Introduction:
Politics and leadership have always been important parts of the world’s historical makeup and these will definitely never go away. Obviously one has to keep in mind that times change and the sort of leadership that was right and correct for the 19th century is probably anathema today. In his seminal book, Carnes Lord attempts to examine various world leaders who have made a name for themselves, be it as autocrats, as visionaries or as plain and simple democratic leaders. He also inserts an interesting but heavy dose on the politics of the renowned Florentine, Machiavelli whose ‘The Prince’ is probably amongst the best known treatises on political leadership and is still very relevant today (Lord p. 3).
Famous world leaders – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan
Perhaps the two world leaders which spring to mind and which still dominate our consciousness today are Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both came to power in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s amidst general discontent and problems in the economies of the UK and the US respectively Lord argues that since both were imbued with considerable charisma they managed to steer through certain unpopular decisions without much trouble or hitches although they did encounter significant problems across the way. The author is open ended on the legacy of the Reagan years which he feels to be exaggerated and slightly out of kilter with the real facts although he does tend to reserve some praise for the ‘Morning in America’ President.
Lord describes Reagan as a convenience Democrat who chose to impose force when it suited him but was also fairly liberal on certain issues although these obviously did not include social ones. Finally he treats Reagan with some disdain regarding his foreign policy which was hawkish to the extreme especially with regards to countries like Libya who could have been brought into the fold rather easily but the antagonist policy pursued by Reagan indicated that he was not really interested in brokering any sort of peace. Lord also compares him with Machiavelli who also twisted around various issues to suit his own needs and was very much a crafty individual when it came to negotiations. The author also examines Regan’s relationship with the Soviet Union which was obviously not always rosy but there was some chemistry between himself and Gorbachev in that respect and this perhaps brought about an end to the Cold War as the world knew it (Lord p. 6).
Lord also expands considerably on Margaret Thatcher who was an iron fisted Prime Minister and who relished the status of power she acquired and was not afraid to use it. He describes how she tended to rely less and less on her advisers and was consistently her woman and this eventually proved to be her own undoing unfortunately. Lord compares her to the princely rulers of the past which Machiavelli cites in his book and argues that her autocratic style of leadership from the front was far removed from what was constitutionally acceptable for a Prime Minister. However there were benefits in this regard especially when one considers that democracy in practise was not something which was always very effective and which does not really work.
Other dictators and their lavish lifestyles
Lord also reserves some space for leaders who operate in closed economies and who have power as their frontal standpoint in what is theoretically an elected democracy. Singapore’s Lee Kuan Jew is perhaps one of the most effective of these types of leaders who although operating within strict democratic boundaries managed to supervise considerable expansion in this respect with Singapore one of the world’s most powerful economies albeit being of a small size.
Japan’s Nakasone also comes in for some rather harsh criticism from Lord who argues that the country’s economic growth was singularly spectacular but there was also an element of exploitation in all this. He argues that the democratization of Japan from a principally agrarian society to one full of materialism did not benefit everyone but there were also other factors to be taken into account such as the rampant industrialization experienced under Nakasone as well as the powerful influence of the Americans who continued to push forward their own political agenda.
Lord continues to argue that the hegemony of the Americans led to the founding of puppet states such as Cuba before Fidel Castro which was practically a playground for rich Americans. Although he does not seem to have much truck with Castro, Lord also admires the way that he managed to steal Cuba from right under the noses of the Americans.
The role of the media in politics
This is a subject which seems to have an effect on Lord who is quite critical of the media in every respect describing its corrupting influence and the fact that it is a Fourth Estate which controls the way and manner in which politicians act (Lord p 193).
Leaders of South American countries
Carlos Menem remains a polarizing figure in Argentinian politics but it is through his assiduous leadership that the country eventually survived the economic and political crisis. Lord is forceful and direct about Menem where he is also consistent on the way he nationalised the banks and provided strong leadership in the face of considerable adversity.
More importantly he reorganized the police force and the army making it much more respondent to him and chose his cabinet with an eye on economic stability accordingly. Menem could also be described as somebody who could get things done and who had the charisma of a giant which served him in extremely good stead.
Although one may disagree with Lord’s views on Menem’s authoritarian and almost dictatorial policies, there is no denying the fact that the country was much more stable at the end of his second term largely through the reforms that had been put in place.
Menem was also forceful in implementing democratic reforms in all areas of social and public life partly due to the fact that the system had been crumbling and collapsing for some time. In this manner he left the country in a much stronger position for Fernando la Rua although this election eventually precipitated the banking crisis which was unfortunately to engulf the Argentine economy in a bad way.
Nestor Kirchner can be said to have transformed Argentine politics both by his charisma but also by his magnificent way of looking forward and instilling some sort of pride into the country which was suffering from a certain malaise of insecurity. Kirchner continued instilling democratic reforms in the country and styled himself as a true man of the people with several aspects of his style instilled into the consciousness of the Argentine people.
His wife, Cristina Kirchner continued the democratic reforms instilled by her husband and also played on the personality cult which he created with the result that she was even more idolized than him. She also continued the democratic reforms which were instilled by her husband much more entrenched with the result that the Argentine nation can claim to be quite securely free as democracy is concerned.
An issue which Christina Kirchner inherited from her husband and for that matter every previous Argentine president is the Malvinas issue. This continually creates a lot of tension in the international scene and as has happened recently, the Malvinas has now flared up even in the sphere of the United Nations with lots of problems being felt and made.
However the popularity of Christina Kirchner has remained undimmed and she has managed to use the populist stance for which she is famous and work this to her advantage. This makes her an important figure on the world’s stage apart from the fact that she has inherited a lot of policies and ideas from her husband which have served her in good stead to mould her image.
Mexico is obviously a difficult country to govern although it has a tendency to be subordinate to the United States on issues of national importance. The PRI was a party which controlled most of the factions in state government and was dominant not just on political issues but also on social issues where it controlled the cultural aspect of things as well as the unions and workers movements.
That way although it was a dictatorship, Mexico still could move forward with political and social reforms. Growth was also an issue and the government generally implemented policies which helped the economy and made it richer. The way the economy was controlled also indicated that a dictatorship could always flourish if it was properly controlled.
Again although Mexico was a dictatorship, there was still some tolerance for human rights and there were very few cases of political detainment or torture which were recorded, at least. Tolerance for political opposition was also very much present and although there was little headway made in a plural democracy, at least a semblance of openness was maintained.
Perhaps the country did need a certain element of dictatorship to develop and structure its political system if it was to fare better in life especially after the Second World War and Lord is concordant with that.
The revolution in Mexico was successful due to the fact that a lot of forces in the country combined together to create a force for good. Still the Mexican political system continued to evolve with the liberal faction wanting more democracy and to reduce the power of the Church which was still all encompassing in Mexico at the time.
However the issue which reduced Mexico’s influence in the world sphere was the annexation of Texas by the United States which then declared this an independent republic. Naturally enough the Mexican government was hurt by this development and felt that the country had been bullied by the United States.
The second half of the 19th century saw various liberal reforms enacted which further reduced the power of the Church and saw a transfer of landed estate from the Church to the state. This also meant that the rise of political parties continued to grow apace and the influence they had on the development of the country was quite substantial.
The early decades of the 20th century also saw a sea change in Mexican politics with the election of Obregas in 1923 after he had his predecessor assassinated. The succession of Presidents which followed all focused on several issues such as nationalization of state industries and further expropriation of oil companies rights to grow the economy.
The changes continued right up to the 1990’s when democracy began to take shape with the election of President Vicente Fox which opened up a larger plurality of voters and participants in the country’s economy. The transition from a dictatorship to a democracy was slow at first but the relatively benign dictatorship in Mexico made the actual transition much easier.
Conclusion:
Lord’s book is an excellent case study on world leaders and politicians who have changed the face of the world as we know it. His comparisons to Machiavelli and the past are instructive and full of life and really make for interesting and intriguing reading. It is indeed a highly recommended book.
Bibliography:
Lord C; The Modern Prince; What Leaders Need to Know, New Jersey, Yale University Press 2004, Print
