Contingency and Political Action: The Role of Leadership in Endogenously Created Crises

Abstract

Among the recent literature about leadership and crisis situations two main strands are to be observed: structuralist ones mainly treat political leaders as reactive agents who have relatively little room for maneuver, while constructivist ones put greater emphasis on the opportunities in interpreting crises. Our claim is that there is a third analytical possibility mainly neglected in recent literature that is even more voluntaristic than the constructivist approaches. In this scenario, there is no external shock; leaders do not only interpret, but also "invent" crises. To make our claim plausible, we build a conceptual-descriptive typology of the potential relationships between crisis situations and agency. The typology is founded on Kari Palonen's differentiation between Machiavellian and Weberian types of contingency, but uses his originally conceptual historical argument for analytical purposes. To underpin our theoretical argument, we present short illustrative examples to all three types of crisis scenarios (the structuralist, the constructivist, and the voluntarist one).

The Theory and Practice of Plebiscitary Leadership: Weber and the Orbán regime

“…This is obtained when electors proclaim their faith in a leader's ability to act for the national interest, rather than mandating him to carry out a concrete program. 95 This is how the new constitution of 2012 was made, although it had not been among the election campaign promises-but in Orbán's interpretation, in 2010 the electorate granted him a regime-changing mandate. 96 This understanding of representation was reaffirmed by the 2014 and 2018 parliamentary elections, which he fought without any party manifesto, just with a slogan of "we continue!"…”

US Political Leadership and Crisis Communication During COVID-19

“…In a crisis, leaders must recognize the emerging threat, mitigate the problem, and deal with the consequences (Boin et al, 2010). Leaders must make important decisions that will necessarily affect lives, and they must communicate their decisions to a frightened and vulnerable public (Boin, 2009;Comfort et al, 2020;Körösényi et al, 2016). In a crisis, leaders must cope with an enhanced threat, uncertainty concerning actions that will mitigate the threat, and the urgency to act (Lawton, 2013).…”

Részvétel és tanulás : A részvételi rendszermodellezés mint tanulási környezet

“…A szerzők szerint mindezen intézmények és átalakulási/fejlesztési folyamatok, megoldások érvényessége, legitimitása és sikeressége egyre nagyobb mértékben kapcsolódik a hétköznapi emberek bevonásának gyakorlatához (Christensen et al 2016: 118). Mindez akár túlzottan optimistának vagy akár naivnak is hathat a magyar politikai környezetben (Király et al 2017), ahol az elmúlt időszakban nem a valódi, "torzításmentességre törekvő" részvételi formák kiépülése és megerősödése, hanem sokkal inkább a politikai legitimitás központi "termelése" (Boda-Patkós 2015; Körösényi et al 2016) volt a jellemző. 7 7 Az ezzel kapcsolatos közéleti pesszimizmusra talán két szempontból lehet reagálni.…”