Paradoxical Leadership and the Fine Ethics of Politics

Reading politics only through decisions and institutions is not enough. Politics is also a matter of language. Which words are chosen, which voices are heard and which reality is accepted as “normal” directly affect the quality of government. We see this in everyday life too. The same event, described in different terms, can provoke entirely different reactions. That is why we must also accept that the language used in politics is an instrument of power.

Indeed, a truth Michel Foucault pointed to years ago still holds. Power does not only make laws. It produces meaning, draws boundaries and shapes behaviour. That is why the language of leadership is not just communication. It is a direct instrument of government. It is precisely in this context that we can turn to the concept of leadership.

In politics, leadership can be seen as an agreement a society makes with those who govern it. It is an unwritten consensus. Society grants authority to a person and expects order, security and meaning in return. In this respect, leadership is also the ability to read social balances. But these expectations also make visible the dilemmas a leader faces. Taken together, these dilemmas form the approach we call paradoxical leadership.

In paradoxical leadership, the leader is expected to be both strong and humble at the same time. They are expected to be decisive, but also to listen. They must represent tradition, but are also asked to build the future. Politics is the field where these paradoxes are most visible, because politics does not work through institutions alone. Emotions, fears, hopes and belonging also shape how it works. Every wrong emphasis creates small but deep cracks in the social balance. You can see this every day on social media. One word can harden everything, while another can calm the atmosphere. Consequently, the paradoxical leadership approach is gaining ever greater importance in the modern leadership literature.

Paradoxical Leadership Is a Leadership That Is Not Content with Power

The modern leadership literature now accepts that no single model of leadership is enough. As social judgements and expectations grow more complex, one-dimensional solutions fall short. Paradoxical leadership therefore requires a high level of management skill.

In this context, the following points stand out in the understanding of leadership:

• Being strong, but not producing fear.
• Taking decisions, but not deciding alone.
• Representing an identity, but not getting trapped in identity politics.
• Governing the state without neglecting society.

So can a politician have the ability to achieve all of these at once? To approach an answer, we must first look at the question of limiting power.

Knowing How to Limit Power

According to Max Weber, political power survives as long as society accepts it as legitimate. This acceptance arises through consent.

In societies with high power distance, such as Turkey, the leader is expected to be strong. This is also clearly visible in Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions approach. Hierarchy is accepted more easily. Authority is taken as natural. This allows strong rhetoric to gain legitimacy more quickly. But this cultural reality also brings certain risks.

At this point a foreseeable risk emerges. As power becomes unlimited, leadership weakens. A good politician does not use power for himself. He uses it on behalf of institutions. He does not concentrate authority at the centre. He shares it. He does not perceive criticism as a threat. He sees it as a warning.

The politician who governs society better does not try to be the one who knows everything. He builds the ground on which the right decisions can be made. In modern societies it is not accepted for a leader to withhold information. Information is expected to circulate transparently. Staying away from personal judgements and being impartial and open strengthens the sense of trust. On this ground where trust is established, the problem of partisanship needs to be rethought.

“We / All of Us” Instead of Partisanship

One of the greatest tests of politics is partisanship. Partisanship also corrupts the language of society. When partisanship begins, merit takes a back seat. Justice is perceived as personal. The word “all of us” narrows. Yet when one says “we”, everyone should be able to see themselves within that word. When one says “my fellow citizens”, not only those who voted for you but also those who criticise you should be included.

This can be seen very clearly on social media. When people see inclusive language, they relax at once. Harsh reactions soften and the willingness to listen grows. When exclusionary language is used, a defensive reflex kicks in immediately. This shows how decisive language is in politics.

Of course, inclusiveness is not easy and does not produce quick results. But in the long run it produces legitimacy. And inclusiveness can only be sustained by hearing the voice of society. This brings us to one of the most fundamental responsibilities of politics: listening to society.

Listening to Society

A politician cannot fulfil every demand. But he must hear every demand. Embracing society becomes possible by taking social demands seriously. Consultation mechanisms, transparent processes and accountability also carry moral messages to society. In a sense, they are the institutional equivalent of saying “You exist”.

Uncertainty avoidance is high in Turkey. People want clarity. That is why clear statements attract attention. But clarity does not mean a single voice. A good politician is someone who can manage a plurality of voices without turning it into chaos. When cultural and psychological dynamics come into play, the question of identity emerges as an even more sensitive issue.

We should also stress that when rhetoric and culture combine with identity, politics becomes more sensitive. As Henri Tajfel showed, people define themselves through the groups they belong to. The sense of “we” gives security. Turkey, for example, is a collectivist society. Belonging is strong. This makes identity politics effective. But it also makes it risky. As Amin Maalouf often reminds us, when identity is reduced to a single word, the likelihood of conflict increases. People want to say: “I am more than this.”

A good politician does not use the richness of identities as a tool. He uses it as a bridge. He does not say “You are this”. He says “We are all in the same boat”. Sustaining this approach requires a moral stance. And the concrete expression of this stance is moral courage.

Moral Courage

The politician who moves society forward does not always do what is popular. Sometimes he defends what is right. This is a matter of morality.

• Fighting waste.
• Not bending the law to suit individuals.
• Rewarding merit.
• Being able to say no to those close to you when necessary.

These are difficult behaviours, because power often wants to favour those close to it. A leader who cannot draw his own limits draws limits for society. From here we can return to the human dimension at the heart of politics.

The Human Condition of Politics

Politics is not only power. It is the ethics of living together. Paradoxical leadership is the effort to protect this ethics. In my personal experience, people weigh a leader not only by what he says but also by what he leaves unsaid. On social media a single silence sometimes leaves a deeper mark than long statements. People look for a calm that inspires trust rather than harshness.

In societies accustomed to strong leadership, such as Turkey, courage means being able to limit power, and charisma means being able to remain silent when necessary. True statesmanship is being able to stand together with differences.

Politics concerns what power turns a person into. In the right hands, power builds order. In the wrong hands, it wears society out. A true leader makes the voices of every part of society heard. He broadens the “we”. He puts trust at the centre.

Power is temporary. Titles are fleeting. Applause falls silent. What remains is whether society is at peace with itself.

(Note: This article draws on the theoretical approaches of Michel Foucault, Max Weber, Geert Hofstede and Henri Tajfel in a political context.)