Political leadership Research Paper


Political leadership is considered as the concept central to the establishment and understanding of various political outcomes and processes. However, its definition is elusive. The leadership has borrowed ideas from many disciplines such as management, political theory, psychology, and history. It is significant because it determines the established policies based on the available evidence. It is important for leaders to have effective ability to solve problems and make the best decision in every situation. They must create an environment that encourages political integration through articulating and implementing effective policies.  The main purpose of this research is to identify how the factors affecting the governance of a government play a key role in defining the success and failure of the government?

Political leadership is influenced by various dependent variables including the views of a political leader or environment concerning various issues that affect the state of the environment being a major issue on which the government depends on, and the most government fails due to this environment factor.  Such issues often have an impact on the social, economic, and political sectors or power of the said state. These are dependent variables because due to various uncertainties and the ever changing demands and expectations, political leaderships have often been forced to revise their policies in order to suit the demands of the environment. These values, however, do not affect the independent variables but instead, they help to achieve them. It is to determine that how environment plays a vital role in affecting governance strategies?

On the other hand, independent variables include personal influence, political age, entry into politics, and traditions play a vital role in affecting the governance criteria of a government. Normally, nature sees political pioneers by how exhaustive or expressive they are at articulating their thoughts. In this way, their accomplishments, as well as political pioneers, will decide how the earth sees them. Subsequently, the political initiative is judged through the free variables. A political authority builds up an in number vision to bolster the acknowledgment of a superior future that sets up achievement methodologies and secure the province is exceedingly respected by nature. The vision must concentrate on guarding the positive history and society of the country. It should likewise universally advance attractive picture and notoriety of the nation.

Statement of Problem and Purpose

This research thus seeks to determine how dependent and independent factors affecting the governance determine? The political success or failure of leadership. This research problem above arises because governance determines the future of a state or any entity whereas if we talk about dependent states, we have to focus on Environment because researchers explain how a society lags when it is unable to be fairly governed by the leaders who make leaders hide behind those who will push the bad away and it also explains to us how the politicians failed to the environment dependent formula. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that how any form of leadership goes about governance, determines its success or failure. Leaders recognize that often they need to change their opinions or policies in order to conform and adapt to the changing needs or the environment. However, hard this process has proved to be over the years, history has proved how vital it is to the success of any political leadership. Another area that can be exploited in detail is how political leadership responds to issues regarding traditional governance. (McKinney, 2015)

The purpose of the proposed research is to evaluate how weak governance is affected by the environment that ends up in failures, including the big question of how to avoid environment factor affecting the government while being strong in governance? The research will also argue that strong leadership is indispensable and facilitates the realization of success.  Government politicians represent the citizens’ views through addressing issues that concern them. Although they do not lead through creating laws, they have an obligation to give the best services to the public.

In such manner, consideration can be attracted to the objectives of specific political pioneers. Difficulties realized theoretical and methodological issues should be considered when undertaking this exploration. This is particularly noteworthy on the grounds that distinguishing and dissecting their objectives to figure out if they have changed essentially after some time or not is very arduous. On the other hand, the data assembled can evaluate the pioneers and subsequently settle on educated decisions while selecting leaders. An effective political leadership ensures that government regulates issues that affect the economy such as inflation, currency volatility through creating better opportunities to enhance business activities while keeping these fields independent of environmental effects. (SIL, 2002).

Literature review

A major objective of this integrative literature audit is to look at the courses in which leadership is developing and the outcomes of examining its transformative way for the models, systems, and the general population. For instance, at the beginning of the field of leadership, the essential component is on examining individual leaders who work in large organizations in the United States. In the modern days the field of leadership centers not merely on leaders but also peers, work setting, followers and the culture including a much more extensive composition of people that represent the whole range of diversity, private, public, not-for-profit associations that have progressively increased in the course of past two decades. Leadership is no more essentially portrayed as an individual trademark, (Turnbull, 2012) but instead is depicted under different models as dyadic, shared, a global complex network of social dynamism. The composed examination of the evolution of leadership is critical in discussing significant matters of inquiry representing present pillars of research in leadership though some are justifiably ‘taller’ than others.

The review highlights the present status of every specific area of inquiry is discussing what we know and do not know as well as the intriguing conceivable outcomes to pursue in future. Due to a number of factor confinements, the focus is more on the conditions regarding advances, in theory, principles, research, and practices that include the reactions and limits for theories and models wherever deemed most appropriate (Turnbull, 2012). In this analysis, the focus is on suggestions for future directions that the science of political leadership initiatives could pursue as well as the likely impacts of political leadership practices.

Research work in political science is for the most scenarios instigated by arising problems.  Among the numerous issues that political science is associated with; the issue of leadership is obviously a major area of focus. In the political arena, leadership is a key element of governance with frail leadership traits being a major contributor to government failure. Indeed, a solid leadership is indispensable for the success of a government. Shrewd leadership secures is assured of flourishing in the long haul while foolhardy leadership may become catastrophic to both the government and society at large. It is the absence of proper leadership that routinizes administration because when its political, as well as creative perspectives, become blurred it is characteristically same as administration, whereby it focuses exclusively on maintaining a pattern. Besides, excessively assertive political leadership is less considerate of institutional limitations (Egeberg & Trondal, 2009). This because it may result in sudden changes that cause a disruption of normal streaming of the political procedures, thus detracting transparency and consistency.

Political leadership, as well as followership, represents noteworthy contrasts crosswise over and within individual states in reacting to both new worldwide issues and conventional administration issues. The effects of globalization create increased demand for new types of worldwide and supranational administration. Globalization as bundled transnational stream of individuals, investment, informational ideas and authority raises the importance of leadership within global associations and agencies. Historically, leadership is a concrete solid phenomenon in terms of structures and techniques since they change with the progression of time. In order to influence events and results, leaders should be ready to desert strategy instruments and thoughts that fail to work in newer environments. Rather they should have the capacity to embrace new ideas and reconsider the old including some prior disposed of thoughts and strategies for adjusting to situations if the circumstances demand it. Different researchers endeavor to show in different ways that key strategic inventive adaptation is the most effective way compelling political initiatives in an assorted set (Gallagher, 2012) of social settings. Developments and innovations may take diverse structures, though. Despite the fact that the majority of researchers have a commitment to democracy, human rights and ensuring a sustainable environment, significant others do not completely concede to what these ideals mean hypothetically and infer for all intents and purposes.

According to (Egeberg & Trondal, 2009) political leadership is outlined as a multidimensional phenomenon and a part of multi-causal social procedures that result in concrete political aspects such as election results. Matters of leadership and management, as well as political initiatives from the national to the global levels, are generally and effectively seen as a subtype of human social administration. However, many alludes it is an exceptional ‘thick’, and conceivably complete, subtype. (Hirano, S., & Snyder, 2012) In order to comprehend, clarify and make predictions of political leadership, it is paramount to examine the convictions, qualities, characters, power relations, and acts of leadership and followership. This includes analyzing historical scenarios and social, institutional context. In fact, the leaders along with their followership are usually involved in circular procedures of inspiration and power exchanges that are characteristically hard to separate into a casual grouping.

Considering politics as leadership creates a complex scenario in concluding the noteworthiness of its causal roles with leaders needed to mobilize significant followership to accept policy remedies for, aggregate issues or emergencies (Hirano & Snyder, 2012). In addition, leadership is a typical movement intervened by society, for its respective leaders now that ‘identity’ business visionaries are occupied with giving myths to make, reshape or upgrade national and political frameworks. All the while, leaders, and their followership are influenced by whatever they make. Political leadership is a standout amongst the most broadly experienced and implicitly comprehended aspects just like climate change, focal human rights discussions about the trade-off between security and civil rights. Interestingly, the aspects of political leadership are hard to define in light of the fact that it is reliant on institutional, social and historical connections and circumstances both specific and general (Hirano, S., & Snyder, 2012). Observational operationalization of the context of leadership includes a large group of methodological issues, particularly those relating to the meaning of variables and the problems of spurious relationship. Nevertheless, the leadership phenomenon obviously includes leaders included in some kind of imaginative adaptation with group objectives. According to the Oxford dictionary, a leader is one bestowed with a duty to lead or command a group, an organization or nation. To is to cause one to go in the direction one instructs and towards a destination. From these definitions, it is evident that goal setting and motivational aspects commonly define leadership attributes.

Analytical framework

Political leadership suggests followership and group tasks to be achieved through innovative adaptation in a particular situation and organizational cultural context. Followership of leadership is a social reality of a group that confronts its surrounding as a problem, and the group should adapt and innovate continuously (Thomas, 2015). Leadership followership exchanges develop into an interactive process that is real, where the two parts constitute mutually and are related dialectically as one that is larger than the addition of the parts. The demand, beliefs, attitudes of the followers are affected by the leaders; and the leader’s style, motivations, and qualities affected by the followers as they all change the surrounding and are reflectively changed by their own actions. Whatever contextual differences exist, the followers of the political leadership is always a process of innovation and adaptation to the surroundings or context that give challenges the values and way of life of the groups. (Mascuilli, Molchanov & Knight, 2009)

The work of the leaders is to;  to interpret the problems recommend ends and means and unravel them and to promote personal visions as the answer or responses to problems deploy followers to do the implementation of those solutions or feedback. An increasing number of political analysts look leadership as an energetic, clear social system, a logic process, rather than a small number of sporadic individual acts (Mascuilli et al., 2009)). Some processes in some ways get individuals to do something or involve a good relationship between the followers and the leaders where something is done. A leader selects a specific course and then he get others to follow him, or more subtly, he encourages the followers to select the course that they would like to follow. The co-determination of both parts of the leadership- followership technique means that the followers are the one that significantly create leaders. Whether individuals follow by inner instinct primarily or by cultural socialization, the today’s literature has appreciated the significance of following leaders, the success, and the failures.

The current supply of leadership is driven by societal demand that existed before, which a politician of a would-be leader needs to satisfy. Often, there are many ways to satisfy that demand, or to create a feeling that the problem can be solved. Historical settings (Turnbull, 2012) and situation of problems are interpreted by refusing to comply with elite groups, politicians in elite groups, their advisers, and the many followers. Therefore, the political leadership is seen as a way of competing in the marketplace of values and thoughts, which at times stress structural leadership, creative leadership or charming leadership (Thomas, 2015). In addition, the formation of elite-mass divided political leaders, creative, independent and communities that are epistemic are also involved in the interpretation of their world and its problems. However, groups of leadership- followership are unique because they not only make interpretation of problematic situations but also recommend particular courses of action and deploy individuals to solve social problems, thus wanting to change the existing situations. It is fundamental to stress that the interprets of context and situations is not programmed before in social life fabric. As the surroundings are not defining themselves, an interpretive effort is provided by the political leaders.

The result of these efforts is open to political and ideological contestation by nature. Social surroundings cannot be reduced natural or technological creatures that are outside for everyone to see but also include facts that are socially made as a result of norms and practices that the group accepts. Some context like drought, natural disasters, an outbreak of diseases and military invasion are very easy to interpret compared to others. If the cause and the effect relationships get into political discourse, once the responsibility is given and accountability is needed, the function of interpreting of leadership comes to the front immediately, and the gap for studying politics entrepreneurship increases multiplicatively (Hirano, S., & Snyder, 2012). According to studies from the past saw great leaders as an agent who are creative and who drives the processes of politics for the community at large. Modern research is increasingly putting emphasis necessarily to avoid drawing of the dichotomy between agents of politics and social structures, including leadership- followership groups. Social structures are many people placed together, organized in multiple systems, but still individuals, susceptible to agents of human learning and leading.

Social structures relatively endure and are not independently on regulating activities, unlike natural structures. Political agencies that accept conceptions, standards and identities that are shared remain relatively constant and do not have a significant change. Several leadership- followership groups last for long while other are temporary, unpredictable change upon selecting a strategic structural environment of the group. The relationship between the leaders and the followers exist in a succession from severe inequality and asymmetry,  in which leaders that are strong influence followers to be leaders who are strong. However, leadership at the two ends of the succession is characterized by interacting materially or morally.

Theorist perspective

The traditional Marxist of leaders in politics has value because of its insights into dynamic structure agents under the conditions or change and revolution. The theory of Marx, which inspires political leadership, have responded to the big emphasis of Marx on structural and forces of the technology which advance conflict to an extent of a political revolution and cultural change of the community in socialism direction which he found the end stage of political and economic growth. According to Thomas (2015) the theorists of Friedrich Engels and Marxist went ahead emphasizing ideological relations role and other structural phenomena. In maintaining and adapting today’s capitalist and social control .according to the Marxist tradition that followed, leadership is understood as an activity to be done by a group of people who are committed- a party or a professional revolution organization with the task of giving energy, stability and the continuation of struggle of politics to a working class. Some fundamental features differentiate Lenin’s approach (Carnoy, 2014) to leadership, like the cheeky emphasis on the superior elements of the leadership elite. To start with, the moving leadership elite should claim a superior wisdom or understanding goals that have a long term and the immediate role of the community at large and the historical laws that govern its evolution.

The understanding of evolutionary theory is the assured way of understanding the revolutionary movement that the role of vanguard fighter can be accomplished only by a party controlled by theories that are very advanced. Secondly, Lenin sees leadership as a collective instead of individual activity and attribute, though the leadership elite is seen as inclusive or many leaders. Working together in harmony in today’s society there will be no class that would wage a determined struggle. The elite’s main work is to give education to the followers, shape the understanding they are interested in and the international outlook generally speaking: (Gallagher, 2012) Political consciousness class is driven to workers only from without the knowledgeable people that instill the type of conscience into the collection of followers could be of any background whether they are students or working people, only if they are professional revolutionaries. The final term suggests a combination of unique personal elements, training and lasting devotion to their career in political leadership.

Thirdly, leadership elite is tasked with employing some superior knowledge and expertise in organizing followership. For this reason, the political leaders are perceived as very talented organizing persons with the capability to arrange extensively and uniformly the harmonious tasks that would bring together all forces including the most inconsiderable. However, there is a consistent emphasis on the objectives ad inevitable contradictions of spontaneity and a measure of consciousness in characterizing an organization that is best suited for providing leadership to an entire movement. According to Lenin (1975) the whole work was supposedly informed by neo-Hegelian perception on the power of ideas instead of the classic materialist determinism attribute by Marx. Furthermore, Lenin’s Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic (Gallagher, 2012) admits that the thoughts of ideal passing into reality are essential in historical consideration.

Also, in the personal life of a person it is true that there is the much-contained truth. However, there is a barely concealed idealism for Lenin’s Theory of leadership as indicated by the belief of superiority of the theoretical insights argued by Marxist (Carnoy, 2014). The latter theory makes an excuse for social experimentation and makes presentations for grand structures designed by innovative teams who make it to not only a modern achievement for social sciences but also an insight for objectively predefined pathways of social evolution which the entire humanity is required to follow. The critical theorists have much to learn from the Marxist traditions though they have diverted into numerous directions where some try to make a combination of democracy and leadership. Research by Habermas proposes three main conceptions of political activities concerning the relationship of the theory in practice. First it is the technical conception that adopts knowledge as a tool for changing the social and natural world through the understanding of causal regularities. Secondly, the educative conception provides an enlightenment to people regarding the most effective means that they desire to pursue and clarifying on the alternatives that can be adopted.

Finally, the interpretive conception is basically an explication of meanings since humans are intentional in their actions. The above three formations of political activity are usually associated with diverse forms of leadership although the technical and educative uses social sciences depend on the interpretive form as it is more theoretical. It is however not clear whether educative and technical means of using knowledge and leadership should be reconciled so as to prioritize educative use in sought of constitutional democracy, sustainability of the environment and human rights (Frohlich & Oppenheimer, 2015). A more constructive measure for ordering these political activities for human rights and sustainable leadership is by the technical form of serving an educative kind of leadership. Furthermore, this is defined by a strong normative explanation of democracy as one involving wholesome participation having a sustainable environment including technological innovations and also the keen observation of human rights. Moreover, technical actions would be paramount in safeguarding the preservation of educative ideals.

Political leadership in a democratic society

Political leadership essentially involves the exercise for sought of consent instead of imposing coercion. This is an understanding since Plato’s (Bell, 2011) influential insights that were expressed in the state where he tackled matters of individual virtues needed by a ruler. Also, Thomas Leviathan while under the same consideration focused on human passions which could induce leaders to subject peace and order to jeopardy. Such characteristic approaches have caused two major conflicting aspects that are the classical and contemporary one. The former focuses on the personality traits for building an influential leadership comprising of great people while the contemporary seeks a sociological approach to exercising leadership (Carnoy, 2014). Accordingly, leadership is perceived as a consequence of integration between a person and his context as opposed to a mere individualistic approach for human values. Such an a perspective is deemed egalitarian in the assumptions it is associated with since it ultimately recognizes that all persons have the likelihood of getting a leadership position. Such a normative approach is useful in giving an explanation of contemporary political science and its reluctance in discussing political leadership and its relevance (Frohlich & Oppenheimer, 2015).

Having factored the argument that leaders are capable of bending the context for their followers instead of being products of the situation where one ought to agree that basic mirrors of external constraints and leaders combining a number of characteristics produces some consent around the commanding voices. The presence of egalitarian bias is associated with influencing the indifference around leadership matters as it avoids considerations for individual influence with some significant political strength (Carnoy, 2014).  This result in having the world under the control of unrestricted forces that duly shapes the events and thus causing unpredictable freedom for political accomplices.  Such a degree of contingency implies eroding tools as well as theories becoming available for political science analysis and consideration and, therefore, downgrading the issue. On the contrary, its existence alongside the undisputable high visibility for political leaders becomes a rather uncomfortable scenario that demands further analysis as well as systematic interests from social sciences.

Survival of democracies

Despite its relevance to human life, political leadership has continually been neglected in the present society. According to Weber (2009) it is an invalid dream to expect political leadership in a democracy setting. Indeed, strong leadership is affiliated with weak democracies and also good Democrat is seemingly incompatible with exercises of leadership. A democracy, therefore, settles well with leadership but develops antipathies for strong manifestations Weber (2009). Political science ought to have kept an eye on this phenomenon as it seeks procedures for escaping these gridlock that are founded on democratic grounds (Teles, 2012). Science permits and indeed deserves such unbiased and dispassionate perspectives. The existence in a democratic society is a rather uncomfortable fact since it redirects most attention on the general distrust towards the political class and mostly comprises the arguments that leadership within democracies must involve some antidemocratic aspects. The presence of more democracy is an implication of suspicion towards power. Such distrust is only understood as the power of prevention which authorizes different veto in preventing excessive powers from leadership pressures.


The agendas of this review go beyond simple management. The essence of leadership has credit from others in recognition of leadership traits. Leadership is therefore affiliated with the ability to influence, give motivation and enable other individuals in making contributions towards successful organizations or nations which they entrusted with leading others. This is beyond the expected roles for those individuals occupying particular positions, and the consequences are only expected from those perceived in leadership.



Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Bell, D. S. (2011). Political leadership. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Carnoy, M. (2014). The state and political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Consortium for comparative research on regional integration and social cohesion. (2012). Reinforcing governance: Perspectives on development, poverty, and global crises. New York: P.I.E.

Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: Effects of agencification. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 22(4), 673-688.

Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (2015). Political leadership and collective goods. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gallagher, K. S. (2012). Urban education: A model for leadership and policy. New York: Routledge.

Helms, L. (2012). Comparative political leadership. New York: Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.

Helms, L. (2012). Democratic political leadership in te new media age: A farewell to excellence? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14(4), 651-670.

Hirano, S., & Snyder, J. M. (2012). Primary elections and political accountability: What happens to incumbents in scandals?

Kim, D. (2015). Foreign direct investment under globalization dilemma: economic insecurity, tax competition, and funding for social welfare. Iowa.

Mascuilli, J., Molchanov, M. A., & Knight, A. W. (2009). Political leadership in context. In J. Mascuilli, M. A. Molchanov, & A. W. Knight, Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership. Ashgate .

McNeely, N. E. (2013). take two on race and politics: Reexamining the origins and consequences of electoral structures in American cities. Iowa.

Prastacos, G. P., Wang, F., & Soderquist, K. E. (2012). Leadership and management in a changing world: Lessons from ancient eastern and western philosophies. Dordrecht: Springer.

Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., Littvay, L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007). Evolutionary theory and political leadership: Why certain people do not trust decision makers. The Journal of Politics, 69(2), 285-299.

Teles, F. (2012). Political leaders: The paradox of freedom and democracy. Revista Enfoques, 10(16), 113-131.

Thomas, J. J. (2015). party duration: Examining the effects of incumbent party tenure on election outcomes. Iowa.

Turnbull, S. (2012). Worldly leadership: Alternative wisdom for a complex world. Hampshire: Houndmills, Macmillan.

Weinberg, A. (2012). The psychology of politicians. Cambridge: UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.