Conclusions on Leadership and International Relations Theory

Abstract

Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain reflect two possible modes by which leadership matters as the determinative variable in whether an effective balance of power is formed. Baldwin is an example of the leader whose relative inaction led to the nonimplementation of policies to which he basically subscribed. Chamberlain is an example of the leader who is extremely active and determined but who leads poorly. Both types of leaders matter equally. Leaders such as Chamberlain appear to matter more because in their fury of activity they seem to be “doing” more than less active leaders. That is only an illusion, however. Leaders matter both when they take action and when they do not. All that is required for the triumph of evil, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, is that good men do nothing. The same is true for leaders. Although some leaders may be very active, all that is required for an ineffective balance is for a leader to do nothing when something needed to be done. That inaction can have as much impact as any action would.