Decision-making in politics: Good leaders should do better

How far can political leaders go for their ideas? History has showed us that very far. For good or bad, several of the major events the world has experienced have been driven by the ideas of a small number of people. This selected group of individuals that – deservedly or undeservedly – become leaders hold the ideas that drive society.

However, leaders are not always right. For this reason, ensuring that the decision-making process at the top of government is sufficiently solid and avoids – or at least minimizes – policy mistakes is something that all political processes need to address.

In this respect, most societies have established mechanisms to ensure that adequate check and balance structures improve the decision-making process and protect societies and stakeholders from concentration of power.


Nonetheless, even the strongest democratic societies have seen how check and balances do not always work as expected. Policy-making is then in the hands of very few people, with the subsequent implications for democracy and future of society.

In the end, a sound decision-making process depends, to a large extent, on the personality of the leader himself and his behavior. And there seems to be at least two types of leaders: those who confront their ideas with reality and those who do not.

In the past few years, there have been several of these latter leaders. During the economic boom, leaders faced little opposition. They were able to push forward radical and –often – unsustainable policy agendas. This not only covers unwinnable wars and unsuccessful regime change attempts, but also domestic policies that have been implemented without taking into account, among other things, their cost and their actual impact.

Whereas the strong economic context could have become an opportunity to adapt to the new global context in which the developing economies were becoming global actors, for several European and US leaders it was rather a time for inward-looking and complacency .

Some leaders governed over confidently on their policies and neglected any ideas that seem to challenge them. They surrounded themselves by acolytes, unconditional supporters of their policies. This helped them avoiding the necessary debate at the time of implementing policy. Anyone who questioned government’s policy direction was identified and sidelined. No one – both right and left wing government - wanted obstacles on the policy-making process. Some leaders seemed unstoppable as concentration of power became widespread.

We are not judging the pros and cons of the policies implemented nor the good intentions of policy-makers. The key issue is the drastic weakening of the political process and decision-making, as it becomes concentrated in one person or closed group of decision-makers.

The need for debate and check and balances should never be underestimated. Their absence permits pushing faster a policy agenda but on the other hand increases the risk of taking the wrong decisions and of policy becoming unrealistic. The inability of leaders to go beyond their traditional thinking framework and beliefs is one of the key reasons for policy mistakes. The courageous leader accepts his mistakes and constantly confronts his ideas with reality.

Good policy-makers and decision-makers need to challenge their views and decisions. It is part of the responsibility of their position. They have to bear in mind that any decision will have huge implications. We are not saying that ideals should not drive policy. But government is too important to leave it to leaders incapable of adapting their policies and ideals to facts and reality.