What of the future of political leadership?

Failures in political leadership are apt to leave so many of us with our metaphorical (or actual) 'heads in our hands'. However, it is also noticeable how the worst of such behaviour in politics is news, whereas success appears somehow less worthy of coverage. The work of negotiators from nations including Egypt, the US and Qatar, as well as Israel and Hamas, in brokering a pause to the horrendous situation in Gaza suggests some hope is due in this regard.

However, in terms of what has happened in recent weeks, principally atrocities visited upon innocents and the seemingly indiscriminate brutality of war, there is untold pain and suffering. Beyond this armed conflict, there are also ongoing wars that do not command such headlines, as well as political turmoil which in peacetime can be hard to comprehend.

For example, the UK Covid enquiry is laying bare the sheer absence of competence that abandoned vulnerable populations to the fate of the pandemic, where swifter and more organised thinking could have saved lives. It is not surprising that questions of political leadership in all arenas move us so quickly to emotion. In a time of worldwide social media, this has implications far beyond a geographical area, as opinions and actions by onlookers globally may further inflame the unfolding tragedies.

As political psychologists, how should we react? We are indeed all humans, so emotions are natural and desirable…otherwise we risk a detachment from living. Yet, we are also aware of potential limits to human capacity in considering objective judgements and making cool-headed decisions when faced with the most challenging of situations. Repercussions extend to the availability of accurate information on which such judgements are formed and debates inflamed. What, or who should be believed?

Such considerations do not excuse wrong-doing or incompetence of leadership, but knowing that these exist and seeking to build in 'fail-safes' to political structures may not be the worst idea. In other words, the role for pause before war is waged, rather than after it has claimed the lives of thousands, would surely help lay the ground for sustainable solutions? Even better is contingency planning – such as that re-emphasised by fears of a future pandemic or invasion – at a level which means a nation could not be fenced-in to a false sense of security by a leader's ambitions or surprised by the terror of its enemies.

Being human is never likely to be simple, as sadly, coping with complexity and tragedy has to be part of our make-up and there must be time to grieve, console, rebuild and renew. The past three and a half years, with a global pandemic and new wars in Europe and the Middle East have stretched our perceptions of time, of understanding and our credulity.  While talk of the long view can readily be dismissed, that longer-term is actually the history of our species.

For those whose families, communities and countries have been ravaged by conflict, it is the belief in better times ahead that forms part of our will to survive. As political psychologists, perhaps we can reach out to support all those who need it and encourage conditions for calm for humanity, clearer thinking and eventually peace. As for political leadership, we may go beyond hoping, and plan instead, for better choices of our leaders and by them – we should all have a part to play in shaping who they are. 

About the author

Ashley Weinberg is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Salford.

This editorial is taken from the Autumn/Winter 2023 issue of the Political Psychology Section Bulletin.