Leadership as zero-institution

Semiotica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (213) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kuronen ◽  
Aki-Mauri Huhtinen
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
Presidential Leadership ◽  
Weak State ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
Iconic Figure

AbstractIn this essay, we study the emergence and institutionalization of political leadership. Our empirical case is the presidential leadership of the former Cold War era President of Finland, Urho Kekkonen. Towards the end of his tenure as the president, which lasted for 25 years, his leadership became a “zero-institution,” in the same sense as articulated by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Kekkonen became an iconic figure in the society, whose status as the leader was never seriously challenged during his tenure. His private fishing ritual among his fishing “tribe” provided central content for his leadership mythology as an “able fisherman,” which he and his allies used for the purposes of furthering his political objectives. Along the emergence of his uncontested status in the society, the country’s “official line” in foreign policy became to be known as “Finnlandisierung” outside Finland; a culture in which a weak state yields to the demands of a stronger neighbor without direct military intervention. In light of this, we also discuss the potential of zero-institutions and similar “traumas” in association with the (ab)use of power in organizations and a culture of (self-)censorship.

scholarly journals Manifestation of the Internal Systemic Conflict in Mongolia

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
K. Demberel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Investment Boom ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Second Period

The article deals with the issue of Mongolia's foreign policy during the Cold War. This period is divided into two parts. The first period, 1945-1960s, is a period of conflict between two systems: socialism and capitalism. In this first period of the Cold War Mongolia managed to establish diplomatic relations with socialist countries of Eastern Europe, as the “system allowed”. The second period, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, is the period of the conflict of the socialist system, the period of the Soviet-Chinese confrontation. During this period Mongolia's foreign policy changed dramatically and focused on the Soviet Union. This was due to the Soviet investment «boom» that began in 1960s and the entry of Soviet troops on the territory of Mongolia in 1967. The Soviet military intervention into Mongolia was one of the main reasons for cooling the Soviet-Chinese relations. And military withdrawal contributed to the improvement of Soviet-Chinese relations until the mid-1980s and one of the conditions for improving relations with their neighbors. The internal systemic conflict had a serious impact on Mongolia's foreign policy over those years.

scholarly journals Suits and Uniforms

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-121
Author(s):  
Hasan Kösebalaban
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Turkish Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Policy Elites ◽  
Second World

Philip Robins contends that Turkish foreign policy has faced four challengesin four distinct periods of its history: (1) consolidating the emergentTurkish Republic through external recognition (1930s), (2) remainingneutral during the Second World War (1940s), (3) confronting thechallenge of Soviet expansionism (the cold war era), and (4) respondingto the end of bipolarity (post-cold war era). Robins examines these foreignpolicy issues in the last period.The main thesis of this work is threefold: First, Turkey is a status quopower in the way that its foreign policy elites have fastened their thinkingand practice to the framework of “the sanctity of borders, of states, ofmultilateral institutions and of norms of conduct, even when it becameclear that systemic changes had rendered some of these continuities nolonger tenable” (p. 6). Second, Turkey continues to be firmly orientedwestwards in terms of its foreign relations, which are characterized by itsstrong commitment to NATO as well as its desire to join the EuropeanUnion (EU). Finally, Turkish foreign policy has been characterized moreby “caution than daring,” quoting Malik Mufti. Despite the increase in itspower relative to its neighbors, Turkey has avoided an interventionist foreignpolicy by emphasizing the formation of multilateral frameworks forconflict resolution.Robins defends these arguments by analyzing the international systemicand domestic politics context in which Turkish foreign policy is ...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document