More than merely messiahs – viz: is the era and ethos of ‘strongman’ governments gone for good? (2/4)

WE continue our discussion of the much debated issue of whether Sri Lanka ever truly benefitted from the 'strongman' model of political leadership, as was assumed in the past for a plethora of reasons - not least among these the propaganda machines of charlatans posing as saviours.

- By Wijith DeChickera

In today's column, we survey the extant literature on political leadership styles, in an ongoing attempt to discern if there is an ideal model - one that would lead Sri Lanka away from the myths, misuses and misadventures of so-called political saviours and their putative national messiahship.

Leadership is a topic that has been much discussed but little agreed upon in terms of definitions, its essence versus its attributes, and especially its praxis. The truth be told - there are "many diverse ways of thinking about leadership" (W. E. Allen, 2018).

Yet, although most scholars agree that "creating a logical and consistent picture of the state of leadership theory is a difficult task" (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio and Johnson, 2011), it is increasingly evident in a world suffering from a so-called 'leadership deficit' that defining, developing, and applying meaningful, relevant, and sustainable models and theories of leadership is the need of the hour worldwide.

'Leadership deficit' was a term coined in relation to nonprofit organisations (T. J. Tierney, 2006). But now, it is being increasingly applied to politics, civics, and governance as well. A slew of scholarly papers (R. D. Perkins, 2009), (N. Harter, 2012), (Martin and Allen, 2016) and (Paxton and Van Stralen, 2016) have already identified this need.

And some in particular argue for "a new point of view [that] encourages discussion with the hope for a more efficacious understanding of leadership theory in any part of the world" (Allen, 2018).