The March of Folly, Part 3: Political Leaders, like all leaders, are first hired to do a particular job, By Publius
In this column I discuss a second explanation of why political leaders so often pursue policies that damage the economies of the nations they rule. I argued that, at first glance, such behaviour is puzzling, since economic progress delivers substantial gains in political power. However, the incumbent leader may not be expert in how to remedy the situation. In a previous column, I suggested that leaders may not have the same interests as the broad majority of the people they rule. In this column I suggest an alternative, complementary explanation.
Put simply, political leaders are usually hired (elected, appointed or welcomed in some other way such as through a popular and successful coup d’etat) like other leaders to solve a problem. Just as a supermarket chain or an airline can hire a new CEO to cut costs, which have gotten out of control, so a political leader can win office on a mandate, for example, to restore law and order. Surveying our usual suspects: Vladimir Putin was elected on a popular mandate to restore law and order in chaotic post-Yeltsin Russia; Xi Jinping was appointed on a mandate to suppress corruption, which was widely perceived in China to have gotten out of hand under his predecessor Hu Jintao; Turkey’s Erdogan was elected to restore the democratic deficit in military-controlled Turkey; Boris Johnson was elected to get Brexit done and resolve the UK’s political paralysis; and Joe Biden was elected to restore normalcy and calm after the crazy Trump years. Looking back further, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Thatcher, De Gaulle and many other great leaders got to the top in this way.
Not all leaders achieve office this way, but most do. Even Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia was chosen to succeed his father because he was perceived as being most likely to succeed in modernising Saudi’s economy. They are the men and women for which the situation calls, and they are perceived to have the ability to get the job done. In all of the previous examples, excepting Biden, they did the job. Putin restored order, Xi crushed everyday corruption, Erdogan did make Turkey a working (if majoritarian) democracy, Boris did move the UK on from Brexit.
The problem is what happens next. The cost-cutting CEO of a supermarket chain can cut costs, but probably isn’t so good at growing revenues. The history of business abounds with examples of such people. In a business the answer is simple: fire the CEO when his or her job is done and replace them with a CEO who is less good at controlling costs but has better ideas and skills at growing revenues. The cost-cutter moves merrily on to the next company, and it more or less works (just not always).
But in politics this doesn’t always happen. Rulers can use their power to cement their position, and because they are experts in solving one problem, they carry on solving it even when other problems become more urgent. Once Putin had restored order in Russia, Russia needed organic economic growth, and to wean itself off dependency on being a commodity exporter. This never happened. For many reasons, Putin didn’t facilitate it, but one of the reasons, surely, is that a person who may be excellent at restoring order may be terrible at fostering growth, perhaps not even recognizing the need for it and certainly not knowing how to do it. Erdogan and Johnson both appeared to believe that because they had strong democratic mandates to solve a society-wide issue they could do what they liked on the economy and all would be well. But it wasn’t.
In democracies, eventually, we can replace such people. Pity the Chinese who are stuck in a perpetual anti-corruption drive which has paralyzed decision-making by concentrating all power in the hands of one man who cannot afford to step down because of all the people he has antagonized.
There is no general solution, of course, but in functioning democracies we might hold the new leader’s fee to the fire a bit more when they take office for the first time. Consider! What if Margaret Thatcher had said: ‘When the unions and inflation are curbed and the UK debt-to-ratio is back below 60% I will quit’? What if Boris had committed to holding office only until a fully-working Brexit deal had been done with the EU? (He would have left in early 2020 and be remembered as one of the UK’s most effective prime ministers). What if Erdogan had said ‘Let me win two elections in the teeth of establishment opposition and my country will be safe for democracy for 100 years, and then I will leave, because no army officer will ever again dare to challenge the popular will in Turkey’.
First, such leaders, if hey had kept their word, would be remembered as some of the greatest leaders their countries ever had. Second, we could appoint the right person for the current job that needs to be done. Third, we might just be more inclined to vote for someone who had a clear idea of what success in their job looked like.
I have a suggestion for Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, which supports independence from the UK for Scotland. Support for independence in Scotland is rather low at the moment, compared to the recent past. If she campaigned for independence on the promise that, once achieved, she would leave office, I predict she would win.
Whatever the outlook for democracies and world leaders, I think it would be a brilliant way to hire CEOS. A mandatory question in all such job interviews from now on should be: When will you have done the job we are hiring you to do and then leave?