ABSTRACT
The study of political leadership appears to be “an emerging field” of political science in the United States after a long period of neglect. Profusion seems merely to have compounded confusion about the reasons for different forms and degrees of political leadership. A fundamental source of confusion for comparative analysis is the many definitions of leadership. The literature is replete with definitions that variously associate leadership with the exercise of power, influence, command, authority, and control in ways that may suit the purposes of some scholars, but not of others. The narrower concept of political leadership is also defined in a number of ways, depending on what is taken to be the nature and realm of politics. The acquisition and exercise of political leadership by various actors is, in the last analysis, related to a disproportionate measure of direct or indirect control over public offices and policies.
