Through thorns to leadership

4 декабря, 2008

Talgat Ismagambetov, politologist, associate professor

Part 2. This article continues the description of «crisis» leaders of nations — Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle (see Exclusive, № 11, 2008). Influence of public opinion, nature of its pressure and its ability are presented at the historical experiences of several countries, including modern Russia.

Diffusive pressure: demonstration and opportunities
De Gaulle and Churchill became leaders at the time of historical tests for many nations. Key role in their uphill has played a diffusive public pressure. This phenomenon does not mean a direct confrontation but it is noticeable. Something is happening and former undisputed leaders, like Neville Chamberlain in 1938-1940 years, feel that ground is unstable under their feet: ranks of supporters are decreasing, recent allies resigning, increasingly less attractive previously popular ideas and intentions. In parallel with this public opinion is slowly but surely turning to a new figure.
Diffusive pressure is such, if valid at all levels of society. It is successful if it is pervasive. With regard to Churchill, it should be noted that the group of «backbenchers» — members of the Parliament and part of retired conservative leaders have weakened the position of leader of the Conservatives ruled by Chamberlain. But the turning point depends on the activity of public and political institutions.
The point is that diffusive pressure has internal strength and weakness. The reason is the same — diffusivity. Diffusive means scattered. While diffuse means widespread throughout the space, so it does not focus.
There is need for institutions and organizations that could act as channels of expression of this pressure, it would concentrated in them and finally have an effect. Churchill and de Gaulle could rely on a number of institutions: Churchill — on the part of deputies within the ruling party, support from the Labor and Liberal opposition, the media, Charles de Gaulle — on the part of the armed forces and the administration of some overseas colonial possessions of France, on support from French Communist Party of (FCP), and assistance from British government.
In addition, there is need for institutions of other kind — the rules and regulations. In the British political practices there may be cases where politicians that disagree with party leader, create observing group or monitoring committee. Such attempts to same conservative party members eventually led to the resignation of Margaret Thatcher in 1992.
In the 1941-1942 there was start of diffusive public pressure in France. But there have been factors against «Fighting France» and the leadership of de Gaulle. USA sought to cooperate with prominent politicians from Vichy, if they went reluctant to cooperate with the occupiers. There were various political combinations that supposed to lead another person as future President of the France.
De Gaulle destroyed these intrigues, drawing on his supporters outside France (external Resistance) and home (internal Resistance). He had to respond to the comments of the British Prime Minister on «why elections are not held in Syria and Lebanon» (these territories were under the control of «Fighting France»). In defending the sovereignty of France, requiring the taking of Madagascar which was under the rule of Vichy would be done only with the approval of «Fighting France». Appointing the High Commissioner of France Pacific possessions (part of an island of Tahiti), General charged him to uphold the sovereign rights of the State.
The US-British invasion of North Africa led to a subordinated to Vichy administration and local French troops move to the side of the Allies. Intrigue was that the allies considered Admiral Darlan to be preferable over other candidates, he was previously considered as the successor to the head of Vichy Marshal Petén. But in December 24, 1942 antifascist F. Bonnier de la Chappell mortally wounded Darlan. Another candidate of allies, General Giraud, was a professional militant far from politics. With five stars on the epaulets, he had a formal advantage over the two stars of Brigadier General de Gaulle. There was a merger of French National Committee (FNC) and Giraud supporters that split from Vichy administration, with the French Committee of National Liberation (FCNL) with the two chairmen — Giraud and de Gaulle.
Soon Giraud supporters left FCNL. In 1944, Vichy supporters made more ingenious combination. Edward Errio well-known politician was released from arrest, he headed «left block»in the 1920’s government. Vichy supporters wanted to create a government headed by Errio to prevent the leadership of de Gaulle in liberated France. In their favour was fact that de Gaulle had complicated relations with Roosevelt and not always smooth with Churchill. Yet anti de Gaulle intrigues did not pass because diffusive the pressure was on the side of de Gaulle, especially in the internal Resistance. Among other things, the Soviet Union recognized only «Fighting France» and its governing bodies as a sovereign France.
The secret of de Gaulle’s success is that he has consistently pursued the idea of national sovereignty for the French Republic. Occupation and the Vichy regime has been the reality, but had no legitimacy in the eyes of patriots. Initially without power resources, «Free France» under his leadership was creating these resources. De Gaulle, becoming the centre of gravity for capitulation disparate opponents, turned the dissenting opinion into force of Resistance.
Intrigues were destroyed by his followers (such as Darlan murder), the position of his supporters in the country and outside it, the ability to build foreign alliances. German Field Marshal Keitel was surprised when on May 8th, 1945 among the flags of the four victorious powers saw the French flag. Keitel exclaimed: «How? And the French, too?» — highlighted the fate of the game, leading the French Republic and its army to such magnificent end. De Gaulle restored national greatness of their country.
However, the victory of the anti Hitler coalition forces and the Resistance led to the replication of the French Fourth Republic (1945-1958) which had main features of Third Republic (1870-1940) which collapsed under the blows of the German Army: weakness and fragility of governments, forgetting national interests in the fight of political parties.
In 1958, de Gaulle had set up new current Fifth French Republic but that is another story.

Russian experience: unrealized opportunities of diffusive pressure
Without involvement of two types of institutions – organizations and establishments, rules and regulations, the phenomenon of diffusive pressure will not simply be demonstration of force, but weakness of public opinion, strength of diffusive pressure seen in elevation, weakness — in replacement of Yevgeny Primakov on the margins of Russian politics.
In the end of 1990s Russia truly had an opportunity to nominate the national leader without dictatorship and influence of previous ruler.
Yevgeny Primakov — is well-known personality in the political life of Russia. The current chairman of the Chamber of Commerce in Soviet Russia was last known as scientists studying eastern cultures, director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations USSR Academy of Sciences, chairman of the Council Union — one of the two chambers of the Supreme Council of the USSR during the first Congress of People’s Deputies, then was appointed as Director of Foreign Service Intelligence.
Taking the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, he put an end to the so-called «doctrine of Kozyrev», which perfectly accepted weaken Russian influence in neighbouring countries. After the August 1998 default, there was a need for replacement of Sergei Kiriyenko government. President Boris Yeltsin proposed predictable candidacy of Viktor Chernomyrdin, who in the recent past have had the experience of the Government Premier.
However, higher echelons of Russian political class — leaders of major parties represented in the State Duma, despite political disagreement, treated with coldness known to them Chernomyrdin. Their attention and sympathy were towards Yevgeny Primakov. Under the pressure of circumstances and giving the majority leaders of major parties in September 1998, Boris Yeltsin was forced to propose the candidacy of Primakov.
Primakov has been without problems withdrawn by Yeltsin in May 1999 and now he could easily leave his position. The Communist Party of Russian Federation (CPRF), initiated impeachment proceedings which failed to impeach Yeltsin but it has diverted attention and spited political class.
Diffuse pressure has been reoriented towards direct confrontation. Not Communist Party but bloc «Fatherland-All Russia», led by Primakov and Luzhkov became the main opponent of the presidential forces in the State Duma elections in December 1999. This is the second phase of the fight against Primakov. Block «Fatherland-All Russia» in the mouth of a journalist Sergei Dorenko was seen as «Fatherland minus all of Russia».
State apparatus was able to consolidate and push Primakov at the margins of political life. The strength of diffusive pressure is in its massiveness and if you like in its softness. In full accordance with the Chinese strategy: «Soft wins firm». Solid stuck in soft, tractor drowns in the swamp. But in that same softness is the weakness of diffuse public pressure.
In Russia diffusive pressure marked the end of the Yeltsin era, but split the political class predestined failure of Primakov. Further it is known that Yeltsin began casting candidates for successor.
So, without the involvement of institutions, concentration and focus for their capacity diffusive pressure is ineffective. Moreover, it could be easily reoriented towards person, which was the case in first Russian succession scenario — the transfer of power from Yeltsin to Putin.
For the sake of justice, it should be noted that Lev Rokhlin was the first politician who lacked support from the party and still defied the regime of «King» Boris. Member of the Russian State Duma Lev Rokhlin in September 1997 set up a «Movement in Support of the Army, Defence Industry and Military Science» (MAS). He appealed to the sentiments of the junior and middle officers from the army, grass-roots and middle classes of previously prestigious Russian defence industry. But it was not yet diffuse pressure, as these sentiments did not expressed the views of all sectors of society.
Words: «We will destroy Rokhlin!» belong to Yeltsin. Rokhlin was killed on the night of July 3rd, 1998, just a few weeks before the default, which was the beginning of Boris Yeltsin collapse.
After the murder of Leo Rokhlin, mood of defence complex was redirected to ruling power of Russian politics mainstream. Still there was the first break through. The following year «Successor» program was started in order to preserve the previous course.
However there is a «but». Death and murder in politics, unfortunately, are often the solution for increasing competition. Security is not enough to save the life of the leader. There was nobody that could in the right place and right time warn about the forthcoming assassination of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy; and a priest, advocate equality of black and white Martin Luther King.
Followers might get busy with something else and leave leader at risk. In the fateful day of August 1st, 1748 khan Abulkhair found that it would be wrong for him to retreat: «Who is afraid of Barak could be called women because Barak himself is no better women». However, most of the 150 Abulkhair khan soldiers turned to looting, leaving Khan with 5-6 soldiers against the large, three to four thousand army of Sultan Barak.
Khan Kenesary at the eve of the last tragic battle in Kyrgyzstan was deserted by his cousin and close associates. A good example — the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther was kidnapped by Saxon Friedrich and thus saved from secret assassins.

Evaluation by modern society
With plenty of books written about it leadership still remains as phenomenon which very hard to understand. Since 1976, Leonid Brezhnev showed infirmity and extinction, remaining senior leader of a great power. However, Feuchtwanger wrote in «Lying prophet» that «power fills even empty man». Conversely there are many political talents that have not been able to fully realize themselves! For example, public opinion of Britain in January 1957, tend to lean in favour of Richard Butler, who had a realistic position in the Suez crisis of 1956. However, none of the institutions within the Conservative Party — neither parliamentary fraction, nor other political groups — had much interest to nominate and support the candidacy of Butler. Thus Harold Macmillan was elected as Prime Minister even without any remarkable talents.
The actions of leaders do not always receive the correct assessment of contemporaries. In 1958, French Communist Party, followed by Soviet propaganda seen in the establishment of presidential power and the establishment of the Fifth Republic danger of military dictatorship, and even the threat of fascism (noteworthy remarks of Khrushchev on the constitution and the referendum in France, published in the newspaper «Pravda» on September 28th, 1958). And it is about de Gaulle, the hero-antifascist, who led his country, despite the occupation, to the four victorious powers!
So there is something to think over.