1.13 Political Leadership after Communism
Purpose
“Political Leadership after Communism” (Colton, 2012) is a systematic evaluation of political leadership within the former Soviet Union. It focuses on evaluating leaders based on their effectiveness in achieving stated goals and their impact at national, regional, and global levels. This framework is intended to address a gap in American political science by offering a structured way to analyze leadership in the context of the former Soviet Union. The framework provides a more nuanced understanding of leadership dynamics in the unique context of transitional political systems (Anderson, 2014).
The framework is designed for researchers, policymakers, and political analysts specializing in Russia and Soviet governance, including political scientists interested in evaluating leadership within transitional and post-communist political systems. The results of the framework can inform discussions on leadership strategies, governance policies, and historical analyses of political transitions (Anderson, 2014). Importantly, the framework may help identify leaders who might be successful in achieving specific goals but have limited overall impact.
Description
The developer of the leadership evaluation framework is Timothy J. Colton, who is the Morris and Anna Feldberg Professor of Government and Russian Studies at Harvard University. He specializes in Russian and Soviet politics and has authored several books on the subject.
The instrument likely uses a scoring system to categorize leaders into typological groups based on their effectiveness and impact levels. Results are then analyzed to identify trends and patterns in leadership performance over time.
Due to the unique nature of this framework, scholars in political science and other relevant fields are encouraged to analyze its reliability and validity. This can be done through specific data analysis, historical case studies, and evaluations of post-Soviet leadership. The size of the sample used for testing would depend on the research scope and the number of leaders being assessed.
It is important to acknowledge potential limitations:
Subjectivity in evaluation: Assessing leadership effectiveness and impact can be subjective, and different perspectives may lead to varying interpretations.
Data access challenges: Obtaining reliable data on historical leaders can be difficult, especially for those from the Soviet era.
Evolving Interpretations: Historical interpretations and political contexts can change over time, requiring the framework to be continually refined and updated.
Access
“Political Leadership After Communism” is available in the Demokratizatsiya archives: https://demokratizatsiya.pub/archives/20_2_A50LT14524342803.pdf Demokratizatsiya is a peer-reviewed journal covering past and current political, economic, social, and legal changes and developments in the Soviet Union and its successor states.
References
Anderson, B. (2013, November 5). Colton discusses political leadership after communism. Hamilton College. https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/colton-discusses-political-leadership-after-communism
Burns, J. M. (2004). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. Gove Press.
Colton, T. J. (2012). Political leadership after communism. Demokratizatsiya, 20(2), 65–70.
Fiorina, M. P., & Shepsle, K. A. (1989). Formal theories of leadership: Agents, agenda setters, and entrepreneurs. In B. D. Jones (Ed.), Leadership and politics: New perspectives in political science. University Press of Kansas.
Jones, B. D. (Ed.). (1989). Leadership and politics: New perspectives in political science. University Press of Kansas.
Tucker, R. C. (1995). Politics as Leadership. University of Missouri Press.
Samuels, R. J. (2003). Machiavelli’s children: Leaders and their legacies in Italy and Japan. Cornell University Press.
