Authors: Lipset
Summary: In just under 2400 words, this entry defines leadership, analyzes the relationship between democracy and leadership, discusses leadership responsibilities, and explores the interconnections between leadership and statesmanship.
The entry defines leadership as guidance provided by an individual, usually, over a group, party or political entity. The characteristics required for effective leadership are summarized by the entry as including: "...the partisan political infighter, the farseeing nation-building founder or legislator, and the inspiring and daring general."
The relationship between leadership and democracy is complicated and subject to much debate. Democracy, which means 'rule by the people', seems inherently incompatible with leadership, on the one hand requiring virtuous and intelligent leaders but on the other rejecting such authority altogether. The entry offers the United States as the quintessential example of this democratic ambivalence. American democratic leadership, as well as that of most other modern democracies, has its origins in the social contract theories of Locke and Hobbes. The entry briefly introduces their theoretical perspectives.
To be effective, modern democratic leaders must balance some extremely significant tensions--the good vs. justice and wisdom vs. consent. Social goods must be pursued only to the extent that individual rights remain intact. Similarly, a leader's wisdom cannot supplant citizen desires, but the democratic leader also cannot allow a majority tyranny. There are emergency situations that reshift these balances, however, and the entry offers the US experience with the Civil War as an illustrative example. In many ways, the democratic leader's role is to protect the people from themselves.
Although similar, leadership and statesmanship are not exactly the same thing. While a leader's first concern are for his or her citizens, a statesman's priority is the state or political entity itself and not the individuals which comprise it.