The Character Types of Politics

                                     

By Dylan Norman

​

Whether we intend to or not, we divide people into categories. The “Us versus Them” mentality is a well-documented phenomena, and it’s been discovered by researchers from Yale and the University of North Carolina that fostering the “Us versus Them” mentality doesn’t require religion, political views, or race.(1) It seems our natural tendency is to divide, but what happens if we divide our leaders into categories, or in this case archetypes? Do the archetypes hold truths about leader’s success, or do these categories fail to predict a leader’s impact? I believe two archetypes in particular do hold predictive power: those of the “Thinker” and the “Revolutionary.” In this essay, I will describe the type of leaders these terms represent, the results, both short and long term, created by these leaders, the role of leadership decisions compared to the role of leadership ideologies, and finally why we should care about leadership styles at all.

​

SECTION ONE: Defining the “Thinker” and “Revolutionary.”

 

Firstly, it’s important to know what the “Thinker” and “Ethicist” archetypes refer to. I’ll start by defining the “Thinker” first. The thinker is characterized by their success through nonviolent means and idealogical, ethical appeals. The thinker archetype is exemplified best through two historical figures: Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Starting with Gandhi, it quickly becomes clear why he can be considered a “thinker.” During his earlier years, he dealt with racism and discrimination in South Africa, but rather than resorting to violent means, Gandhi flooded media and legislature with reasoned statements signed by his compatriots. With his rhetoric, Gandhi ensured the government, media, and legislature were always aware of not just his presence, but the broader issue of racism and mistreatment.(2) Through his efforts, Gandhi garnered recognition from British Newspapers such as the “Times of London.” An article from September of 1931 in “The Illustrated London News” helps us realize how large an impact Gandhi had made, since even “The Prime Minister called…for a short conversation with him(3)". With this international attention, when Gandhi led peaceful mass protests, the treatment of his fellow Indians resulted in a negative image of the South African government. Indians sacrificed their freedom by refusing to honor immoral laws, which eventually led to them facing imprisonment, flogging, and even shooting.

​

Though this ordeal, Gandhi had pioneered a new method of change: The Satyagraha, or “The Devotion to Truth".(2) This was a protest method that works by inviting rather than inflicting wrongs. The Satyagraha wasn’t just successful on moral grounds; it succeeded in legal grounds as well. The South African government was forced to respond, and negotiated a compromise.

 

Gandhi took the methods of Satyagraha back to India with him, and in the face of British mistreatment, become a major player in Indian politics. Through a drawn out struggle, Gandhi helped bring Independence to India. Notably, this was done from moral, rather than violent, grounds. As Encyclopedia Britannica points out, “His three major campaigns…were well designed to engender that process of self-doubt and questioning that was to undermine the moral defences of his adversaries."(2)

​

Nelson Mandela shares many traits with Gandhi, in that Mandela found his success when he fought his battles on moral grounds. Mandela’s story is another example of the “thinker” archetype. Nelson Mandela’s story started when he renounced his claim to be the chieftain of a tribe, and instead focused his career on being a lawyer and built support for nonviolent laws. However, he eventually switched to violent means for success after the banning of his political party, the African National Congress. He trained in guerrilla warfare, but he was later arrested and sentenced to five years in prison.(4)

 

During this period, Mandela was offered deals for freedom, but he refused, arguing that only free men can enter into agreements, and since he was in prison, he was not free. Mandela’s time in prison garnered international attention and criticism of Apartheid, meaning that Mandela’s first major success was through a nonviolent, ethical appeal.

​

After Mandela was released from prison in 1990, he became President of the African National Congress in 1991. He created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which investigated human rights violations.(4) He also introduced reforms to improve the quality of life for black citizens, and after retirement, Mandela worked through the Nelson Mandela Foundation to be an advocate of peace and social justice. Finally, he also founded the Elders, which according to their website is an “independent group of global leaders working together for peace, justice, and human rights.”(5) The Elders have members ranging from a UN Secretary-General, to Nobel Peace Laureates, to former presidents and Prime Ministers of the US, Norway, Ireland, 

Finland, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Liberia. This impressive line-up of leaders works with an organisation that offer programmes related to health coverage, access to justice, refugees, climate change, and most importantly, ethical leadership. Mandela’s nonviolent, ethical legacy lives on through South Africa’s more integrated society, as well as the organisations he left behind.

 

Most important to remember of both Gandhi and Mandela is that these leaders gained success through nonviolent, ethical appeals. While Mandela did pursue violence at one point in his life, he only found major success through nonviolence. Nonviolence and ethics are the two defining characteristics of the “Thinker” archetype, but what about the “Revolutionary?”

 

The Revolutionary archetype is defined by use of violence as well as popular support, at least before they gained power. To gain a better understanding of what the archetype is, let’s examine two figures that serve as strong examples of revolutionaries: Mao Zedong and Vladimir Lenin.

​

Mao Zedong had popular support for his connection with and belief in peasants, and he believed revolutions would be successful if led by the working class.(6) As Patrick H. O’Neil, Karl Fields, and Don Share put it in the book “Essentials of Comparative Politics,” Mao’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “sought to organize the China’s nascent working class.” However, a rival party, known as the Nationalist party or Kuomintang, drove Mao and the CCP to the countryside in an event known as the long March. During the march, Mao and his followers dealt with large amounts of death and suffering. However, as the authors of “Essentials of Comparative Politics” argue, the march was “heroic” as well, and thus garnered peasant support for Mao.(6)

​

The march wasn’t completely composed of Civilians however. Mao’s PLA, or People’s Liberation Army, also suffered losses among their numbers. As Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Only a fraction of this force survived the Long March in retreat from the nationalists.”(7) However, when Japan launched an invasion of China, the CCP and the PLA successfully fought against the Japanese and were launched into power. As a result, success in wartime as well as popularity among middle and lower classes was what pushed Mao Zedong into power. 

 

When Mao took office, his policies were to stifle critics and authority figures that didn’t share Mao’s beliefs. Mao called those who didn’t align with the Communist Party’s beliefs “imperialistic and domestic reactionaries.”(8) As a side note, my family have known academics who were forced to work in the fields of western China due to their academic position. I mention what Mao did in office because while the Revolutionary is defined by their use of violence and power gained in part due to popularity, it’s also important to be aware of what a Revolutionary might do when they get into power. Mao’s actions are similar to those of another “Revolutionary” archetype, Vladimir Lenin.

​

Before we move on from defining what a “Revolutionary” is, let’s examine one other case of Lenin. History.com’s article on Vladimir Lenin helps outline how Lenin rose to power. Lenin advocated for Russian revolution, but was exiled to Serbia after engaging in “Marxist” activities. However, when he was finally allowed to return to Russia, the Russian Revolution was already happening. Lenin’s Communist Party fought the White Army for control, and after Lenin gained power, he nationalized industry under economic policies dubbed “War Communism.” Due to nationalization, “industrial and agricultural output plummeted. An estimated 5 million Russians died of famine in 1921 and living standards across Russia plunged into abject poverty” according to History.com’s editors.(9) 

 

This mass unrest was a threat to Lenin’s government, and therefore Lenin enlisted the support of the Cheka. The Cheka was an organization given the duty to “persecute and break-up all acts of counter-revolution and sabotage all over Russia, no matter their origin."(10) Lenin chose Felix Dzerzhinsky to run the Cheka who soon gained the nickname the “Iron Count.” Alpha History, an Australian Based group of worldwide authors, says that the Cheka killed approximately 12,000 people between 1918-20 according to official government figures; however, some historians believe that number was closer to 200,000.(10)

​

Both Lenin and Mao were key figures in revolutions, and both resorted to violent means. Both also gained some form of public support: Mao gained his from the lower and middle classes, while Lenin gained support from workers. Now that the concepts of “revolutionary” and “thinker” have been established, I will turn to analyzing data to see the effects of each archetype.

​

SECTION 2: Comparing and Contrasting the Archetypes

 

Do these archetypes matter? To answer this question, we must first take a look at the economic and social benefits brought by these leaders, and also determine whether these benefits were long or short term.

 

All of the leader’s mentioned had lasting impacts on their countries. Mao created the CCP and a new regime, and both remain central parts of Chinese politics to this day. Lenin has changed Russia’s regime by helping introduce communism into Russia, as well as “broken not merely the aristocrat and the landlord, but the systems in which their dominance was rooted,” according to the “New Statesman” magazine.(11) Gandhi helped free India from British Rule and bring India independence. Finally, Mandela achieved a multiracial voting system in South Africa and he also dismantled the system of Apartheid. Each of these leaders continue to impact their countries to this day, so this is why I am including statistics from the modern day in each of these countries.

​

The first data included will be GDP and GDP per capita in 2019. GDP will allow us to track how well a country is doing economically, while GDP per capita allows us to track the economic output and the standard of living of an individual person living in a country. The “*” symbol will refer to the approximate point at which each country lands on the graph below in the year 2019. Note the graph is for comparison purposes as the GDP experiences too much variance in amount between countries to graph accurately, so the exact values provided by the World Bank are listed in the table below the graph.(12)