Attention for many Lib Dems is now turning to the leadership election: the relative merits of the two candidates, their personal histories and political preferences. This reflects the traditional approach to leadership: what is it that makes an individual a ‘great’ man or woman?
Particularly useful for understanding how leaders act is the dichotomy between ‘transformative’ and ‘transactional’ leadership. Transformational leaders tend to be seen as ‘active’: not only do they have a clear vision, but they also innovate by undertaking political change. In many ways they challenge their followers by acting independently of them; Paddy Ashdown’s abandonment of equidistance in 1992 may have been just such a case. Transactional leadership may be ‘passive’ but this doesn’t mean that it is means standing still. It can be incremental, building steadily on previous changes. Charles Kennedy’s leadership was probably an example of this.
However, leadership doesn’t operate in a vacuum. In political science we pay attention to the wider context or environment that leaders have to work within. These may be close, like the leader’s ‘followers’ (party membership), or they may be more distant, such as the political order (constitution, composition of government, etc) and wider social and economic forces underpinning it.
At most transactional leadership is the politics of reform. It’s more probable during periods when the political system and the wider economy and society are relatively stable. This was the situation which greeted New Labour in government in 1997. By contrast, transformational leadership is more likely in times of crisis, when the political system is in flux, along with the social and economic forces underpinning it. The economic stagnation and wider public and political doubt how to resolve it during the 1970s set the stage for radical neoliberal change by Reagan and Thatcher after 1979/80.
Getting the leadership style right therefore matters. A leader who tries to turn back the clock in a time of change may fail: Labour under Michael Foot during the 1980s might be such a case. Alternately, the promise of change can be wiped out should circumstances change. For example, Cameron’s efforts to ‘detoxify’ the Conservative party in 2005 were largely forgotten when the economic crisis hit and the pursuit of austerity launched.
So what does this mean for the Lib Dems? Following its electoral drubbing it faces changes both internally and in the country more generally. These factors will pull the new leader in opposite directions. On one side the country faces a slow and patchy economic recovery. The party therefore needs a transformative leader with a new vision to fix Britain. On the other hand the party needs to rebuild its membership, internal party structures and activist base. This will require a transactional leader who is sensitive to the membership and its wishes.
Achieving both sets of goals will be a tall challenge for either of the two candidates.
* Guy Burton is Assistant Professor in the School of Politics, History and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus. Between 2010 and 2012 he was a researcher at Birzeit University in the West Bank. Previously he was a researcher for the Liberal Democrats in Parliament and was a GLA candidate for the party in 2004.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
Craig Levene
Thelma Davies
27 Comments
Good to see you back with your next installment Guy.
The last leader took us a long way from the path of Liberalism into an erroneous reliance on social mobility to the exclusion of an enduring Liberal theme of a concern for equality.
The new leader must be on that true path now and be able to guide us back. It is philosophy that matters as Gordon suggested in an OP Ed here https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-values-and-party-45946.html
Gareth Epps has given further guidance in a remarkable blog here http://www.garethepps.org.uk/?p=1404
With a series of important links he points out waymarks from ‘the path mistakenly taken’ over last five years by which we can navigate ourselves back to the authentic path;
These are a supberb video of David Howarth in Sept 2012 dismantling the Reevian/Clegg experiement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00abMSnjEe8&feature=youtu.be
Next he directs us to a powerful A Fabien Society essay on Cleggism or Liberalism that invokes Rawls, Dworkin, Hobson, Hobhouse and Mill: the mainstream of the social liberal tradition to debunk Clegg’s obsession with social mobility over and above equality. (Nov 2010)
http://www.nextleft.org/2010/11/cleggism-or-liberalism.html
Then Tim Farron on community politics from September 2011 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/liberal-democrats-local-politics-community
And finally Dan Falchikov on why Clegg’s statement that Cameron’s The Big Society is the same as Community Politics was wrong http://livingonwords.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/theory-and-practice-of-community.html from December 2011 – an important argument that our new leader will need when facing Cameron’s second administration.
The election of the next Liberal Democrat leader must centre on a description of the Liberal Path.
@Bill Le Bretton “The last leader took us a long way from the path of Liberalism into an erroneous reliance on social mobility to the exclusion of an enduring Liberal theme of a concern for equality.”
The preamble talks about seeking to balance equality with both community and liberty. How would promoting equality above the other two be a Liberal position?
Furthermore, what sort of equality are you arguing for? Outcome or opportunity?
Some thought provoking statements, Guy.
I was struck by —
“…However, leadership doesn’t operate in a vacuum. In political science we pay attention to the wider context or environment that leaders have to work within. These may be close, like the leader’s ‘followers’ (party membership), or they may be more distant, such as the political order (constitution, composition of government, etc) and wider social and economic forces underpinning it.”
It would be nice to think that the former leader listened to and was influenced by the party membership.
In reality, I think most people (both inside and outside The Bubble) will acknowledge that the small circle of influencers did not even stretch to all corners of the Parliamentary Party, particularly those in the Hof L (see recent statements by David Steel and other Lib Dem Lords).
We are also aware of the key influence of the people the leader employed as Special Advisors. I have seen this small group (a couple of dozen or so posts in the Cabinet Office) described as “the most expensive mirror in Downing Street”.
Nick Clegg had been critical of the appointment of SpAds by the Brown government. However, he managed to spend £ Millions of taxpayers money on these posts during his five years in office. Far more than his Labour predecessor.
I hope, without naming any individuals, that this particular experience in government might be examined in discussion. Is this the sort of leadership that benefits the party? Does it benefit the government or the country?
There are powerful arguments that it benefits neither and that the £ Millions would have been better spent on mental health or some other party priority.
Top article and a great set of link from Bill!
Chris B – the links were all Gareth’s, but I agree totally with you.
TCO if you bothered to read the links, you’d be able to answer your own questions.
One day, people will understand that our former leader was a Heathite.
@Bill Le Bretton I wasn’t asking what the people in the links thought; I was asking what you thought.
From what I’ve read in those links they are arguing for income equality of outcome which I’d always been led to believe was a Socialist position.
TCO – it does not surprise me that from your stand point Rawls is a socialist.
What about a transitional leadership (academic paper: MAJ Earl Russell 08 September 2011)
This new leadership theory embodies the thought that a leader can transition from one theoretical thought or one leadership style to another as the situation dictates. “This is not an insurmountable task. Some of the theories already encompass multiple leadership styles such as behavioral theories including autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire leaders. The challenge for the leader is to get individuals to forget biases they may have toward a specific theory or style and be open minded to understanding how that theory or style may be used to benefit them as a leader in a given situation.”
It therefore requires therefore a leader that is dynamic.
TCO 22nd May ’15 – 10:39am
“@Bill Le Bretton ‘The last leader took us a long way from the path of Liberalism into an erroneous reliance on social mobility to the exclusion of an enduring Liberal theme of a concern for equality.’
The preamble talks about seeking to balance equality with both community and liberty. How would promoting equality above the other two be a Liberal position?”
Surely, you’re not strawmanning on purpose, TCO? Bill objected to “the exclusion of an enduring Liberal theme of a concern for equality.” He didn’t say anything about “promoting equality above the other two” (i.e. community and liberty), so he has nothing to defend. Are you suggesting that equality should be given less importance than the other two, as Bill suggests was done under NC? Would that really be compatible with the hallowed preamble?
Another thank-you to Bill for passing on Gareth Epps’ links. I just watched the comments by David Howarth on “Cleggism”. Absolutely masterful.
Here is the link to the graphic model which outlines the Transitional Leadership Model:
https://twitter.com/MduMarie/status/601834555235049472
@Malcolm Todd just stimulating some debate 🙂
Interesting distinction between transactional and transformational leadership.
The hitch we have at the moment is that a transformational approach under Tim could easily feel like a “rallying of the troops after disaster” but actually just be a shocked reaction in the opposite direction.
I for see a lot of turbulence ahead — a messy Labour leadership process, Tory backbenchers doing what comes naturally, huge changes around the alliances to fight the EU referendum and then to engage with its result.. A seemingly-transactioal leader at this stage, engaging with the messy realities, would find themself in a time of rapid change and actually end up being very transformational, so we are really facing a choice of transformation as a knee-jerk agains t the coalition and transformation arising out of dialogue with a rapidly-changing situation.
@Mark Argent that’s a very perceptive analysis. There’s a seductive line of thought that wishes to “takes us back to the days of Kennedy” when, so the argument goes, membership, councillors, MPs and MEPs were increasing in number, the party was “to the left of Labour” and all was well with the world.
The problem is that the landscape in which we now operate has changed dramatically. Parties are strong now which were virtually non-existent then. Issues are at the forefront of the agenda which were unimportant then.
We need a leader who recognises that we can’t “go back” to anything; the only direction we can move in is forward.
Interesting background socio-political analysis from Guy immediately followed by Bill le Breton’s excellent comments and (Gareth Epps) links. I will be visiting/revisiting these over the weekend.
TCO 22nd May ’15 – 4:21pm
“From what I’ve read in those links they are arguing for income equality of outcome which I’d always been led to believe was a Socialist position.”
At last TCO you come clean regarding your own views on equality. You are personally from a socially privileged background and essentially fail to understand that opportunity on its own can not create anything approaching a significantly more equal society nor the sort of society mainstream Liberal Democrats seek to build.
More equal societies are happier, healthier longer lived etc. You appear not to take account of the very powerful forces driving the ever widening gap between the wealthy and the rest and that opportunity alone will never result in the more equal society that we, as Liberal Democrats, seek to build. Opportunity alone empowers the much vaunted ‘aspirational’ but does little to make a society more equal.
Our belief in equality as defined by [The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.] makes us Liberal Democrats not Socialists.
@Stephen Hesketh “You are personally from a socially privileged background”
With respect you know nothing about my background. As it happens I was the first person in my extended family to go to university. Both my parents left school at 15. So I’ll take no lectures on privilege from you.
You are arguing for a massive redistribution of wealth from top to bottom. Please give me an example of a society where that trsndition has occurred 1) peacefully and 2) with a levelling up effect rather than levelling down.
We’ve had recent examples of your experiment on the East of our continent. Not one – not one – has chosen to go back to a more equal society since they were allowed to choose a different one.
TCO 23rd May ’15 – 6:56am
@Mark Argent that’s a very perceptive analysis. There’s a seductive line of thought that wishes to “takes us back to the days of Kennedy”
“We need a leader who recognises that we can’t “go back” to anything; the only direction we can move in is forward.”
I think both of you need to read what Tim Farron has actually been saying … !
@Stephen Hesketh Tim may be saying that but many of his supporters, at least the ones who post here, seem to think he will do differently. Someone will end up very disappointed.
TCO 23rd May ’15 – 10:05am
“@Stephen Hesketh Tim may be saying that but many of his supporters, at least the ones who post here, seem to think he will do differently. Someone will end up very disappointed.”
I guess I may be classed as one of Tim Farron’s supporters who post here.
After what Nick Clegg and those who previously posted here in support of him (and who have now their support to Norman Lamb as the ‘same direction of travel’ candidate) have bestowed on our party, believe me, I find it extremely difficult to conceive of much Tim Farron could do to disappoint me or make matters worse.
TCO 23rd May ’15 – 8:24am
[[@Stephen Hesketh “You are personally from a socially privileged background”]]
“With respect you know nothing about my background. As it happens I was the first person in my extended family to go to university. Both my parents left school at 15. So I’ll take no lectures on privilege from you.”
Sorry TCO, it must have been you mentioning being the “scion” of an old family/attending public school/grandfathers connection to Lloyd George’s PPS, your grasp of (dog) Latin and various other things along such lines. The bog standard stuff of ordinary Britons.
OK, I am happy to accept that you can’t use your real name due to your employment which, incidentally, also permits you to post on LDV all day every day, but – as fellow contributor Bolano has pointed out on more than one occasion – you are, and then are not, also employed by a ‘think tank’.
When I have pinned you down and your next post has been either unconsidered or simply wrong, then you plead “irony”. Really?
Never mind who you are, other than being an economic right winger who sees a socialist under every mainstream Liberal bed, nothing adds up. The better question might be ‘what are you’?
Sorry, but being open and honest is certainly not something that anyone might accuse you of.
@Stephen Hesketh are you not expecting a more overtly left wing programme if Tim wins?
@Stephen Hesketh I’m flattered that you’re keeping notes 🙂
I admit to a little subterfuge but I thought you’d appreciate it; imagining me to be some uber posh grandee made it a little easier to dismiss me didn’t it?
@Stephen Hesketh “The better question might be ‘what are you’?”
That’s simple. I’m a Liberal dear boy. Always have been 😉
TCO: don’t automatically believe what people tell you. Generations of Liberals struggled to achieve a more equal society, and that didn’t just mean some of the super-rich had started poor. The preamble to our constitution says “equality”, not “equality of opportunity”. In fact equality of opportunity is a severely flawed concept because an arbitrary decision has to be made about what factors you include and what you exclude. For example, do you discount advantages gained from having more loving and supportive parents while including advantages gained from education or parental wealth? Why? A society of more nearly equal outcomes (in terms of wealth and power) will be a society in which individual freedom – the ability to reach your potential or shape your own life – is maximised.
Equality of outcome is socialist only if you adopt socialist means to try to achieve it. A Liberal should not flinch from the idea that our society would be better if extremes of poverty and wealth were less.
Looking at leadership in terms of the transactional and the transformational is only one way of analysing it and not necessarily the most important. There is no sharp dividing line between the one and the other, for a start. A transformational leader of a democratic party cannot succeed unless (s)he rightly senses the party is ready for a big move. Both transactional and transformational leaders can inspire and either can not inspire: for example, Tony Blair was a transformational leader of the Labour Party, but never an inspiring one. Charles Kennedy might not have been transformational, but unlike Nick Clegg, he could inspire and fire. Paddy Ashdown as leader, particularly during his difficult start, showed an ability to listen as well as to lead from the front.
Can we please just stop with the interrogations. It’s getting boring now.
TCO 23rd May ’15 – 4:44pm
“@Stephen Hesketh I’m flattered that you’re keeping notes 🙂 I admit to a little subterfuge but I thought you’d appreciate it; imagining me to be some uber posh grandee made it a little easier to dismiss me didn’t it?”
1) “I admit to a little subterfuge “. There is another name for that. Being economical with the truth is the polite version.
Beyond that Simon Banks makes the true Liberal case for a fair society.
By the way, no reason to flatter yourself. I, like everyone else here, simply have a functioning memory concerning your less than honest posting record.
Apologies Caron.
I was obviously writing while you were posting your request.
I would respectfully ask for my post of 9:10pm to be allowed to stand as, if the LDV rules are to mean anything, not constantly shifting who/what we say we are is important.