Political Leaders and Leadership

What qualities will define great leaders in an age that welcomes disruption?

As we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term in the White House, it’s timely to reflect on political leadership as a general issue.

Love him or hate him, Mr Trump has defied political norms. Many pundits mistakenly wrote him off ahead of the 2016 election as his disruptive conduct transgressed norms. He came back in 2024 despite having rallied a MAGA crowd (on 6 January 2021) that went on to storm the US Capitol, inspired by evidence-free allegations about election fraud. And he’s not the only world leader who’s challenged expert opinions about what styles of leadership are acceptable and successful. Hungary’s Victor Orbán (prime minister since 2010 and previously 1993–2000) openly challenges the EU’s democratic values.

In mid-2024, according to Pew Research, a quarter of Americans were saying they held unfavourable views of both presidential candidates – the highest rate recorded in recent times. These so-called “double-haters” declined in number as the election approached, with Harris having replaced Biden. At the ballot-box, however, if they voted at all, they tended to swing to Trump.

In some other countries, people seem similarly unimpressed with their choices of leaders. It’s not unusual to see both leading contenders being rated net-negative in polls. For example in the UK last year, former prime minister Rishi Sunak was getting net approval ratings as low as –55% before the election, while PM-to-be Keir Starmer was also in the minuses in most polls. Since winning, Starmer’s approval ratings have dived further.

Similarly, New Zealanders were underwhelmed by the two Chrises (Hipkins and Luxon) when the pair fought it out in October 2023. And it looks like they’ll be served up the same stale white loaves in 2026. It’s no wonder many people go for a disruptor if offered one.

Leadership does matter. It matters for winning elections. It matters for communicating vision and direction. And it matters for getting the complex tasks of government done once a party’s in office. But those three sets of things require different skills.

Good leadership doesn’t necessarily require a charismatic personality. On the other hand, people sometimes have unrealistic expectations of a political leader, as if they were hoping for a charismatic and visionary change-agent who’ll fix everything. Idolising leaders means we forget that they’re only human – and hence often disappointing. Demonising and hating them is just the flip-side of that, and again it misrecognises the imperfect humanity of persons in office.

People’s willingness to vote for disruptors and norm-breakers is linked to widespread expressions of distrust in politicians and political parties. In a 2021 survey, just 24.5% of respondents across OECD countries said they trusted political parties. National polls repeatedly show similarly poor results, exacerbated by scandals involving politicians. Longer-term systemic failures, such as the GFC in 2008, and incompetence in public services don’t help either.

A Pew Research survey in 24 countries found that the most frequent advice people give for improving how democracy works is to get better politicians – people who’ll be “more responsive to the people’s needs and who are more competent and honest”. People say we need political leaders who are trustworthy and competent. Fine, but how do we get them? We need to consider some underlying institutional matters, including the structures and processes through which leaders rise.

The basic question “Who rules?” has traditionally been answered with either: one person (a monarch), or a few people (an elite council), or the many (an assembly of the people), or some mixture thereof. For example, the UK has a monarch, and it has a representative assembly elected by the people, and then an executive council or cabinet is drawn from the assembly.

Even in a people’s assembly, however, a few of its most eloquent members, or some of the wealthiest, may emerge informally as the most influential. Even in small groups, most people look to others to take responsibility for common affairs and to set the direction. To what degree is that justified, or even safe, in large populations, given the risk of demagoguery and tyranny?

We can also ask, “What qualifies a person to rule or to hold high public office?” We can discuss the most suitable qualifications, experience, personality-type and other personal attributes. We may ask about the honesty and trustworthiness, for instance, of any person who thinks they can lead. What looks like honesty and transparency to one observer, however, may look like lies and cover-ups to another.

Then there’s technical and administrative competence. During the public sector reforms of the 1990s, it was often supposed that a person from outside a profession – so long as they had previous management experience elsewhere – would be preferable, as they wouldn’t be “captured” by that professional body, even though they may lack its specialised knowledge. Some of Donald Trump’s appointments take that “know-little” principle to a whole new level.

There’s a widespread scepticism about the value of technical and scientific expertise nowadays, but would you not baulk at the idea of an innumerate finance minister, for instance? And an argument rages over whether wealth and business success are valid indicators of suitability to lead a country. (“He made himself rich, so he’ll make us all rich.” I’ve actually heard that!) On the other side, for some voters, a candidate is awesome just for being non-white and non-male.

Furthermore, we need to ask, “How does a person get into a position of political leadership?” The process for becoming a country’s leader could range from inheritance to popular election to military coup. (But I don’t recommend that third option.)

Selecting leaders will never be an exact science. Business organisations can at least apply some selection criteria and a controlled process when recruiting and appointing the right people to top management positions – and even then they may get it wrong. It’s much harder in politics, in part because the criteria and the processes are themselves hot topics for political debate, before we even consider individual candidates.

Representative systems are a compromise between elitism and populism. Political parties put forward candidates they deem “the best”, including a leader, or sometimes co-leaders. A free and fair election is held, ideally. The “elect” who take office are supported (or sometimes obstructed) by a much larger cohort of permanent career officials who’ve been selected on merit, nowadays with methods akin to those used in business organisations. This compromise is unsatisfactory in many people’s eyes, but it’s worked relatively well, if we assess the social and economic progress in such so-called “democracies”, compared with other regimes. The recent success of China, of course, poses a challenge here, as there’s no open contest for leadership in their one-party state.

Is there a better method than election for deciding who leads a society? How about fighting it out on the battlefield, like they did in the old days? And, under any method, what would be the criteria for being the best political leader?

There’s no job description or person specification for putting oneself forward for election. Other than normally a minimum age and a citizenship qualification, almost anyone can have a go. If, however, you had to write a person specification for the ideal political leader, what would it include? And how would you defend your choice of criteria in the public domain?

Whom would you count as a “great” leader in recent times, or as the kind of person needed for the future? Bear in mind that a person who was “great” in one time and place may not be the best leader for other situations. Winston Churchill was great in wartime, but not so popular afterwards. Those who led a revolution may not be best for the painstaking tasks of civil government.

Is a party system with competitive elections the best method for “choosing” who governs and passes laws? Elections rely on the wisdom of the crowd, but many people are not making very carefully researched – let alone “wise” – choices when they vote.

Is the contemporary media environment making things worse? Social media allow anyone to have their say, which in principle sounds great for democracy, but does this somehow “misshape” our opinions about candidates for elections? Just a casual scan on X shows us the problem here. And is Substack becoming a long-form X?

I’m just asking questions here! Comments are welcome. But please don’t insult or abuse individuals. Explain why you disapprove of their actions, if you have reason to do so.

The death of President Jimmy Carter would have been poignant regardless of when it came, but it couldn’t have come at a more significant moment, given Trump’s imminent second inauguration.

Carter was a one-term president, unsuccessful the second time in part because of economic troubles and the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran – followed by a failed rescue mission. Consequently, he was branded a “weak” leader, especially up against Ronald Reagan. But he’s also remembered for his deep humanity, selflessness and decency – character strengths in short supply these day.