Newsweek has published an extremely interesting article on Angela Merkel under the title Achtung Angela. Now why is it interesting? You might say same old, same old and anyway we know that The Frau is a typically German narrow minded, unimaginative, stubborn stickler for rules. Rules above all else. But this does highlight the question of the importance of the person in charge. And in this article, the comparison with Helmut Kohl is extremely enlightening.
There is the theory that historic trends and the current dynamic of the times are what determine the flow of history and indeed this is true. However, the trends and dynamics are influenced by the actual person holding the levers of power. Even if the trends and dynamics of history are what got him or her into that position in the first place.
But we could say that the trends and dynamics of history were what got, say, Barrack Obama into power in the US, yet he does not appear to have lived up to the expectations that swept him into the Oval Office. There is the gridlock in Congress to take into account and the power of the lobbyists and so on. Yet here too there was scope for different policies. For instance in Obama’s choice of his original economics team. Caution and adherence to the devil you know prevailed, so nothing was done about curtailing the power of financial institutions which is at the root of today’s global crisis. (And not, Angela please note, unbalanced budgets.) So, in this case too, a question of character, perhaps also a lack of experience?
As to the President of the French Republic we can surely not rule out that the man’s character has greatly affected the politics he has pursued. The counter argument is, again, had not the dynamics of history been such, a person like Nikolas Sarkozy would never have been elected President of the French Republic.
So how far does the character, personality, attitude of the person holding the levers of power affect the flow of history? There is, of course, also the historical precedent of crises throwing to the fore personalities who can cope with them. Such as, to take two random examples, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Napoleon Bonaparte.
In most cases these turn out to be people who have guts and a vision.
I would love to hear your comments on this unresolved conundrum.