Category: Leadership

Posted on

Václav Havel, responsibility as destiny

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

Václav Havel (1936–2011), a Czech playwright and dissident, embodied the union of moral thought and political action in the face of communism in Czechoslovakia. After supporting the Prague Spring, he suffered censorship and imprisonment and became a symbol of the struggle for freedom. With the weakening of the Soviet bloc, he helped found the Civic Forum and led the Velvet Revolution (1989), which peacefully dismantled the dictatorship and initiated the transition to democracy, culminating in his election as president. Drawing on passages from Responsibility as Destiny (1991), the text analyses totalitarianism as a bureaucratic and ideological power that invades private life, substitutes truth for fiction, and produces fear and self-censorship. Havel proposes an ‘anti-political politics’, understood as service to the truth and to others. In this context, dissent becomes an ethical imperative: to denounce oppression, even if it is a solitary task.

Keywords: totalitarianism, dissent, freedom, responsibility

Václav Havel, a Czech politician and intellectual, was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic. He was born in Prague in 1936 and died there in 2011. He attended the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague to study theatre and had a distinguished career as a playwright.

His opposition to the communist government of Czechoslovakia led him to take action after having been a writer. As the leader of the Independent Writers’ Club, he backed the ‘Prague Spring’ (1968), leading to the subsequent ban on his books from publication. He became a symbol of the struggle for freedom and was imprisoned for five years. In 1989, Havel played a part in the creation of the Civic Forum, which served as the platform where most of the opposition gathered, following Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union that weakened the communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia. He led the so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’, which took place that year, and, with the backing of a massive popular uprising, succeeded in dismantling the dictatorship without bloodshed and establishing a democratic system in Czechoslovakia. Havel was elected president.

Below, I will discuss excerpts from Václav Havel’s work Responsibility as Destiny/La responsabilidad como destino(1991), which brings together various letters from his time as a dissident, in the style of Minerva Strategy. 

“It is a totalitarian government of an impersonal, bureaucratic power, anonymously bloated, not yet unconscious, yet already operating beyond all conscience; a power based on the omnipresence of ideological fiction, capable of motivating everything without ever having to resort to the truth; power as a universe of control, repression and fear; power that nationalises and, therefore, immunises thought, morality and private life. Power that long ago ceased to represent the cause of a group of arbitrary rulers occupying and absorbing everyone, so that in the end everyone participates in it in some way, even if only through their silence; power that in reality belongs to no one, since it alone has taken possession of everyone” (Havel, 1991, 75-76).

These words of Havel aptly capture key aspects of totalitarianism and its exercise of power over people’s lives. Words and discourses lose all connection with the concrete reality of individuals, who are subjected to various forms of control over their public and private actions and even their thoughts. Under a bureaucratic and impersonal guise, founded on an ideological fiction, individuals’ freedom is curtailed. 

“I am an advocate of ‘anti-politics’. That is to say, of politics that is not merely a technology of power and the manipulation thereof—as a form of cybernetic control over people or as an art serving specific, practical ends or intrigues—but rather of politics as one of the ways of seeking and attaining the meaning of life, of how to protect it and how to serve it; politics as practised morality, as a service to the truth, as concern for our fellow human beings, genuinely human concerns, governed by human measures. It is a form that is somewhat, very slightly, impractical in today’s world and difficult to apply to everyday life. Nevertheless, I know of no better alternative” (Havel, 1991, 85–86).

This text was written in 1984; the Berlin Wall had not yet fallen. This historic event can yield various interpretations. Some might see it as a precursor to the anti-politics experiment in Italy with the Five Star Movement or as a precedent for certain populist positions so much in vogue today. It would be worth contextualising these words of Havel in that the search for alternatives to the Soviet conceptual framework must inevitably have human dimensions, linked to a practised morality and a notion of truth. Although this approach may appear distant from everyday politics and may sound somewhat utopian, like Havel, “I know of no better alternative”.

“I wouldn’t presume to comment on relations across the entire Soviet bloc. But I do think I can say, at least with regard to the Czechoslovak citizen, that his world is characterised by a constant tension between ‘their’ omnipotence and his own powerlessness.”

Since this citizen knows that ‘they’ can do anything: confiscate his passport, sack him from his job, order him to move from one place to another, task him with collecting signatures against the Pershing missiles, prevent him from studying, strip him of his driving licence, tap his phone and read his correspondence, build a factory under his windows that produces mainly sulphur dioxide, contaminate his milk with chemicals to an unbelievable degree, arrest him simply for attending a rock concert, arbitrarily raise the price of anything at any time, reject any humble request he makes without explanation, tell him what he must read first, why he has to demonstrate, what he has to sign, how many square metres his flat can be, who he can be in contact with and who he cannot’ (Havel 1991, 105). 

In this paragraph, Havel summarises how totalitarian power—which, by definition, is power without limits—can manifest itself in people’s lives. It is particularly relevant today to be able to distinguish between the rule of law, an autoritarian state and a totalitarian state. For example, in certain contexts, an authoritarian drift occurs that jeopardises the progress of the rule of law. Totalitarianism, however, goes further: it denies rights—such as civil and political rights—persecutes dissidents and censors critical voices. 

“We know that the dissident is a bit of a Don Quixote by the very nature of his cause: he writes his critical analyses and demands freedoms and rights alone, and alone—with nothing but his pen in hand—facing the colossal power of the State and its police; he writes, protests, shouts, pleads, and invokes the law; and he knows that sooner or later he will be imprisoned for all of this” (Havel, 1991, 130).

For Havel, this is the responsibility that comes with one’s fate: if one lives under a totalitarian regime, what Muguerza termed the imperative of dissent arises. This entails speaking out and fighting, to the best of one’s ability, against oppression, injustice, and human rights violations. Although this task is, at times, solitary and goes largely unrecognised, we must not lose sight of the fact that historic changes require courageous pioneers.

References

Havel, Václav (1991), La responsabilidad como destino, Madrid: El País/Aguilar, trad. Jana Novotná.

Fernández, Tomás, Tamaro, Elena (2004), “Biografía de Václav Havel”, Editorial Biografías y Vidas, available in https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/h/havel.htm [Visited: 1 May 2026].

Spanish version: https://webphilosophia.com/estrategia/vaclav-havel-la-responsabilidad-como-destino/

Posted on

Nelson Mandela, Life, Love, and Courage

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text presents Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (1918–2013) as a key leader in the struggle against apartheid and, following 27 years in prison, as the architect of South Africa’s first democratically elected government committed to racial equality (1994–1999). It highlights the decisive role of his negotiations with F. W. de Klerk in the early 1990s in dismantling segregation and facilitating a peaceful transition, an achievement that culminated in the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Drawing on passages from Richard Stengel’s book, the article analyses how his prison experience shaped his character: the absence of external control forced him to exercise self-discipline and moderate his reactions, fostering virtues such as prudence and temperance. Courage, in his view, is not innate, but a choice demonstrated through decisions that challenge one’s own well-being. The essay also highlights a leadership style that combines symbolism and teamwork: Mandela understands that a collective goal requires empowering others, delegating and sharing responsibility. Finally, he is described as a man of an unwavering principle—equal rights—and of great tactical pragmatism, reconciling the ethics of conviction with the ethics of responsibility.

Keywords: courage, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility, leadership, moderation and prudence, teamwork

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Mvezo, South Africa, in 1918, and died in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2013. A South African activist and politician who led the movements against apartheid and who, after a long struggle and 27 years in prison, presided over the first government, from 1994 until 1999, that respected racial equality, which affected the majority of the Black population.

His negotiations in the early 1990s with South African President F. W. de Klerk helped bring an end to the system of racial segregation known as apartheid in the country and paved the way for a peaceful transition to majority rule. In 1993, Mandela and De Klerk received a joint Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

In this series of posts on leadership, we will now examine passages from the book Richard Stengel titled Mandela’s Way. Fifteen Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage, from the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog

“How did his passionate revolutionary become a measured statesman? In prison, he had to temper his responses to everything. There was little a prisoner could control. The only thing you could control – that you had to control – was yourself. There was no room for outbursts or self-indulgence or a lack of discipline. He had no zone of privacy” (Stengel, 2009, 15). 

There is a reference to a shift in Mandela’s character towards moderation as a result of his 27 years in prison. It is difficult to imagine how one might adapt to such a prolonged period of imprisonment and what consequences this has for one’s view of the world. It is certainly worth reflecting on the role of hardship in shaping one’s education and character. Exceptionally difficult situations require the development of coping mechanisms and, in this way, shape one’s character. One becomes virtuous by acting virtuously. The moral habits and dispositions that are forged in the face of adversity will serve as the best reminder, shaping one’s character, that the difficult period has been overcome.

A saying attributed to Aristotle states that ‘the roots of education are bitter, but its fruits are sweet.’ Moderation is linked to the virtues of prudence and temperance. Mandela’s many years in prison transformed him into a moderate statesman, which speaks volumes about his human values. It is his characteristic leadership style. Others, by contrast, would foster division in a spirit of vengeance.

“Most people would say that Nelson Mandela personifies courage. But Mandela himself defines courage in a curious way. He does not see it as innate, as a kind of elixir we can drink, or as something we learned in any conventional way. He sees it as the way we choose to be. None of us is born courageous, we would say; it is all in how we react to different situations” (Stengel, 2009, 23).  

Courage is demonstrated through actions, not rhetoric. Every biography has examples of courage, even if the events are later disputed. Courage is evident in situations where the decisions involved conflict with one’s own well-being. Being courageous thus becomes the difficult path, and there are usually fewer who choose it.

“He understood that some part – quite a large part – of leadership is symbolic, and he was a splendid symbol. But he knew that he could not always be in front, and that one great goal could die unless he empowered others to lead. In the language of basketball, he wanted the ball, but he understood that he had to pass to others and let them shoot. Mandela genuinely believed in the virtues of the team, and he knew that to get the best out of his own people, he had to make sure that they partook of the glory and, even more important, that they felt they were influencing his decisions”  (Stengel, 2009, 75).  

An essential part of leadership is knowing how to share it, even if that sounds somewhat paradoxical. There are people with vibrant, charismatic and unique personalities, but at the end of the day, we are all human beings, and that means we have limitations and are subject to circumstances. It is good to know how to work as a team and how to delegate. Creating a working culture based on shared values and sharing successes collectively and with those who make decisions, as well as knowing how to take responsibility when something goes wrong.  

“Nelson Mandela is a man of principle – exactly one: equal rights for all, regardless of race, class, or gender. Pretty much everything else is a tactic. It seems like an exaggeration – but to a degree very few people suspect, Mandela is a thoroughgoing pragmatist who was willing to compromise, change, adapt, and refine his strategy as long as it got him to the promised land” (Stengel, 2009, 103). 

This reminds me of Max Weber’s discussion of ethics and politics. The ethics of conviction is based on ideals and beliefs and applies to everyone. The ethics of responsibility is based on the consequences of actions and is a form of ethics specific to politicians. The question arises as to whether these two forms of ethics are compatible in politics. Nelson Mandela’s approach is that his ethics of conviction lead him to defend equal rights based on the inalienable principle of equal human dignity. At the same time, he advocated an ethics of responsibility, whereby politicians must evaluate their actions in terms of their consequences. And this implies a specific choice between means and ends, a strategy, a key element of political rationality.

References

Stengel, Richard (2009), Mandela’s way. Fifteen Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage, New York: Crown Publishers, preface by Nelson Mandela.

Posted on

Franklin Roosevelt, adversity and growth

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945) was the 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945) and a pivotal figure in leading the country out of the Great Depression and through the Second World War. Educated at Harvard and Columbia, and Under Secretary of the Navy between 1913 and 1920, he joined the Democratic Party and achieved exceptional leadership by becoming the only president elected to four consecutive terms. The text, based on a chapter by Doris Kearns Goodwin, highlights his approach to adversity: optimism as a sustained strategy. In 1921, he contracted an illness that left his legs paralysed, prompting reflection on shared vulnerability and how discrimination can cut across different dimensions of identity. The role of Eleanor Roosevelt is also highlighted: her direct criticism, her moral commitment and her closeness to activists broadened the president’s progressive horizons; loyalty, it is suggested, involves criticising with empathy and respecting decisions. In economic policy, Roosevelt took the lead in the face of inaction and conservative resistance, promoting ‘radical’ measures such as unemployment insurance and, once in the presidency, the welfare state, legitimising public intervention to protect social rights and promote material equality.


Keywords: adversity, constructive criticism, welfare state, loyalty, minority, optimism

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born in New York in 1882 and died in Warm Springs, Georgia, in 1945. He served as President of the United States between 1933 and 1945, becoming the country’s 32nd president. He was a distant cousin of former President Theodore Roosevelt and had studied at Harvard, as well as Columbia University, just like him. He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy between 1913 and 1920, but, unlike his predecessor, Franklin joined the Democratic Party.

Franklin Roosevelt was not just another president in the history of the United States. He was not only the president who managed to rescue the North American power from the most serious economic crisis it had ever experienced, following the stock market crash of 1929. He was the only US president to serve four consecutive terms, lead the nation during the Second World War, and steer the national economy into uncharted territory: Keynesianism.

Kearns Goodwin dedicates a chapter to Franklin Roosevelt in his book Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents (2018),  focusing on his approach to adversity and growth. Excerpts from this chapter will be discussed below in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog. 

“Roosevelt’s irrepressible optimism, his tendency to expect the best outcome in any circumstance, provided the keystone strength that carried him through this traumatic experience. From the outset, he said an objective: a future in which he would fully recover. Although necessity forced him to modify the timetable for attaining this goal, he never lost his conviction that he would eventually succeed” (Goodwin, 2018, 162). 

The previous paragraph must be put into context, as in 1921, Roosevelt contracted an illness that left him permanently paralysed in his legs and confined to a wheelchair. The fact that one of the most powerful men of his time was in a wheelchair can make us reflect on the human condition in terms of mutual vulnerability. I have sometimes argued that we all are in a minority. This means that the experience of discrimination and prejudice in the various dimensions of identity is not alien to human life. In some of these dimensions, people find themselves in the minority and learn what life is like as a left-handed person, a person with dyslexia or an immigrant. The lesson from President Roosevelt is that, in the face of adversity, his strategy was optimism and, from there, a tireless struggle against the circumstances one faces. Indeed, some have seen the meaning of life and the core of human freedom in that struggle.  

“Eleanor, of course, added the most essential dimension to the progressive strain and moral gravity of Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership. “He might have been happier with a wife who was completely uncritical”, she observed in her memoirs, adding, “that I was never able to be”. She was more uncompromising, more straightforward, more deeply involved with activists, whose thoughts challenge conventional boundaries” (Goodwin, 2018, 168).  

Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt’s wife and political and life partner, was an essential ingredient in his success. The symbiosis between constructive criticism and loyalty is a component that guarantees a fruitful relationship. Some interpretations confuse loyalty with submission, while on other occasions, criticism is levelled with the central aim of destroying the other person. Being loyal means knowing how to criticise with empathy, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes, thus strengthening the relationship. However, if the other person, after listening to us, wants to go their own way, loyalty to them means respecting their decision. John Stuart Mill must have felt something similar when he wrote in On Liberty about advising a friend who is heading towards a bridge, that no longer exists, and would cause them to fall.

“After waiting through the winter and spring of 1931 for federal initiatives from President Hoover and the Republican administration, Roosevelt resolved in late summer to “assume leadership for himself and to take action for the state of New York”. He summoned the Republican legislature into an extraordinary session to pass what was considered a radical idea, a state-sponsored comprehensive programme of unemployment insurance. He knew from the start that the Republican majority could block his proposal. Like President Hoover, the state Republican leaders believe that private enterprise, charity, and the local government were the sole institutions capable of meeting the economic challenge. Belief brought from the distant level of the state or federal government, they insisted, would only impair the enterprise of the American people and worsen the problem” (Goodwin, 2018, 178). 

One of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s most significant contributions as President of the United States was the implementation of the Welfare State. This is characterised by the State taking an active role in achieving the well-being of its citizens and ensuring their material equality. Social rights, such as education, healthcare, and social security, are protected.  A few years earlier, during President Theodore Roosevelt’s term, there was a precedent for this approach in the case of Lochner v. New York, where the State intervened to regulate bakeries’ hours. This was unprecedented in American constitutional history, which was guided by the idea that the State should refrain from intervening in the Economy. Interestingly, the majority of the Supreme Court overturned the regulation based on a formalistic criterion, grounded in strictly legal variables. However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Holmes applied a finalistic approach, using economic and sociological arguments to support the measure on bakeries’ hours. Years later, the majority of the Supreme Court changed and became favourable to State intervention in the Economy. Here, we might remember Aristotle and say that it is interesting to consider how Law has form and substance.

References

Goodwin, Doris Kearns (2018), Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents, UK: Penguin Books.

Posted on

Abraham Lincoln, ambition and recognition of leadership

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The Minerva Strategy blog series on political leadership begins with Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865), a lawyer and the 16th President of the United States, remembered for his role in the abolition of slavery. Drawing on a chapter dedicated to him by Doris Kearns Goodwin in Leadership in Turbulent Times, the text analyses aspects of his leadership linked to ambition, character and the defence of principles. In a political context marked by aggression and confrontation, Lincoln stood out for responding with irony and good humour, defusing tensions and demonstrating that manner matters in politics too. His rejection of opportunism is highlighted: he preferred to lose office rather than betray his principles for personal gain. On the issue of slavery, he emerges as a leader with non-negotiable values, regarding it as unjust and contrary to human dignity—a lesson that remains relevant in the face of new forms of exploitation. Lincoln also warned against the excessive ambition of charismatic leaders with authoritarian tendencies, which are incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. As an antidote, he advocated renewing respect for the Constitution and investing in civic education: an informed and literate populace, including digital literacy, is key to preserving free institutions and resisting the drift towards authoritarianism.

Palabras clave: democracy, authoritarian drift, education, honesty, leadership, politics

This post starts a series on the Minerva Strategy Blog dedicated to political leadership. The first subject of analysis will be Abraham Lincoln, who was born in Hodgenville, United States, in 1809 and died in Washington in 1865. An American lawyer and politician, he was the 16th President of the United States (1861-1865). Always remembered as the president who abolished slavery, Abraham Lincoln is one of the most admired figures in American history.

On ambition and recognition of leadership, Doris Kearns Goodwin dedicates a chapter to Abraham Lincoln in her book Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents (2018). Below, I will discuss excerpts from this chapter in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

“How Lincoln responded to attacks directed against him and his party reveals much about his temperament and the character of his developing leadership. Such was the law of politics in the antebellum era that discussions and debate between Whigs and Democrats regularly attracted the fanatic attraction of hundreds of people. Opponents attacked each other in fiery, abusive language, much of the delight of raucous audiences, inciting an atmosphere that could burst into fistfights, even, on occasion, guns being drawn. While Lincoln was as thin-skinned and prickly as most politicians, his retorts were generally full of such good-humoured raillery that members of both parties could not help but laugh and relax on the pleasure of the entertaining and well-told stories” (Goodwin, 2018, 16). 

In everything, a distinction can be made between content and form. The terms used by Aristotle for these concepts were substance and accident. In many cases, form is very important, even more so than content. For some, politics is tension and polarisation, while a sense of humour and good manners are always welcome. Lincoln was a leader who used irony as a political weapon, while today some persons use rumours, insults or violence. 

“I desire to live, and I desire place and distinction; but I would rather die now than, like the gentleman, live to see the day I would change my politics for an office worth 3000 dollars a year, and then feel compelled to erect a lightning-rod to protect guilty conscience from an offended God” (Goodwin, 2018, 16).

This quote refers to someone who changed political parties due to a new, very lucrative position. Lincoln defended honesty and consistency with one’s own ideals in the face of political opportunism. Therefore, we live in times when politicians feel discredited by the behaviour of some who find private benefits in politics. In the end, it all boils down to one of the great philosophical questions: What is the meaning of life? What is politics?

“By the disproportionate vote of 77 to 6 the Assembly resolved that “we highly disapproved the formation of abolition societies” and hold “sacred” the “right of property in slaves”. Lincoln was among the things who voted no. Registering a formal protest, he proclaimed that “the institution of slavery is found on both injustice and bad politics.” he had always believed, and he later said, that ”if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”.  Lincoln’s protest stopped well short of abolitionism (Goodwin, 2018, 17).  

The notion of slavery is contrary to equal human dignity, which is at the core of human rights. However, slavery, which turns human beings into property, has been existed until unusually recent times. Even today, there are cases of forced labour and human trafficking. Lincoln’s leadership lesson is that there are values that cannot be compromised; they are non-negotiable and, on these occasions, it is good to hold fast to one’s convictions.

“While the ambition of the hallowed framers had been ‘inseparable linked’ with building up a constitutional government allowing the people to govern themselves, he feared that in the chaos of the moblike behaviour, men of the likes of ‘an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon’ would likely seek distinction by boldly setting themselves ‘to the task of pulling down’. Such men of ‘towering’ egos, in whom ambition is divorced from the people’s best interests, were not men to lead a democracy; they were despots” (Goodwin, 2018, 19).  

There is a risk of drifting towards authoritarianism in different countries. Some analysts will argue that democracy is mutating. However, we must be wary of “men with excessive egos”. The rule of law emerged as a reaction to the power of the absolutist king. Locke’s approach emphasises the separation of powers, limited power and the right of resistance if the Social Contract is not fulfilled. Charismatic leaders who accumulate power are a risk to political pluralism, alternance, checks and balances, and the vitality of a democracy of quality. 

“To counter the troublesome ambition of such men, Lincoln called upon his fellow Americans to renew the framers’ values and to embrace the Constitution and its laws. ‘Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother,’ taught in every school, and preached in every pulpit. The great bulwark argument against a potential dictator is an informed people ‘attached to the government and the laws’. This argument takes Lincoln back to his first statement to the people of Sangamon County when he spoke of education as the cornerstone of democracy. Why is education so central? Because, as he said then, every citizen must be able to read history to “appreciate the value of our free institutions” (Goodwin, 2018, 19). 

Emphasis is placed on the role of public education as a prerequisite for democracy and as a form of defence against “a potential dictator”. It is worth considering that education and digital literacy are becoming elements that should be included among the virtues that citizens should cultivate. To make autonomous decisions, it is necessary to be well informed, among other conditions. To appreciate free institutions, education for citizenship is beneficial, as in the early days of democracy, the Sophists stood up to demagogues and authoritarian threats. 

References

Goodwin, Doris Kearns (2018), Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents, UK: Penguin Books.