powers is to ensure that each arm of the government is independent and also to curb arbitrary rule. It is the lack of complete separation between the legislature and the executive, which confers a realm of power in which a Prime Minister can act as an ‘elected dictator’. The Prime Minister simply put is ‘…responsible for forming a government; for directing and coordinating its work; and for general supervision of the civil service.’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 123) In order to fulfil his or her duties the Prime Minister has special powers, which include patronage and the power of dissolution.
Patronage is an integral resource and element in the role of the Prime Minister. The power of patronage allows the Prime Minister to choose most importantly the members of the cabinet from Parliament (commonly from the House of Commons, but also the House of Lords), in addition the Prime Minister chooses certain members of the judiciary the attorney general and solicitor general. In this respect the Prime Minister has major scope to determine or arguably manipulate the composition of the executive and to a certain extent the judiciary. Patronage is an important resource to the Prime Minister because it is not static; the Prime Minister can ‘reshuffle’ the cabinet at any point. This aspect of patronage is crucial to the role of the Prime Minister as director and organiser of government, which involves developing policy objectives for government to pursue. Patronage allows the Prime Minister to allocate areas for cabinet member to work within, through the appointment of ministers.
The Prime Minister also acts as a chair in Cabinet meetings. This gives the Prime Minister scope to determine policy discussions and emerging results. In doing so, Prime Minister’s may engage the ‘manipulative ‘arts’ of chairmanship’ which includes ‘…delay, obfuscation of the issue, verbosity, deliberate ambiguity, adjournment (followed by ‘arm-twisting’), briskness (sometimes Cabinets have complained of being ‘bounced’ into decisions), sheer persistence, and authoritativeness.’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p.126). This goes against the notion of the Prime Minister being ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals) within the cabinet; the role of chairmanship goes beyond that of functionality or the facilitation of meetings. The Prime Minister is also responsible for overall work of the civil service; this covers appointments, organisation and practices. Traditionally appointments of Senior civil servants by the Prime Minister were based on recommendation of a committee, however notably during the Thatcher administration, the Prime Minister has become more directly involved in the selection process, which has led to the claim that the UK civil service has become ‘politicised’ eroding at the traditional principles (anonymity. neutrality, and permanence) on which the civil service is organised (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994) Also the power of dissolution is exclusively held by Prime Minister , they can recommend during a five year term when parliament is dissolved. This is a useful weapon in relation to opposition parties, if calculated accurately a Prime Minister can call for a general election at time where the opposition party’s position is weaker and thus strengthening their party and their position as party leader, by hopefully gaining extra seats. The Prime Minister has a unique role as national leader; this is clearly seen in situations of national security where the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible and matters are not brought to the cabinet. (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 125)
Another segment of the ‘core-executive’ is the Cabinet which is the top executive committee and consist of ministers who are responsible for government departments. The role of the Cabinet consists of formal approval, crisis management, brake, debating forum, legitimiser and symbol of collective executive. (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 134) In theory government policies are collectively the responsibility of cabinet although there are no formal votes on issues, this leads to formal approval role of Cabinet. Due to the fact that the increasing scope of government and the fluid shape of public policy, not all decisions are made within the cabinet and it is the role of cabinet to formally approve decisions take elsewhere. The Cabinet is also responsible for managing crises and issues of major political controversy and does so through its execution of its role as ‘brake’ and ‘debating forum’ functions, in which the Cabinet influences the direction of government policy by ‘…Blocking, slowing down, amending and qualifying policies and legislation.’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 134) Also Cabinet meetings are an arena for debate for between leading ministers. The legitimiser role of the Cabinet involves ‘…Conferment of authority upon government decisions.’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 134), linked to the formal approval function and the fact that the cabinet is responsible for government policy. The Cabinet also acts a sign of a collective executive, opposed to that of the United States of America’s executive where the President is the essentially the executive.
The civil service is the administrative branch of the executive and responsible for implementing government policy. The British civil service traditionally operates on the principles of permanence neutrality and anonymity. Civil servants are supposed to ‘permanent’ in that their positions do not change with a change in government. In addition civil servants are required to be politically neutral. Their personal political persuasions and political affiliations are not to guide their administrative and advisory duties. Civil servants are also anonymous in that responsibility of a department’s action lies with ministers; who are publicly responsible for departments. The cloak of anonymity ensures that civil servants do not become
‘…public figures, this might compromise their neutrality since they would become associated in the public mind with a particular policy; it also might undermine the frankness of the advice offered to ministers.’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 151)
The principles of anonymity. neutrality, and permanence, are there to ensure that civil servants build up expertise and become a valuable resource to governments which often change hands. The civil service is supposed to be a source of stability. It is expertise and stability that give the Civil service a degree of influence in the policy process.
In examining the context in which Prime Minster operates it is clearly seen that within the ‘core-executive’ the role of the Prime Minister is formidable in comparison to that of the Cabinet and civil service. this gives rise to the notion that political leaders especially Prime Ministers are at the very least manipulative, with a scope for them to be deceptive and ruthless. This notion coincides with the ongoing debate over whether the United Kingdom has either a Prime Ministerial or Cabinet government. The debate centres round the powers of the Prime Minister, traditionally government decisions were made by the Cabinet. However Post -1945, in the United Kingdom there has been move from Cabinet government style and a move towards a Prime Ministerial or ‘Presidential’ style of government, where it is said that the due to the powers held by the Prime Minister, he/she can ‘… use the government to bring forward the policies which s/he favours and to stop those to which he/she is opposed…’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 140).
Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as Prime Minister is often cited as example of Prime Ministerial government. In addition she is often characterised as being an ‘authoritarian’ or an ‘elected dictator’. These titles were attributed to her because of the manner in which she exercised her powers as Prime Minister which can be summed up as the following;
‘…systematic bypassing of cabinet… the holding of fewer cabinet meetings…personal involvement over a wide range of government–policy making …policy’ ‘on the hoof’ in a conference speech or TV interview without consultation with ministerial colleagues… Brusque treatment of ministers regarded as weak, wet, ‘not one of us’…Use of PM’s Press Office to undermine ministers, sometimes as a prelude to sacking them…’ (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 142)
In addition Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister made is also accused of the ‘politicisation’ of the civil service due to certain senior civil servant appointments she made when she came to power. (Coxall B., Robins L., 1994 p. 126)
When exploring whether political leaders are devious, manipulative and ruthless, it is important to firstly examine the concept of leadership. Leadership is a normative concept, so in many respects difficult to fully ascertain, but when leadership is simply defined as a person who mobilises another/others to achieve a particular end, concepts such as power, authority and accountability come into play. A basic definition of power close resembles that of leadership; actor (A) getting actor (B) to something that actor (B) would not have otherwise of done, can be argued to be actor (A) mobilising actor (B). The resemblance between leadership and power shows manipulation to be an integral aspect of both leadership and the exercise of power. Authority is a concept closely related to power, and also shows the manipulative aspect of leadership, especially when examining charismatic authority, where leaders engage their followers based on their personalities, this can lead to disastrous situations as witnessed in the case of Germany and Hitler, whom ‘mobilised’ to commit mass genocide.
When examining the qualities of held by a leader, especially a Prime Minister, it is evident that in addition to being manipulative, leaders are also required to ruthless to a certain degree. Based on the example of the Prime Minister, the manipulative and ruthlessness of leadership does necessarily have negative consequences, and more importantly not unlawful. For example Margaret Thatcher’s ruthlessness in her quest to become party leader was not unlawful nor did not break any conventions, or societal norms, but it paved the way for her to become Prime Minister.
When looking at the role of Prime Minster it is clear that there is scope for the holder to be manipulative and ruthless, due to the powers conferred to the position. Margaret Thatcher is an example of a political leader who on the surface seemed manipulative and ruthless, but a closer examination reveals that she was not acting beyond her remit and was not being deceptive in her carrying her role as Prime Minister. This poses the notion that in fact political leaders are not necessarily manipulative and ruthless as individuals, but as consequence of the environment they operate within, manipulation and ruthlessness become a function of their office, and thus characteristics of political institutions rather than individual personality. It would be inaccurate to portray the role of Prime Minister and Margaret Thatcher as that of completely consisting of manipulation and ruthlessness, even Margaret Thatcher acknowledges that there constraints to the extent to which political leaders can be manipulative and ruthless, much less deceptive;
‘ A Prime Minster who knows that his or her cabinet has withheld its support is fatally weakened. I knew -and I am sure that they knew- that I would not willingly remain an hour in 10 Downing Street without the real authority to govern (Thatcher 1993: 851). ’ (Kavanagh, D. et al 2006 p.209)
Bibliography
Coxall B., Robins L., (1994) Contemporary British Politics, Great Britain Macmillan
Heifetz, R. A. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, United States of America, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Heywood A., (1999) Political Theory: An Introduction, Great Britain, Palgrave
Hill (2005) The Public Policy Process, Great Britain, Pearson Education Limited
Kavanagh, D. Richards D., Smith, M. Geddes A., (2006) British Politics, Great Britain, Oxford University Press
Margach, J. (1979) The Anatomy of Power: An Enquiry into the Personality of Leadership, Great Britain, W.H. Allen & Co. Ltd
政治家们经常被描写往往被认为是“耗电大户”和愿意停在办公室无关。这篇文章的目的是检查政治领导人是否偏僻,操纵和无情来回答这个问题,这篇文章的主要特点看政治领导人具备,也​​还将探讨这些领导人的政治环境内运作,终于领导人和他们的工作环境内的特点的基础上,得出一个结论将被吸引到政治领导人是否在事实上,狡猾的,操纵和无情的。不同的政治领导人从政治制度,政治制度等等。给这篇文章直接重点的重点将放在英国前首相玛格丽特·撒切尔和英国的政治环境中,她经营和领导。
领导是不是排他性的政治领域,它包括日常生活的许多方面。这个词在最广泛的意义;一个领导人可以形容一个人有下列因此当试图定义领导,许多概念和概念春天的头脑;领导其实是在一个规范的概念,因为它是根据各地' ......领导人们的观念是社会契约的图像......“ ( 1994年海菲兹第14页)试图建立一个独特的定义是有点徒劳的任务。然而,有理论,试图建立领导值定义,这些理论可以按以下类别标记性状的方法,情景教学法,应急方法和事务的方法。 ( 1994年海菲兹)领导研究的特质取向侧重于领导者的性格特征,提出的个性,技能甚至是物理特性,影响个人的领导任务/经验。另一方面认为情境教学法,它s实际上,个人发现自己的情况,决定自己的领导追求/经验。应急方法合并双方的特质与情境教学法,并认为,它既是个人特质和情况,一个人发现自己,实际上决定了他们的领导追求/经验,知道什么技能时使用的是决定性的因素在决定领导。事务的做法认为,领导者和追随者之间的交易实际上是决定领导。海菲兹认为;
“这四个方法试图定义领导客观,没有进行价值判断。当定义突出,权威性和影响力方面的领导地位,但是,这些理论引入隐含价值偏见没有宣布他们的介绍,没有介绍的价值观的必要性争论。“ ( 1994年海菲兹第18页)
这凸显了规范方面的领导和建立一个定义的难度。然而,这篇文章的目的,领导将被描述为“ ......活动一个公民从生活的任何一个角落都动员人们做一些事情。” ( 1994年海菲兹第20页)在这篇文章中,政治领导方面进一步说明的行为将被视为正式的政治动员其他演员的演员,以达到特定的目的。由于规范性质的领导的观念,其他领导值必须进行审查,以正确检查领导特质。
基本上是关注政治(简单地定义)与权力关系。这些行使权力的人往往被认为是领导人。如前所述,当试图理解的领导下,特别是政治领导,价值观与领导的观念有关,需要加以探讨。电源是交织着领导的概念。权力是一个普遍的定义的能力和在何种程度上可以得到一个演员( A )的另一位演员另一个演员( B ) ,否则不会做的东西。基于( A ) (简单的定义)的演员可谓是作为一个领导者,这引入了权威的概念。虽然密切相关的电力管理局是相当明显的。海伍德简洁绘制的区别;
“在其最广泛的意义上说,权力是权力的一种形式,它是一种手段,一个人可以影响他人的行为。但是...功率可以定义为有能力影响他人的行为,权限可以理解这样做的权利。电源带来遵守通过的劝说下,压力,威胁,胁迫或暴力。管理局,另一方面,基于感知的统治权'和,带来符合道德义务的部分裁定服从。 “( 1999年海伍德p 。 130)
社会学家马克斯·韦伯更进一步,根据以下类型分类权威,传统的权威,魅力权威和法律理性的权威。这是这篇文章相关的,被定义为权力是基于个人的个性魅力权威。魅力权威常常被可疑,因为它是基于个性,而不是具体的办公室,因此没有规则的约束,这可能导致极权或专制统治的局面。 ( 1999年海伍德)
绑在领导,权力和授权的概念是问责。政治问责处理的责任,权力和授权的情况下被滥用的补救手段的概念。一个简单的例子是,国会,选民赋予他们的任务的前提下,他们将履行某些职责的国会议员。如果选民觉得国会议员未能守住自己的讨价还价,他们不投票在选举国会议员。然而,问责制的定义,而流体在很大程度上取决于一个社会的政治文化;
“......公众不再认为在严格的法律和组织方面的问责制。对于他们来说,问责制是一个更广泛的专业,伦理和道德的构造,实现只有当政府官员,民选及委任服务承诺做正确的事......“ (山2005 P 259 )
问责性质的变化导致普遍认为,政治领导人,其实是操控,无情和欺骗性。未强制执行的规则也助长这个概念的魅力权威机构如基础。通过检查功率和领导之间的关系,它是明确的,动员人民达到一定的目标,确实发生了一定程度的操纵,但这一定是一个欺骗性或负的操纵。
在他的书中的政治记者Margach的权力解剖认为,野心,勇气,性格,耐力,耐心,听取专家的意见,作为一个总理的必要的个人素质和无情的能力。不过,他也认为,上述特质;
“......都是后进入唐宁街10号首相领导的人格构成的基本素质。他让我的钱,最宝贵的资产是好运,在这里我只绘制的生活和经验在手,而不是学术理论在第二。因此,我可以确认所有,但两个十几总理,反对派领导人,以及我所知道的一对夫妇,从来没有到达顶部不被祝福自己令人难以置信的好运气,正好与不幸,他们的对手,有时国家以及力量的奥秘,就在于伟人如何利用自己的运气,一旦到达那里......“ ( 1979年Margach ,第2页)
Margach帐户的领导的领导理论,这两个个性和上下文确定议会政治领导人的领导的任务和经验范围内的应急方法。
野心是背后的驱动力的领导,没有野心的领导欲,无非是在个人的头脑不是一个单纯的愿望。勇气也是一个不可分割的特性,领导,领导者必须有他们的愿望,首先导致勇于担当,在领导的位置的时候,他们必须愿意和能够有足够的实力,使“强硬”或“有争议的决定。性格或人格魅力是领导所需要的另一种品质。是基于个人的个性魅力权威,所以需要一个领导者,以确保他们散发出的人格魅力,因为作为Margach认为,“复杂的包装,广告和公共关系专家在创造纸板图像错觉暂时可能会成功,但第一届议会,然后市民有一个缺陷检测和假冒性格的本能。 “( 1979年Margach ,第1页)无论是'制造'或自然赋予的,性格是必要的,以便为领导调动他们的追随者。的人格魅力和能力,激发视力是一个函数,这个的领导人被遗忘在历史书上没有不管他们多么伟大的管理者或经理。 ( Margach ,1979)耐力和耐心是必需的领导素质。道路和政治领导层的性质是不是一件容易的路线,从而耐力加上野心是必要的,以确保职位,也需要维持该办事处。政治领袖,尤其是总理处理并作出决定,多样化和复杂化的政策领域,这几乎是不可能总理个人在上述各领域的专家,甚至精通,所以他们必须能够衡量专家的意见并据此作出决定。无情领导是一个必要的先决条件。政治领导人必须能够作出艰难的决定,不仅限制政策领域,但自己的同事也不管他们是如何接近,而这种特质被认为是在内阁改组和领导比赛。例如,在1974年大选后,保守党领导比赛中,撒切尔夫人认为是成功的,因为她的勇气和无情的结合,也是内阁成员,但他决定站到领导进一步不像威廉·怀特洛因为他觉得, “......因为旧式的侠义;他觉得这会不会成为一名光荣的行为的一塌糊涂,如果第二个命令中寻求得到他的指挥官在等级降低。 ( Margach ,1979年第3页)的时候,他决定参加比赛,撒切尔夫人曾获得足够的支持她去赢得党的领导者的地位,从而成为首相。
要充分研究,无论是政治领导人一定是操纵,欺骗和无情的英国前首相撒切尔夫人将被用来作为一个例子。作为一个个体的撒切尔夫人让人想起不同的意见,但它是安全地说,她是一个杰出的政治领袖。在进入她的英超细节,重要的是理解上下文的作用和总理工作的环境中。在英国的议会制度执行由首相,内阁和高级公务员;行政机关的整体工作是发起和实施的政策相反的作用,这是立法机关通过立法和司法解释法律。在所有自由民主国家是有一定程度的三权分立,在大多数情况下,一个完整的分离,立法机关,司法机关和行政机关的成员是完全独立的实体。这不是在英国的情况下,执行(首相和内阁)是来自议会(立法机关) 。三权分立背后的概念是确保政府各臂是独立的,也遏制乱治。这是缺乏立法机关和行政机关,赋予其权力的总理可以充当一个'民选的独裁者“的境界之间的完全分离。简单地说是总理“......负责组建政府,指导和协调工作;和一般公务员的监督。” ( B. Coxall ,罗宾斯L. ,1994年第123页)为了履行他或她的职责总理有特殊的权力,其中包括乘客的数量和功率解散。
赞助总理的作用是不可或缺的资源和元素。对任命权,允许首相选择最重要的是,内阁成员来自议会(俗称下议院,但也上议院) ,除了首相选择司法总检察长和若干成员律师一般。在这方面,总理确定或可以说是操纵组成的行政和司法在一定程度上具有重大的范围。赞助是重要的资源,因为它不是静态总理,总理内阁'洗牌'的任何一点。这方面的惠顾总理为政府的董事和组织者的角色,其中涉及制定政策目标,政府追求的关键。赞助允许首相内阁成员分配领域内工作,通过任命的部长。
总理还作为一个主持内阁会议。这给了总理的范围,以确定政策的讨论和结果。在这样做时,首相可以搞'操纵'艺术'主持'包括' ......延迟,模糊的问题,冗长,故意含糊不清,续会( '角力' ) ,活泼“ (有时柜抱怨被'弹'到决定),纯粹的持久性和权威性。 “(罗宾斯B. Coxall , L. , 1994年第126页) 。这违背了总理的概念“博智间剥” (第一之间的平等) ,机柜内主持的作用超越了功能或便利会议。总理是负责全面工作的公务员,这包括任命,组织和实践。是基于传统的高级公务员,由总理任命一个委员会的建议,但特别是在撒切尔政府,总理已经成为更直接地参与选择的过程,从而导致的说法,英国公务员成为“政治化”的传统原则( anonymity.中立性和持久性) ,民间服务组织( B. Coxall ,罗宾斯L. ,1994)亦解散的力量是专门总理举行的侵蚀,他们是否可以推荐在为期五年时,议会被解散。这是一个非常有用的武器就反对党,如果计算准确的一个首相可以调用一个一般选在时间那里反对方的立场是弱,并从而加强他们的党和他们的立场作为党的领导,希望获得额外席位。首相具有独特的作用,作为国家领导人,这是清楚地看到,总理是国家安全的情况下,最终负责的事项不拿来内阁。 (罗宾斯L. B. Coxall , 1994年p 125 。 )
另一个段的核心执行内阁,这是高管委员会,由负责政府部门的部长是谁。内阁的作用,包括正式批准,危机管理,制动,辩论的论坛, legitimiser和集体执行的象征。 ( Coxall B.罗宾斯L. , 1994年第134页)从理论上说政府的政策是内阁集体责任的问题上虽然没有正式的投票,这导致内阁正式批准角色。由于,政府和流体形状公共政策的范围不断扩大,并不是所有的决定都机柜内,它的作用是内阁正式批准决定采取其他的事实。内阁也是负责管理危机和重大政治争议的问题,这样做,通过执行其作为'刹车'和'辩论的论坛功能,其中内阁影响政府政策的方向由' ...阻止,减缓下来,修改和符合资格的政策和立法。“ (罗宾斯B. Coxall , L. , 1994年第134页)此外,内阁会议是辩论的舞台之间领先的部长。内阁涉及的legitimiser作用“ ...后,政府决定授予权力'( B. Coxall ,罗宾斯L. ,1994年第134页) ,链接到正式批准,内阁是负责政府政策的功能和事实。内阁还充当集体执行的标志,反对美国执行的美国总统是实质上执行。
公务员是行政部门的行政机关和负责执行政府政策。英国文官传统经营的永久中立和匿名的原则。公务员都应该为“永久” ,在不改变自己的立场与政府的变化。此外,公务员保持政治中立。他们的个人政治派别和政治派别都没有来指导自己的行政和咨询职务。公务员也是匿名与部长在一个部门的行动,责任在于谁是公开部门负责。一位不愿透露姓名的斗篷,确保公务员不会成为
“......公众人物,这可能会危及他们的中立性,因为他们将成为在公众心目中的一个特定的政策有关,也可能破坏的坦率的意见提供给部长。” ( Coxall B. ,1994年,罗宾斯L. p 。 151)
一位不愿透露姓名的原则。中立性,和持久性,是确保公务员建立专业知识,并成为一种宝贵的资源,政府往往转手。公务员应该是稳定性的来源。它是专业知识和稳定性,让公务员在政策制定过程中的影响程度。
在审议总理工作的上下文中清楚地看到,在'核心执行总理的作用是强大在内阁和公务员相比。这引起了政治领导人,特别是总理最起码操纵的概念,范围与他们欺骗和无情。这个概念正好与正在进行的辩论在英国是否有一个总理或内阁政府。辩论围绕传统政府的决定是由内阁总理的权力。不过发布-1945 ,在英国内阁政府作风一直存在移动迈向政府总理部长级会议或“总统”的风格,它是说,由于权力由总理举行,他/她可以“ ...使用政府提出的政策,他/她主张,并阻止那些他/她是不是......” (罗宾斯B. Coxall , L. , 1994年第140页) 。
撒切尔夫人担任首相的任期通常被认为是例如首相的政府。此外,她还经常被视为是一个“专制”或“民选的独裁者” 。这些头衔归功于她,因为她以何种方式行使她作为总理的权力,可以概括为以下;
“......系统的旁路柜...举行内阁会议较少...个人参与过广泛的政府政策制定政策的蹄在一个会议上发表讲话或接受电视采访时没有咨询部级同事...布鲁斯克治疗部长视为弱,潮湿, “我们没有一个' ...下午的新闻办公室使用破坏的部长,有时作为一个前奏解雇他们......” ( Coxall B. ,1994年,罗宾斯L. p 142 )
此外,作为首相的撒切尔夫人也被指责“政治化”的公务员,由于若干高级公务员的任命她当她上台。 (罗宾斯L. B. Coxall , 1994年p 126 。 )
在探索政治领导人是否是狡猾的,操纵和无情的,重要的是要首先检查领导的观念。领导是一个规范的概念,所以在很多方面很难完全确定,但是当领导简单地定义为一个人谁动员/他人实现一个特定的结束,开始发挥作用的概念,如权力,权力和问责。权力的基本定义接近类似的领导,演员( A) ( B )的东西做演员( B ) ,否则不会有越来越演员,可以说是演员(A)调派演员( B ) 。领导和权力之间的相似显示,操纵双方领导和行使权力的一个组成部分。管理局是一个什么概念密切相关的电力,并且也显示了操控方面的领导,尤其是当检查魅力权威,领导人搞他们的追随者根据自己的个性,这可能会导致灾难性的情况下,作为见证的情况下,德国和希特勒,其中“动员”犯大规模的种族屠杀。
当研究的领导者,尤其是总理举行的素质,这是显而易见的,除了操控,领导人还需要在一定程度上狠。根据总理,操纵和领导无情的例子并不必然带来负面影响,更重要的是不违法的。例如,撒切尔夫人的无情,她的追求,成为党的领导是不是非法的,也没有打破任何约定或社会规范,但它铺平了道路,为她成为总理。
当看着总理的作用是明确的,有范围为持有人将可操控性和无情的,由于位置所赋予的权力。撒切尔夫人是一个例子了政治领袖表面上似乎操纵和无情的,但仔细观察发现,她没有超出了她的职权范围行事,并没有被欺骗她背着她的角色作为总理。这就引出了一个概念,其实政治领袖不一定是个人的操纵和无情,但操纵和残酷的环境内运作的后果,成为一个功能,他们的办公室,政治机构,而不是个人的人格特征。这将是不准确的描绘总理和撒切尔夫人的角色完全由操纵和无情的,甚至是撒切尔夫人承认有限制的程度,政治领导人可以操纵和无情,更谈不上欺骗性;
'总理谁知道他或她的内阁隐瞒其支持严重削弱。我知道,我敢肯定,他们知道,我不会愿意留在唐宁街10号的一个小时,没有真正的权力执政( 1993年撒切尔夫人:851 ) 。 (卡瓦纳,D.等人,2006年第209页)
参考书目
罗宾斯L. Coxall B. ( 1994) ,当代英国政治,英国麦克米伦
海菲兹, RA (1994)领导没有简单的答案,美国哈佛大学出版社Belknap新闻
海伍德A. (1999),政治理论:导论,英国,帕尔格雷夫
希尔(2005年)的公共政策过程中,英国培生教育有限公司
卡瓦纳M.史密斯, D.理查兹D. ,格迪斯A. (2006)英国政治,英国,牛津大学出版社
Margach , J. (1979)解剖电源:查询到的领导人物,英国, WH艾伦有限公司