Beetham (1991) argues in his seminal book that the need for legitimacy arises from the moral uneasiness of the disparity of power between the dominant and their subordinates; so that in some way the mere disparity calls for legitimation efforts in order to, as it were, appease the sense of injustice embedded in the disparity of power.910 Beetham also posits three criteria for legitimacy (p. 20): a) conformity to rules (legal validity), b) justifiability of rules in terms of shared beliefs and c) legitimation deriving from the expressed consent of those qualified to give it.
He also distinguishes between the corresponding modes of non-legitimate power: a) illegitimacy as a breach of rules, b) legitimacy deficit when there is a discrepancy between rules and supporting beliefs, or there is an absence of shared beliefs; and c) delegitimation, stemming from the withdrawal of consent.
However, at the basis of his concepts lies an understanding of a contrast between the dominant and the subordinates, the “haves” and the “have-nots”. In terms of rulers, this would mean that there would needs be an ongoing attempt on their part to either mask their power, or to resort to ways in which this disparity becomes less of an issue, while at the same time trying to uphold unifying patterns.
In the words of Beetham (1991, p.59), “Legitimacy requires the demonstration of
8 See Tajfel & Turner, 1979. For a further elaboration of SITwhich is important for the present study, the Self-Categorization theory, seeTurner et al., 1987.
9 For a theoretical discussion of power in social context, see e.g. Avellino & Rotmans (2012)
10 Which, however becomes problematic in the context of democracies, where the underlying assumption is that power belongs to all people, who then elect the representatives to carry that power (see e.g. Suomen Perustuslaki [The Constitution of Finland], 1999)
a common interest which unites, as well as a principle of differentiation which divides the dominant from the subordinates”.
A totally different views is taken by the proponents of SIT, notably by Turner in 200511 , and Haslam, Reicher and Platow (2011), who argue that leadership, and therefore power and legitimacy, happen within the society/community/group which itself allocates power and the leadership position12. Therefore pre-eminence of the leader isn’t in a characteristic of the individual alone. In order to understand leadership, also the social context, the social groups and their identity, need to be taken into account (Hogg, 2001).
In their book of 2011, Haslam, Reicher and Platow present what they call the new psychology of leadership. Its main thrust is to present leadership as a function of the group rather than an achievement of the individual, so that the shared social identity forms the basis for leadership.
Therefore the various aspects of the ‘sharedness’ influence both the effectiveness and the success of the leader in question, which in turn impacts the evaluation of the leader the in-group members engage in. Haslam and his colleagues also stress the role of continuous feedback, so that the images of leadership, and even the influence leaders and followers have on each other and on their social context, are not static, but are in motion and malleable, making real agency possible.
The following outlines briefly the four main points made by Haslam et al.
(2011) concerning the relationship between leadership and its constituency.
Firstly, a leader becomes, in their words, “an in-group prototype, one of us” (see pp.44-108 for the developing of the argument), a carrier of the characteristics that most embodies the characteristics separating the in-group from the out-group.
Therefore the leaders then also become examples of the “normalcy” of the group they represent, defining who is prototypical and who is not. Furthermore, also Hogg et al. (2012) argue that “prototypical in-group members are often perceived as the most reliable source for normative information” (p.263), hence paving way for the input and influence a prototypical leader can and will have on the group13.
Secondly, the leader must act in favor of the group’s interests, instead of favoring just his/her own self-interests, “doing it for us”, as Haslam et al. term it (p. 109). This entails that the fairness14 of the leader’s actions will be evaluated in the light of whether his/her actions actually favor and further what the constituency thinks are in their best interest, their norms and values (p.133).
Therefore the leaders will need to be perceived acting differently towards the in-group than the out-in-group. Hence leaders also signal who the out-in-group is by their actions; in the case of this study, it is mainly through their speeches that boundaries are marked: the speeches are directed towards the members of the
11 See also Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, D.,2003; Hogg et al. 2012
12 See also Portman & Vainio, 2012
13 See also French & Raven, 1959; Tyler, 2006
14 See also Hogg et al., 2012
Thirdly, leaders are involved in the shaping of the identity of the group. Haslam et al. call this being “entrepreneurs of identity” (p. 143). This means that not only do leaders position themselves to be the prototypes of the group, but that they actually actively define what the group is about, along defining its identity. They do so by reflecting the norms16, values, and priorities of the group in what they (the leaders) propose and want to do. Thus the leaders also come to define what it means to be a member of that particular group: it is to uphold the particular values, norms and priorities important for this particular group making them different from other groups (be it a nation, a religion, or a smaller unit). By creating a sense of shared identity, leaders are also able to harness the group as a whole to the pursuit of the goals the group has by unifying those inside the boundaries into one whole. This identity crafting has also a future component in it, as the leaders are able to speak of the future of the group as well, “who we might become”.17
Fourthly, Haslam et al. talk about leaders “making us matter” (pp. 165-195), meaning that the leaders need to take the group’s values, norms and aspirations, and actively create a reality in which these can be lived out. The vision must be made into a concrete reality. Hence there need to be concrete activities that make visible the shared social identity, and the leader will need to be actively enmeshed in making them visible, i.e. actively constructing the social reality and context in which the social identity is lived out. In case of nations, this includes among other things the rituals, ceremonies, and symbols established to embody the existence of the nation, be they parades, speeches, edifices or other artifacts (see e.g. Syrjämaa, 2003).
To sum this up, leaders as the institutional gatekeepers (Schuh, 2006) do not operate in isolation, and therefore their values can be studied as more than merely an expression of their personal preferences. Rather, they can be a keyhole through which observe an entire culture or era; and to do so, studying leaders’ speeches18 and the values in them can form a logical starting place, combined with adequate contextual information19. In the next section I will present the value theory used in this research, whereas the socio-political context, together with leader specific information, will be delineated in the following chapter.
15 Also a key component in legitimacy, see e.g.Tyler, 2006
16 Including also the symbolic representations of the group, e.g. clothing (see Haslam et al., p. 138-140, 152)
17 Incidentally even the Finnish national anthem (penned in 1846 by Runeberg) speaks of the nation’s future blossoming as being the product of the joint effort of the love of those whose land this is.
18 see e.g. Reicher & Hopkins, 1996; Suedfeld & Brcic, 2011;
19 see e.g. Boer & Fisher, 2013 for the importance of context for value research