Supporters of the Labour leader believe he is being judged by the wrong standards, and that opponents are unable to understand the leadership style he is offering. Eric Shaw draws on political theory to explain what that leadership style actually is and writes that, despite Corbyn’s merits as an individual, his concept of leadership is not what Labour requires.
Labour is experiencing a crisis of leadership. And this matters. Most voters judge parties less on issues of ideology – values and goals – than on the capacity to deliver. Which party can manage the economy most efficiently? Which is most competent at governing? Here, the role of party leader is often decisive. Assessments of party leaderships are short-cuts for broader evaluation of policy and capacity. Does a leader come across as a credible, trustworthy and convincing future Prime Minister? Does he or she sound the part? Is he/she a good communicator, persuasive, and appealing?
Labour’s predicament is that Jeremy Corbyn is hugely unpopular. His poll ratings are worse than for any comparable leader in British polling history. The gap between his standing and that of Mrs. May is now alarmingly wide. In a recent poll, 17% approved of Corbyn’s leadership and 58% disapproved. The comparable figures for Mrs. May were 46% and 33%. (In both cases, the rest had no opinion).
But there are those amongst his many supporters within the party who argue that Corbyn is being judged both prematurely and by the wrong standards. Those attracted to him were looking for a different model of leadership, whose role is to empower, to galvanise and to operate as a standard bearer of a new mass movement.
It might be useful to explore James MacGregor Burns’s distinction between ‘transactional’ and ‘transforming’ leadership. The former envisages leadership in terms of a transaction between the leader and other players in the party. For example, a leader may seek the co-operation and compliance of others through offering a range of incentives, such as policy concessions and personal advancement. Each party to a bargain would be aware of the power resources, proclivities, and preferences of others, and would engage in a process of mutual adjustment.
Transforming leadership, in contrast, envisages as the crucial leadership functions teaching, inspiring and energising, with fervor and dedication in the service of promoting a party’s collective purposes. Endowed with clear visions, transformational leaders are primarily concerned with the advocacy and pursuit of wide-ranging values – such as social justice and equality – and are loath to engage in too many compromises that might jeopardise them.
This approach meshes well as the radical (or ‘hard’) left’s model of the party. Labour’s prime purpose should be to give effect to the ideals and objectives with which it was historically associated. These should be embodied in policies determined by the wider party, and not by any parliamentary conclave. The role of the leader should be to ‘rally their own side effectively’, to appeal to the party’s base and to facilitate both its democratisation and ‘an empowerment of a new grassroots movement.’ Corbyn’s role as a transforming leader is, in short, to invigorate, mobilise and enthuse as the new voice and standard-bearer of a remoralised party.
Corbyn’s ability to perform this role has undoubtedly been severely handicapped by an unrelentingly and often venomously hostile media. It also needs to be said that his limitations as a communicator and his inability to convey the impression of a man possessing the skills and stature of a prime minister in waiting has not helped.
This is widely recognized (at least by his critics). But, even more fundamentally, his very concept of leadership– the leader as transformer – is flawed. Here it may be useful to take the argument further by citing Weber’s distinction between ‘the ‘ethic of responsibility’ and the ‘ethic of ultimate ends.’ A political leader who accepts the former is animated by a prudential and calculating spirit, is acutely aware of the consequences of any action, and sees political choice in terms of balancing priorities and awkward trade-offs.
But the ‘ethic of responsibility’ can too easily slide into opportunism, careerism, self-serving actions and mere expediency. It is this that the ‘ethic of ultimate ends’ vehemently rejects. It stands for a more steadfast, determined, and uncompromising form of politics driven by principle and honesty. Corbyn’s appeal for many in Labour’s ranks is that he embodied this ‘ethic of ultimate ends’ and rejected Labour’s customary mode of leadership, with all its equivocations, evasions, and half-measures.
The danger is that the personal appropriation of a higher morality and a disregard for pragmatism and compromise can transmute into unyielding and obdurate political stance. As Weber commented, ‘the believer in an ethic of ultimate ends feels “responsible” only for seeing to it that the flame of pure intentions is not quenched.’
This might be compatible with effective leadership when a leader directs a tightly centralised party with full mastery of its key institutions. But Corbyn presides over a party in which power is dispersed among a whole range of institutions, several of which are centres of resistance to his rule. Labour is riven by multiple divisions, over policy, strategy, ideology and, most of all, internal organisation. Most damagingly, it is suffering from a veritable crisis of legitimacy. At present, Corbynistas and their critics lack a shared understanding of the ground-rules and values (democracy, accountability, and representation) which should underpin and validate the way in which power is distributed, decisions taken, and sovereignty located. In short, Corbyn both lacks consent and is hemmed in by institutional constraints, without control of decisive levers of power and the confidence of key players.
In such circumstances transforming leadership imbued by an ethic of ultimate ends is peculiarly inappropriate. Labour is a pluralist organisation composed of people attached to a range of often divergent interests, objectives, and values. When this is compounded by profound internal divisions, the skills of a transactional leader are essential.
This mode of leadership ‘requires a shrewd eye for opportunity, a good hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating.’ It demands an orientation to leadership governed by the ethic of responsibility, incorporating an open and conciliatory style of engagement, a ‘capacity to modulate personal and political ambitions by patient calculation and realistic appraisal of situations’ and an overriding emphasis upon the importance of reaching consensus and coalition-building. It involves accommodating public opinion with membership preferences, regulating disagreements, astute political maneuvering and a capacity, above all, to hold the party together. Corbyn has merits – decency, honesty, integrity – but it is not at all evident that concept of leadership is what the party requires.
____
Eric Shaw is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Stirling.
helpful distinctions but how to get believers in ultimate ends to accept them. This is the real dilemma
So we are led to believe that a leader comes with a unique package of requirements in order to be a leader.
Where does that place democracy, that demands the dictatorship of the majority?
What we are actually witnessing is a party wishing to change the political agenda that has prevailed over the last forty years, with that the instalment of people into key organisational positions that are directly abusing the privilege of the positions they hold.
In the words of those same people their ultimately endeavour will be frustrate his every attempt he has to promote the kind of party the Labour Party was, Meaning post Neo-Liberal New Labour and return it to it’s democratic socialist principles.
The party machine and local parties have people embedded in them that are acting unconstitutionally and directly against the membership as a whole. The membership is doing it’s level best to address those issues but this all takes time, as though Jeremy could be elected in a day and turn that around against people without principle and who are acting illegally to frustrate that process is frankly laughable.
When Blair was elected and I helped in that process, we were united and the country knew only too well what it was voting for, that was to get rid of the corrupt Tories. You could literally have put a donkey up with a red rosette on and it would have walked into office.
People like myself had our misgivings about Blair and knew he was not the full ticket, but we also understood the danger of leaving the Tories in office, what we didn’t know then but now know, is just how complicit in the Neo-Liberal agenda Blair and the New Labour project was. Thatcher later admitted that “Blair was her greatest political achievement”. Had we known that at the time, do you really believe he would have lasted as long as he did, we of course thought Brown was a slightly better version of Labour and closer to it’s traditional beliefs, only to find out to the contrary hence over the Blair and Brown years the migration of some 5 million Labour voters.
Deception played a massive part in the New Labour project which stealthily carried on where Thatcher left off, only in hindsight can we trace the transformation and the institutionalised character of Neo-Liberal Britain under Blair and Brown. I well remember Blair standing up in parliament calling for MPs during the Iraq war debate, asking them to trust him, as though he had information that only he was privy to and couldn’t disclose.
The legacy of these Machiavellian Labour politicians has been to cement blind followers into positions of the party’s machine, based on patronage to the leadership and fundamental values diametrically opposed to real Labour’s traditions, the creed of privatisation and anti public service took precedence over public welfare. Those people are still in those positions and as we again witnessed the illegal actions of the chairperson at conference over-ruling the rule book by ignoring adherence to Labour’s rules from calls from the floor to hold a card count, which is more accurate than a show of hands. What that clarified is that these people that purport to be Labour, would suffer litigation against the party rather than accept the democratic aspirations of it’s members.
Those Neo-Liberal MPs in the party that oppose Jeremy are dedicated to ignoring to democratic aspirations of it’s members and do not reflect the views of the party, they have done immense damage to Labour and do not serve it’s interest but as we have seen by their actions and especially those that resigned to take up new jobs (something you would do prior to a general election) was done out of self interest not the parties, indeed someone in the party, said they knew one of the past politicians and worked closely with him over his spell serving their city, and never at any time during that period had any indication from him as to his political leanings. Which sums up neatly the kind of New Labour politician we have. These MPs are not the Labour Party and when local parties try and properly rid themselves of politicians that have brought the party into disrepute, those parties have all sorts of accusations ranged against them and for reasons without foundation are suspended. There are a number of inaccurately reported cases in point where the media deliberately ignore the facts in favour of doing the Labour Party as much damage as it can. Including Jeremy Corbyn from guilt by association.
What lies at the heart of this, is purely and simply power politics, driven by the Neo-Liberal agenda of the Corporate State.
What any thinking person can deduce is that currently Jeremy Corbyn along with other good members of the shadow cabinet are the only ones standing against the corporate takeover of our democracy, and good people everywhere need to understand that.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/02/corporate-dark-money-power-atlantic-lobbyists-brexit
I’d tend to agree with the point made in this article were it not for the fact that ‘Labour’ is more than just the PLP. The majority of the party, when presented with the choice, twice chose Corbyn to be its leader. Telling the labour membership what it needs by way of leadership is the same strategy that the media is criticising Corbyn for with the electorate. The membership has for too long compromised on their parties leadership only to lose concurrent elections anyway. To now be told to pipe down and compromise for the sake of the party just won’t wash. In fact it’s time the PLP accepted that Labour belongs to the members, and that their continuous scorched earth approach to regaining power will only end in one result……..its destruction.
Good articulation and sound reasoning. Well done.
He’s not young and glamorous, but I’ve heard him speak live and he is inspirational- certainly not lacking communication skills as you assert- as his rallies testify. Do we really have to have our political leaders endorsed by Murdoch and the Mail?