In this piece,Tamas Kowalik, a Leadership Communication doctoral student, a graduate research assistant at the Staley School of Leadership Studies, and a research project manager at the Kansas Leadership Center, offers a perspective of how core concepts within leadership and democracy have difficulty being translated across culture and context.
Mind the Context: (Neo)liberal democracy vs. illiberal democracy
“Context matters” may seem banal, but nothing demonstrates it better than a cross-cultural application of a framework that has been initially designed in the U.S. context. The recently developed Civic Capacity Index (Chrislip 2020) measures citizens’ capacity to participate in public problem-solving. Its application in Hungary – a different cultural context – raises challenges calling attention to cultural contexts’ significance.
Neoliberalism – built upon the free market, private property, the rule of law, and individual freedom – has been around with us for several decades. People became familiar with its positive and negative attributes. It has recently been challenged however, by a new ideology and regime, called illiberal democracy. Illiberal regimes are characterized by authoritarianism, strong state concept and state intervention, weak civic and protest culture, curtailed freedoms, populism, high rate of corruption, and nepotism. The shift of Hungarian democracy is a good example, as Körösényi (2020) summarizes: “From 2010 onwards, however, Viktor Orbán’s premiership has dramatically changed this perception, and the country has become an illustration of populism, illiberalism and a drift towards authoritarian rule.” (Körösényi, Illés and Gyulai, 2020, p. 6) Further examples of illiberal regimes in Europe are Turkey and Russia.
Leadership, civic capacity, and illiberal democracy
It is worth looking at the outcomes of illiberal democracy using the lens of adaptive leadership and the applicability of concepts and key terms used in the U.S. context. Adaptive leadership makes a distinction between (exercising) leadership and authority. Leadership is defined as “the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive” (Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky, 2009, p. 31.). Heifetz (2001) discusses the relevant functions of authority (protection, direction, and order) and people’s elementary need to turn to and depend on the authority – especially in times of distress. However, it is also worth considering a less articulated dichotomy here: while exercising leadership leads to building capacity (people develop capacity by wrestling with the problem at hand), dependence on authority prevents stakeholders from this work by shifting responsibility and ownership to those in an authority position. From the leadership perspective, illiberal democracies manifest the latter; strongmen and strong state take care of citizens solving their problems, preventing them from ownership, and building civic capacity to cope with their challenges. Instead of capacity, a dependency is being built.
Conclusion: Challenges of adopting concepts in the cross-cultural context
Leadership and civic capacity, thus, are assigned a different meaning in the context of illiberal democracy. In the Hungarian hierarchic social model where – as Krasztev and Til (2015) highlights – the third (civic) sector remained dependent on state resources even after the downfall of Communism, leadership („vezetés”) describes the functions of authority. Civic capacity has virtually no meaning. In the same vein, terms such as community-driven change, diverse community members, community problem solving make no sense and can hardly be translated into Hungarian. Decision-making mechanisms are built around state branches and local governments with the passive role of citizens. Adaptation of these categories should be mindfully done with a thorough consideration of the context. Clear and detailed explanations should be included for each category that will help survey participants understand the alternative to their current reality. In the long run, education is key in the mindset shift. New ways and methods in knowledge transfer, leadership development training are critical elements in changing social expectations, countering dependence, and authoritarianism.
More about Tamas Kowalik
Tamas Kowalik is a Leadership Communication doctoral student, a graduate research assistant at the Staley School of Leadership Studies, and a research project manager at the Kansas Leadership Center. He earned an M.A. in political science at Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences and an M.P.A. at Harvard Kennedy School. Tamas has 20 years of work experience in the private and public sectors in various client-driven, executive management positions including key public policy roles such as higher education and public administration reforms in Hungary. He worked as the managing director of the MBA programs at Corvinus University of Budapest and head of international affairs at the Faculty of Public Administration, NUPS. His research interests include the practice of leadership in strong authority contexts, leadership and education, neuroscience and leadership.
References
Chrislip, D. (2020). Civic Capacity, Race and the Coronavirus, Thriving Together. A Springboard for Equitable Recovery and Resilience in Communities Across America. The Well-Being Trust
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Boston, Harvard Business Press
Heifetz, R. (2001). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Körösényi, A., Illés, G. Gyulai, A. (2020). The Orbán Regime: Plebiscitary Leader Democracy in the Making. London, Routledge
Krasztev, P., Til J. V. (2015). The Hungarian Patient: Social Opposition to an Illiberal Democracy Budapest, CEU Press
