🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
The turmoil in the U.S. presidential race has laid bare a disturbing reality—America's imperial leadership culture is damaging its democracy as well as its moral standing and authority in the world.
No longer is the United States the "shining light on a hill" for liberal democracies. Countries which, for generations, looked to the United States of America as a model of self-determination and fairer, more representative societies are yearning for better examples. The recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump is the very manifestation of a democracy wounded.
For until President Joe Biden was forced to quit his re-election bid, Americans were caught between two controversial contenders to be their 47th president—a divisive former office holder who is a convicted felon, and an incumbent struggling with age-related dysfunction.
Their predicament raises alarming questions about the dangers of the cult of personality and the institutions surrounding the highest office in the world's most powerful country. The leadership culture at the top has a lot of questions to answer.
The Imperial Presidency
The American presidency has long been criticized for its expansive and often ambiguous discretionary powers. Even this has taken on a new intensity. Just this month, the Supreme Court ruled that the president should not be held to account for "official acts."
This dangerous trend mirrors the cult of the all-powerful CEO in corporate America, whose decisions are not to be questioned but carried out with conviction, including by the board of directors which the CEO typically leads and certainly controls. We call this system of governance a CEO-cracy.
The French regime under President Emmanuel Macron bears a close resemblance. The British one is closer to a partnership model (coalition partners can oust the prime minister, like they did with Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and others. The German, Japanese, and Scandinavian systems are more collaborative. Slower, perhaps, but steadier.
This CEO-cracy, with its emphasis on a strong executive, has taken hold of U.S. politics. The president can now govern with near-imperial authority and little accountability. This surely was not the plan of the Founding Fathers, who collectively had strong countervailing power. The presidential system is now completely at odds with good governance, whose foremost demand on the leader is the responsible and wise exercise of power.
Trump's brash, unilateral style manifests the worst traits of such autocratic corporate leadership, imported to the White House from Trump Tower. His hold on the Grand Old Party—despite his conviction as a felon and incitement of the Jan 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol—is emblematic of the pull of CEO-cratic personae in American politics.
On the Democratic side, Biden and his inner circle had dug in their heels in the face of calls—actually, pleas and threats—for him to quit the race following his disastrous performance in the televised debate with Trump. His mental state had been concealed from the public for some time through clever stage management, including at the G7 summit in June.
To put it metaphorically, Biden had become a monarch clinging to power. Any emperor ensconced in an echo chamber of court jesters, loyalists, and family members would find it hard to step down for the greater good. Vice President Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic nominee, is a Biden loyalist, chosen by him to be his deputy and now endorsed by him as his successor. And she will be ratified by Democratic delegates, nearly all of whom had pledged to vote for Biden, without an open primary. That too, is very much part of America's CEO-cratic culture.
Both camps have strongly evidenced another aspect of the U.S.' democratic distortion—the power of money and special interest stakeholders, be they wealthy donors or large corporations. Trump peddles influence in exchange for campaign donations; Biden was forced out the door partly under the pressure of Democratic donors.
A Defining Democratic Moment?
The consequences of the CEO-cracy are wide and far reaching. The most damaging is tribalism or sectarianism, where supporters rally around charismatic leaders rather than party platforms aiming for a better future.
Then there is the pandering to the president, who has near-carte blanche to decide on his or her own future, and by extension, that of the party and the country. This makes it difficult for parties to address legitimate concerns about their candidates, particularly when any admission of weakness will be exploited by opponents. The culture trickles down to senators, representatives, and governors who line up and mimic, if not outdo their CEO.
America is now on course for a succession that shares features of what's seen in dictatorial regimes. As Nov. 5 approaches, the question that looms large is whether the country will double down on its CEO-cratic tendencies. Will the next administration be mired in retribution and vengeance? Or will Americans clamor for a return to a more collaborative and consensus-driven governance? Might a national, bipartisan alliance in defense of democracy emerge?
Voters, party leaders, and U.S. institutions including Congress and the Supreme Court are all playing crucial roles in shaping the outcome of the election. Whether America can move past its CEO-cratic obsession may well determine the health of U.S. democracy for generations to come.
Peter Nathanial is an executive in residence at IMD and a former adjunct professor at INSEAD, a top business school with campuses in France, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, and San Francisco.
Ludo Van der Heyden is the chaired professor of corporate governance and emeritus professor of technology and operations management at INSEAD. He is the founder of the INSEAD Corporate Governance Centre.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
