Authoritarianism vs Democracy as a Key Contradiction in Approaching the Study of Political Leadership

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

This study examines current trends in political leadership research in the context of theoretical and methodological debates regarding the key dichotomies of personality vs institution, authoritarianism vs democracy. In most scientific publications, especially by foreign authors, these concepts are interpreted not so much substantively as ideologically, turning into markers of commitment to conservative or liberal narratives. ‘Democratic transit’ through ‘color revolutions’ in the context of intensive information exchange intensifies the multidirectional trends of globalization and glocalization, introducing into the sphere of public policy leaders with dubious subjectivity who do not justify the hopes of either foreign beneficiaries, or local elites, or the population. Attempts to build political institutions where decisions are made not by leaders, but by elites, in countries that are not part of the circle of Western democracies, prove unviable. The purpose of this article is to separate ideological clichés from definitions, turning to the aspects of an authoritarian personality in the context of political leadership. It is concluded that the personological approach is fundamental in the study of this phenomenology, which implies consideration of a set of personal traits of a politician in the process of implementing his/her powers. This makes it possible to move away from the incorrect assessment of a leader according to the model of democrat vs autocrat towards the development of an analytically oriented method. Since at present in the West it is customary to consider ‘democracy’ the political system in those states that correspond to the WEIRD category, then the form of government in other regions can be characterized by representatives of the West as autocracy, regardless of the election system, regulations for the exercise of power, its change and other factors. This view is a relic of the unipolar world concept, demonstrating rigidity and agonism, which contradicts the concept of multipolarity, which is adhered to by Russia and its partners in various associations, including BRICS. This article contributes to the study of the multidimensional phenomenon of political leadership in terms of removing conceptual and methodological contradictions.

About the authors

Ilya E. Strelets

MGIMO University

Author for correspondence.
Email: sagitil@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3520-2502

PhD in Political Science, Associate Professor of Comparative Politics Department, School of Governance and Politics

Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Ahlers, A., & Stichweh, R. (2017). The bipolarity of democracy and authoritarianism: Value patterns, inclusion roles and forms of internal differentiation of political systems. Forum Internationale Wissenschaft. Working Paper No 09. Bonne.
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  3. Altemeyer, В. (1981). Right-­Wing Authoritarianism. Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press.
  4. Dean, J., & Altemeyer, B. (2021). Authoritarian nightmare: The ongoing threat of Trump’s followers. Brooklyn, NY, London, UK: Melville House.
  5. Del Real, D., & Menjívar, C. (2024). The tools of autocracy worldwide: Authoritarian networks, the façade of democracy, and neo-­repression. American Behavioral Scientist, 68(12), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241267926
  6. Farrell, T. (2023). Review of [Joseph Henrich, The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020)]. New Explorations, 3(2), 1–16.
  7. Fazaa, S.S., & Zane, El, Abidine, N.Z.E.A. (2022). The problem of the transfer of power in Egypt during the rule of Muhammad Morsi (2012–2013). Tikrit Journal for Political Science, 4(30), 3–30.
  8. Gaman-­Golutvina, O.V., Smorgunov, L.V., & Timofeeva, L.N. (2021). Constitutional changes, power and politics. Vlast’ (The Authority), 29(3), 305–311. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v29i3.8201
  9. Greenstein, F.I. (2009). The presidential difference: Leadership style from FDR to George W. Bush. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  10. Gutorov, V.A., Shirinyants, A.A., & Kazarinova, D.B. (2023). Ideas, Ideologies and Public Consent: Introducing the Issue. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2023-25-1-9-20
  11. Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest People in the world: How the west became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Danvers, MA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (FSG).
  12. Kellerman, B. (2016). Leadership — it’s a system, not a person! Daedalus, 145(3), 83–94.
  13. Kellerman, B. (2024). Leadership from bad to worse: What happens when bad festers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Lind, G., Sandberger, J.-U., & Bargel, T. (1985). Moral competence and democratic personality. In G. Lind, H.A. Hartmann & R. Wakenhut (Eds.), Moral Development and the Social Environment (pp. 55–78). Chicago: Precedent Publisher.
  15. Machin, A. (2022). Climates of democracy: Skeptical, rational, and radical imaginaries. WIREs Climate Change, 13(4), e774.
  16. Medvedev, Ju.S. (2021). The concept of competitive authoritarianism and its criticism in scientific literature. Politeia, 1, 154–169. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2021-100-1-154-169
  17. Mudyń, K.W (2002). Poszukiwaniu demokratycznej struktury osobowości. Kultura I Edukacja, 1, 40–51. (In Polish).
  18. Nedyak, I.L. (2022). Domination in modern democracies: Approaches to the conceptualization, measurement, restriction. The Political Conceptology: Journal of Metadisciplinary Research, 2, 32–48. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18522/2218-5518.2022.2.3248
  19. Okuneva, L.S. (Ed.). (2022). A leader against the backdrop of the era: Traditions and innovations of modern political leadership in western countries. Moscow: MGIMO-University. (In Russian).
  20. Okuneva, L.S., & Tevdoy-­Burmuli, A.I., (Eds.). (2020). Right-­wing populism: Global trend and regional features. Moscow: MGIMO-University. (In Russian).
  21. Sanches de Oliveira, G., & Baggs, E. (2023). Psychology’s WEIRD problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/.
  22. Shestopal, E.B. (2021). The image of the ideal future: Normative ideas of Russian citizens about power. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 464, 99–112. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/464/12
  23. Shestopal, E.B. (2023). Paradoxes of political leadership. Polis. Political studies, 3, 181–191. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.03.13
  24. Shestopal, E.B., & Rogach, N.N. (2020). Ideal representations as a factor in the perception of a real political leader. Polis. Political studies, 4, 166–181. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.04.12
  25. Strelets, I.E. Yeltsin and Putin: Presidential Leadership in the Context of Russia’s Political Transformation. Current problems of Europe, 2, 180–210. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31249/ape/2019.02.09
  26. Strelets, I.E. (2013). V.V. Putin and D.A. Medvedev: Political-­psychological analysis of the pre-­election castling and the prospects of the power tandem. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 3(23), 137–142. (In Russian).
  27. Wiatr, J.J. (2022). Political leadership between democracy and authoritarianism: Comparative and historical perspectives (1st ed.). Leverkusen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
  28. Ziegenhain, P., & Enkhtaivan, Kh. (2024). Democracy and authoritarianism in Egypt today. Islamic World and Politics, 8(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.18196/jiwp.v8i1.99

Copyright (c) 2024 Strelets I.E.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies