Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership

223 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership CHAPTER 12 Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership TAPIO RAUNIO Takeaways for Leading Change Comparing three semi-presidential regimes, the main argument of this chapter is that institutional design has a strong independent effect on leadership. Drawing on official documents and interview data with top-level civil servants and politicians, it underlines the importance of coordination mechanisms between the president and the prime minister. Such institutional arrangements facilitate effective policy-making and mitigate tensions between the two executives. Reflecting its more stable and regulated political system, Finland stands out with its strongly institutionalised coordination mechanisms and low level of intra-executive conflict. In Lithuania and Romania, on the other hand, each new president brings her own staff, personality and leadership style to the equation, with Romanian politics in particular characterised by high levels of tension between the president and the prime minister. The Lithuanian and Romanian cases indicate that absent of written rules or otherwise strong norms guiding intra-executive coordination, presidents enjoy more discretion in designing their own modes of operation. Under such circumstances presidents are more likely to use alternative channels of influence, such as public criticism of the cabinet or direct contacts with political parties, the legislature, or civil society stakeholders, and to intervene in questions falling under the competence of the government. This undermines coherent leadership and can even have serious consequences for regime stability, not least in the personality-centred politics commonly found in Central and East European countries and other more fragile democracies. 224 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership S emi-presidentialism denotes a political system where a directlyelected president shares executive power with a prime minister (PM). Importantly, semi-presidentialism, which is the most common regime type in Europe, seems more prone to conflicts than parliamentarism or presidentialism. To be more specific, it is unique in the sense that conflicts can arise within the executive branch, between the president and the PM and the government. Such conflicts can be particularly damaging in terms of coherent leadership and policy-making. Largely influenced by Shugart and Carey (1992), studies have established that conflict between the two executives is to be expected under two types of semi-presidentialism – in premier-presidential regimes (where the cabinet can only be dismissed by the parliament) and presidentparliamentary regimes (where both the president and the parliament have the formal power to dismiss the cabinet). Intra-executive conflict is associated with negative outcomes such as cabinet instability (Sedelius & Ekman, 2010) and disruptive policy-making (Lazardeux, 2015). Research has furthermore established that conflict is more likely under cohabitation, defined as a situation where the president and the PM represent different political parties or ideological blocs (Protsyk, 2005; 2006; Sedelius & Mashtaler, 2013; Elgie, 2018). A largely neglected variable in the comparative literature on intraexecutive conflict, however, is the institutional instruments for coordinating policy and executive leadership between the president and the cabinet. In fact, we know very little about the extent to which coordination mechanisms between the two executives vary among semi-presidential countries, and more importantly, how such variation may influence the balance of power between the two chief executives. This chapter argues that coordination mechanisms between the president and the prime minister are of crucial importance in explaining presidential activism and intraexecutive conflict. To be clear, it is not expected that such coordination This chapter argues that coordination mechanisms between the president and the prime minister are of crucial importance in explaining presidential activism and intraexecutive conflict. 225 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership mechanisms are necessarily more important than key institutional variables such as presidential powers, cohabitation, or electoral and party system dynamics. But this chapter argues that typical intra-executive conflicts over policy, legislation and appointments may in fact be manifestations of coordination problems. Successful leadership in semi-presidential regimes requires regular dialogue between the president and the PM, particularly in policy areas where they share power. Apart from facilitating beneficial outcomes, effective coordination mechanisms reduce uncertainty so that the individuals are aware of and can anticipate each other’s preferences and behaviour. In line with institutional theory, institutions can thus make a difference in that they induce actors otherwise driven by self-interest towards a “problem-solving” mode characterised by cooperation and search for mutually beneficial solutions (e.g., Scharpf, 1989; North, 1990). And in line with the “logic of appropriateness” (March & Olsen, 1989; 2006), stable and repeated coordination should also over time strengthen the socialisation effects of institutions whereby both executives, their offices, and other stakeholders become accustomed to certain “ways of doing things” and perceive regular coordination as the appropriate course of action. Examining semi-presidentialism and intra-executive coordination is thus ultimately research about leadership. Students of political leadership normally emphasise that the leaders of political regimes should provide clear and sufficiently dynamic leadership, especially during more turbulent times. Communication plays an important role in modern leadership, with leaders expected to justify their positions and inform the electorate through a variety of channels (Helms, 2012; Rhodes & ‘t Hart, 2014; Elgie, 2018). Hence the chapter contributes to this edited volume through examining political leadership as exercised by presidents in three European countries. The comparative dimension enables us to draw lessons about both the causes and consequences of presidential behaviour and which institutional mechanisms facilitate stable leadership. The selected cases are three premier-presidential countries: Finland, Lithuania and Romania. While the three countries have rather similar constitutional designs, they at the same time represent variation regarding presidential powers, level of intra-executive conflict, and political context. Finland is a long established democracy with a highly institutionalised 226 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership political system, where a recent constitutional reform resulted in a significant weakening of its historically strong presidency. Lithuania, on the contrary, is a young democracy with a largely personalised political culture but has generally functioned with few instances of severe intra-executive conflict. Romania, finally, has faced more severe transitional difficulties and has struggled with disruptive policy-making, widespread corruption and several instances of intense conflict between the president and the government. The constitutional powers of the president are somewhat stronger in Lithuania and Romania than in Finland. Asking “do institutions matter”, this study will dig deeper into institutional design at the level of practices, routines and coordination instruments between the executives, that is, at a level where comparative research is currently lacking on systematic and empirical knowledge. By utilising interview data with key civil servants and politicians, and official documents, it is able to reach “behind the scenes” to explore the importance of coordination mechanisms and how they are associated with presidential activism and intra-executive conflict. The next part sets the theoretical framework by addressing the incentives and disincentives for conflict and cooperation between the president and the PM and by identifying coordination instruments relevant to the interaction between the two executives. The subsequent section presents case selection and data. The empirical analysis is structured around the presence or absence of coordination mechanisms identified in the theoretical section. The concluding discussion summarises and discusses briefly the implications of the findings. Theoretical Framework: (Dis)incentives for Cooperation and Coordination Mechanisms Semi-presidential regimes encompass vast differences on the precise relationship between the cabinet and the president, also within the category of premier-presidential countries. There are countries where the president is merely a ceremonial head of state and the PM controls the policy-making process. Finland’s 2000 constitution, for example, provides the president 227 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership with formal prerogatives, particularly through co-leadership of foreign policy, that are just above those of a ceremonial figurehead. A potential risk with this model, however, is that a weak and marginalised, yet directlyelected, president can seek to compensate his or her limited powers with obtrusive behaviour, especially if the president’s popularity outweighs his or her formal powers. The literature on semi-presidentialism is full of examples of such behaviour. When the government is clearly dominant, also the PM can feel no need for coordination beyond perhaps the president’s office receiving information about governmental decisions and policies. In general, the president and the PM should thus have stronger incentives to seek cooperation where there is a more balanced distribution of power between the government and the president and if the two executives share powers in particular policy areas. Under such power-sharing there are simply more issues subject to joint decision-making and thus also to intra-executive coordination. To be sure, there are also more possibilities for disagreement and conflict, which raise the need for regular and welldefined coordination in order to facilitate successful policy-making. The latter applies especially to foreign and security policies, including European Union (EU) affairs, issue areas where it is often emphasised that disunity at home should not undermine success abroad. Regardless of the exact powers of presidents, presidential activism tends to be higher when the country is experiencing political turbulence, with low level of societal consensus or weak governments (e.g., Tavits, 2009). These considerations are particularly relevant for the younger democracies such as in Central and Eastern Europe, where surveys show high levels of public trust in the presidents but outright distrust in other political actors such as the PM and the parties. The presidents’ greater popularity may be attributed to their limited powers. They have projected themselves to be above party politics, being somewhat elevated from the usual political quarrels. Prime ministers, on the contrary, experience the dilemma of exercising their power in areas of controversy, such as social and economic policies, thereby further eroding their popular support. Hence, presidents are normally constitutionally assigned to stand above party politics. The paradox, however, is that presidents may feel that their popularity does not translate into political influence. When seeking ways of converting their perceived 228 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership prestige into actual power, they can publicly criticise the government by leaning on the popular mandate. Weak presidents thus seek to compensate their limited constitutional powers with more indirect channels of influence or obtrusive behaviour. And, as stated in the introductory section, tensions between the two executives are more likely under cohabitation. Having discussed briefly the (dis)incentives for coordination between the president and the PM and the contextual factors influencing intraexecutive cooperation, Figure 1 summarises the basic theoretical argument. It understands cooperation mechanisms as intervening variables positioned between key explanatory factors derived from previous literature on semipresidentialism (the distribution of power between the president and the cabinet, the role of party politics, and the societal context) and the outcome – which is the level of presidential activism that influences intraexecutive conflict and thereby also leadership capacity or performance. The more regular and institutionalised the coordination mechanisms are, the stronger their effect should be. It is argued here that coordination mechanisms can make a genuine difference: individual office-holders are constrained by them, especially when the mechanisms have become more entrenched and recognised as legitimate by the actors involved. In contrast, when coordination instruments do not exist or are weak, then both executives have more freedom of manoeuvre. Absent of a working constitutional division of labor and regular coordination, particularly the presidents are more likely to use alternative channels of influence – such as the strategy of “going public” or direct contacts with political parties, the legislature, or civil society Level of presidential activism, intra-executive conflict, leadership capacity Coordination mechanisms Key variables: e.g. distribution of power, party politics, parliamentary majority, societal context FIGURE 1. Coordination mechanisms and intra-executive conflict 229 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership stakeholders – and to intervene in questions falling under the competence of the government. Furthermore, ad hoc practices are likely to favour the side that, either because of constitutional division of power or through contextual factors, enjoys agenda-setting powers and can thus choose or at least strongly influence the levels and forms of coordination. But how to define coordination mechanisms? Three levels of coordination are identified – bilateral (between the president the PM), collective (between the president and the government), and administrative (between the offices of the president and the prime minister and the ministries) – whilst also differentiating among policy areas. The coordination instruments are introduced one-by-one, identifying also their predicted roles in intra-executive coordination (Figure 2). Bilateral meetings between the president and prime minister. Particular importance is assigned to confidential exchanges between the two leaders that form the core of intra-executive coordination – hence this category of Ministerial committees Bilateral meetings National security, foreign policy or EU affairs councils Administrative coordination FIGURE 2. Coordination mechanisms between the president and the cabinet 230 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership coordination mechanisms is placed at the centre of the pyramid in Figure 2. Regular talks between the president and the PM enable them to learn about each other’s preferences, negotiation styles, and personalities. Such faceto-face contacts should ideally take place before the president meets the whole government or before either side meets foreign leaders or attends international or EU meetings. In this way, potentially sensitive issues can be discussed in private and even if no compromise is found, both leaders can agree on how to proceed with these matters. However, it is unlikely that laws would regulate such bilateral meetings. Hence, they can also be particularly vulnerable to break down after the election of new office-holders. Ministerial committees or joint councils between the president and the government. As the literature on coalition governments shows, ministerial committees perform an important function in both cabinet decisionmaking and as a conflict-resolution mechanism (Müller & Strøm, 2000; Strøm, Müller, & Bergman, 2008). These ministerial committees usually bring together a sub-set of ministers from all coalition parties and they deal with specific issue areas such as economic policy or European policy. The powers and composition of the ministerial committees are typically regulated by laws or even by constitutions, with more detailed rules found in the government’s rules of procedure. In policy areas where the president shares power with the government, mainly in foreign and security policy, such ministerial committees would enable both sides to keep track of developments and to exchange ideas before the formal decision-making stage. Various joint councils would on average have a more informal status and bring together the president and ministers to discuss specific societal issues such as education or economy. They could also take the form of periodic meetings between the whole government and the president that would focus perhaps mainly on topical issues. National security, foreign policy, or EU affairs councils. External relations were identified as a policy area where directly-elected presidents not only have constitutional powers but where countries are expected to act with one voice. This applies particularly to security and defense policies, issue areas that are highly salient and where domestic consensus is appreciated (e.g. Raunio & Wagner, 2017). National security councils or equivalents often have a central role in defining and planning the countries’ security and military 231 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership strategies. They can simultaneously facilitate intra-executive coordination, but who chairs such bodies can be a delicate question. Naturally, ministerial committees can also be established to examine foreign and security policy and indeed European matters. EU affairs pose particular challenges for coordination, especially as the development of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) means that national foreign and security policies – areas where presidents enjoy constitutional powers – are increasingly linked to European level policy processes (Raunio, 2012). Hence, whether the president is involved in or excluded from the national EU coordination system can have broader implications for leadership in foreign affairs. Coordination between civil servants of the offices of the prime minister and the president. Moving to the administrative level, the interaction between the respective offices of the president and the PM can play an important role, especially regarding information exchange. Comparative literature suggests that the role of top-level administrative elites has become more important over the decades. Political leaders have typically two categories of staff working for them: civil servants that work for the state and political staff that come and go with individual office-holders. The staff at the prime minister’s office oversees and coordinates activities in the ministries and perhaps also public sector agencies while handling central governmental communication. Particularly the political staff provides policy advice to the PM or the president, including in foreign and security policy, and can be key players in solving disputes between different branches of government (e.g. Mitchell, 2005; Eichbaum & Shaw, 2014; Yong & Hazell, 2014; Gherghina & Kopecký, 2016; Marland, Lewis, & Flanagan, 2017). Regular coordination and exchange of information between the staffs of the prime minister and the president should facilitate successful cooperation between the two executives. However, the size and responsibilities of the president’s staff can also be important variables. The budget of the president’s office is normally determined by the annual national budget, and in semi-presidential countries, the total number of staff working for the president tends to be quite small. Presidents can compensate this with recruiting personnel that focus on specific policy areas, including those falling in the competence of the government. For example, a policy adviser in economy can provide crucial information to the president and can 238 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership participated in the majority of the European Council meetings together with the PM, it was decided by the government that the PM would be representing Finland. According to a constitutional amendment from 2012 “The Prime Minister represents Finland on the European Council. Unless the Government exceptionally decides otherwise, the Prime Minister also represents Finland in other activities of the European Union requiring the participation of the highest level of State” (for more discussion, see Raunio, 2012). In Lithuania, the constitution, secondary laws, or the rules about domestic EU coordination do not detail who should represent the country in the European Council. President Adamkus participated in those European Councils which featured foreign and security policy while the PM covered other matters. Often both executives would attend the summits. Grybauskaitė in turn participates in the European Council, even though constitutional provisions about division of labor clearly suggest that the PM should represent Lithuania. Overall, her influence appears quite strong in EU and economic affairs, partly because Grybauskaité had served previously as the finance minister and as the Commissioner for Financial Programming and the Budget. According to one interview the prime ministers did not contest this arrangement: “The leader which enjoys public support can easily do such things ad hoc, therefore it was possible to establish certain practices without any legal documents – just like with attendance of the meetings of the European Council.” The lack of contestation was aided by the weakness of the government as PM Andrius Kubilius needed presidential support for the austerity measures (Raunio & Sedelius, 2017). In Romania it is also the president that attends the summits of the European Council, with the PM only travelling to the meetings upon delegation by the president. Following a major conflict between PM Victor Ponta and President Băsescu in 2012, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the president represents Romania in the European Council. Overall, ad hoc practices facilitate presidential influence. Lithuanian and Romanian presidents also have the power of initiative regarding cooperation, with forms and levels of intra-executive coordination essentially always determined by the president. For example, while joint councils or ministerial committees might facilitate better coordination, 239 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership presidents do not need such bodies. As one interviewee from Lithuania put it: “Presidents that have enough powers do not create such councils, they do not need such kind of institutions, they just arrange ad hoc meetings despite the fact that it is not foreseen in any law.” Coordination is clearly most institutionalised in foreign and security policy, including between foreign ministries and the president’s office. Lithuania and Romania utilise specific national security councils whereas Finland has a ministerial committee on security policy. Such bodies facilitate confidential exchange of information between the two executives, and the interviews in general confirm that even when the president and the PM disagree about domestic matters, particular attention is paid to ensuring that the countries speak with one voice in international negotiations.4 The results also provide evidence of considerable stability as initially adopted practices have become the standard or appropriate course of action. Reflecting its more stable and regulated political system, Finland stands out with its strongly institutionalised coordination mechanisms. In Lithuania and Romania, on the other hand, each new president brings her own staff, personality and leadership style to the equation. When both countries adopted semi-presidential constitutions, it was for various reasons not perceived important or legitimate to establish coordination mechanisms between the executives. And as the analysis suggests, presidents may well benefit from such absence of regular cooperation. Discussion This chapter has contributed to the literature on semi-presidentialism and political leadership through paying attention to coordination mechanisms between the president and the government. The results may not be altogether surprising but they are logical: the more institutionalised 4 However, clashes over security policy can still occur. In 2006 the Romanian PM Tariceanu announced publicly that Romanian troops would withdraw from Afghanistan. President Băsescu disagreed and CSAT did not follow Tariceanu’s recommendation. As a result, the government had to comply with the decision of CSAT (Gherghina & Miscoiu, 2013). 240 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership and regular cooperation between the two executives is, the less we find presidential activism and thereby also intra-executive conflict. The absence of coordination in turn produces more tensions and opens the door for presidential activism, not least through public criticism of the cabinet and direct contacts to political parties, the state administration, the legislature, and civil society actors. At the same time one must exercise caution when drawing lessons from this study. It compared one stable democracy (Finland) with two younger, less institutionalised political regimes (Lithuania and Romania). Furthermore, one cannot exactly measure the importance of coordination mechanisms. For example, the transition to democracy and the broader modernisation of the society have proven difficult in Romania, with poor constitutional design contributing to the high level of intra-executive conflicts (Ghergina, 2015; Elgie, 2018). Yet, one can ask whether the presence of regular coordination mechanisms could have prevented the two impeachments of President Băsescu or the overall assertive presidential behaviour. Similarly one can reflect on how much the relatively smooth intra-executive relations in Finland result from the president meeting both the PM and the whole government almost every week. The chapter also highlights the interplay between institutional mechanisms, political culture, and party politics. The semi-presidential regimes in Central and Eastern Europe are in general characterised by personality-centred political cultures coupled with low trust in parties and political institutions. This facilitates presidential activism irrespective of the party-political context and makes it possible for individual presidents to create non-constitutional institutions in their own favour. Both Lithuania and Romania have opted not to establish regular intra-executive coordination mechanisms, and this study suggests the need to explore whether the lack of coordination instruments and the observed behavioural patterns apply also to other countries in the region. Institutionalised coordination mechanisms may make politics more boring through reducing public confrontations between the two executives, but they also facilitate policy-making and coherent political leadership, outcomes that are clearly relevant for all semi-presidential countries. 241 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership References Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2014). Prime ministers and their advisers in parliamentary democracies. In R.A.W. Rhodes & P. ‘t Hart (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (pp. 517–531). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Elgie, R. (2018). Political leadership: A pragmatic institutionalist approach. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Gallagher, T., & Andrievici, V. (2008). Romania: Political irresponsibility without constitutional safeguards. In R. Elgie & S. Moestrup (Eds.), Semi-presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 138–158). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. Gherghina, S. (2013). Formal and informal powers in a semi-presidential regime: The case of Romania. In V. Hloušek et al., Presidents above parties? Presidents in Central and Eastern Europe. Their formal competencies and informal power (pp. 257–270). Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University. Gherghina, S. (Ed.). (2015). The Romanian political system after 1989 [Special issue]. Südosteuropa, 63(1). Gherghina, S., Iancu, A., & Soare, S. (2016, September). Presidents and their parties: Insights from Romania. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Prague, Czech Republic. Gherghina, S., & Kopecký, P. (Eds.). (2016). Politicization of administrative elites in Western Europe [Special issue]. Acta Politica, 51(4). Gherghina, S., & Miscoiu, S. (2013). The failure of cohabitation: Explaining the 2007 and 2012 institutional crises in Romania. East European Politics & Societies and Cultures, 27(4), 668–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325413485621 Helms, L. (Ed.). (2012). Comparative political leadership. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Krupavičius, A. (2008). Semi-presidentialism in Lithuania: Origins, development and challenges. In R. Elgie & S. Moestrup (Eds.), Semi-presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 65–84). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. 242 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership Krupavičius, A. (2013). Lithuania’s president: A formal and informal power. In V. Hloušek et al., Presidents above parties? Presidents in Central and Eastern Europe. Their formal competencies and informal power (pp. 205–232). Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University. Lazardeux, S.G. (2015). Cohabitation and conflicting politics in French policymaking. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York, NY: The Free Press. March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein & R.E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Marland, A., Lewis, J.P., & Flanagan, T. (2017). Governance in the age of digital media and branding. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 30(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12194 Mitchell, D. (2005). Centralizing advisory systems: Presidential influence and the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2005.00009.x Müller, W.C., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (2000). Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Protsyk, O. (2005). Politics of intraexecutive conflict in semipresidential regimes in Eastern Europe. East European Politics and Society, 18(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325404270672 Protsyk, O. (2006). Intra-executive competition between president and prime minister: Patterns of institutional conflict and cooperation in semi-presidential regimes. Political Studies, 56(2), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00604.x Raunio, T. (2012). Semi-presidentialism and European integration: Lessons from Finland for constitutional design. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.614139 Raunio, T., & Sedelius, T. (2017). Shifting power-centres of semipresidentialism: Exploring executive coordination in Lithuania. Government and Opposition. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2017.31 243 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Presidents, Institutions, and the Quest for Coherent Leadership Raunio, T., & Wagner, W. (Eds.). (2017). Challenging executive dominance: Legislatures and foreign affairs [Special issue]. West European Politics, 40(1). Rhodes, R.A.W., & ‘t Hart, P. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of political leadership. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Scharpf, F.W. (1989). Decision rules, decision styles and policy choices. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692889001002003 Sedelius, T., & Ekman, J. (2010). Intra-executive conflict and cabinet instability: Effects of semi-presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe. Government and Opposition, 45(4), 505–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2010.01325.x Sedelius, T., & Mashtaler, O. (2013). Two decades of semipresidentialism: Issues of intra-executive conflict in Central and Eastern Europe 1991–2011. East European Politics, 29(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2012.748662 Shugart, M.S., & Carey, J.M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Strøm, K., Müller, W.C., & Bergman, T. (Eds.). (2008). Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democratic life cycle in Western Europe. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Tavits, M. (2009). Presidents with prime ministers: Do direct elections matter? Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Yong, B., & Hazell, R. (2014). Special advisers: Who they are, what they do and why they matter. Oxford, England: Hart Publishing. Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Copyright © 2019 Tampere University Press and the authors Edited by Anni Kangas, Johanna Kujala, Anna Heikkinen, Antti Lönnqvist, Harri Laihonen and Julia Bethwaite Tampere: Tampere University Press