Politics is often described as a game of strategy, but no politician — regardless of experience, intelligence, or past victories — can legitimately claim to be the only person capable of understanding the political game.
One of the greatest weaknesses of a political party can arise when its leader becomes convinced that every successful outcome depends on his personal strategy.
What initially looks like confidence can gradually become overconfidence. What looks like strong leadership can become excessive centralisation. And what appears to be control can eventually prevent the organisation from recognising changing circumstances.
The most effective way to challenge such a political figure is not necessarily to compete with him on his own terms. It is to build an alternative political party and policies that demonstrate the value of teamwork, evidence, preparation, credibility, and adaptability. Goodness me, the outcome of a properly worked-out blueprint would dazzle the 'omnipotent' strategist.
For a start, no one should underestimate the power of overconfidence.
A politician who believes he is always several steps ahead of everyone else may become predictable.
When someone assumes that opponents will behave according to a familiar pattern, they can overlook changes in public opinion, new political alliances, emerging issues, or weaknesses within their own organisation.
The response should not be personal attacks. Instead, opponents should carefully examine all of the following as a face up:
What assumptions are being made?
What evidence supports those assumptions? Have previous predictions been accurate? What has changed since the previous political contest? Are supporters and advisers willing to challenge the leader?
A strategy built on unquestioned assumptions can become vulnerable when circumstances change.
Secondly, there is a need to build a stronger team rather than searching for an alternative single "master strategist" .
The answer to one dominant strategist is rarely another dominant strategist. A resilient political party benefits from people with different skills: researchers, communicators, community organisers, policy specialists, legal advisers, data analysts and people who understand local concerns.
Different perspectives make it more difficult for one person's assumptions to go unchallenged. The objective should, therefore, be to create a culture where people can say that: "strategy may not work, and here is the evidence." A team capable of challenging its own assumptions can be more adaptable than a team that simply follows one person's instructions.
Furthermore, evidence should be allowed to compete with personality.
Political contests can easily become personality contests. That can benefit a politician who has built a reputation as a master strategist. A more sustainable approach is to focus attention on verifiable questions such as: what was promised; what actually happened; what policies were implemented: what were the measurable results; what official records and credible independent sources show.
This moves the discussion away from claims about who is the cleverest politician and toward questions that the public can independently examine.
Also, it is important to avoid playing exclusively on the opponent's battlefield .
A highly experienced political strategist will often have established methods for dealing with conventional opposition.
Repeating the same approach can make an opponent comfortable. Instead, a serious alternative party should identify the issues that genuinely matter to the people it represents and develop its own policies around those issues especially taking cognisant of cost implications.
This does not mean manufacturing controversies or constantly reacting to the opponent. It means establishing an independent identity.
A political party becomes stronger when people understand what it stands for, rather than merely what it stands against.
In addition, internal disagreement should be intentionally turned into constructive debate.
A leader who believes he is the only strategist may discourage disagreement.
That can create an unusual weakness: everyone eventually starts telling the leader what they think he wants to hear.
Constructive disagreement is therefore an organisational asset. Before major decisions, teams can ask: What could go wrong? What evidence contradicts the team's assumption? What would opponent say? What information are being missed? What happens if the political environment changes? What is the alternative if the plan fails?
These questions do not undermine leadership. They improve decision-making optimally.
Moreover, it is important to avoid becoming obsessed with the individual.
One of the easiest mistakes an opposition party can make is allowing its entire identity to become centred on defeating one person. That gives the individual enormous political importance.
A stronger approach is to build something that can survive regardless of who the opponent is. If the opposition party has credible policies, competent people, strong relationships with communities and transparent decision-making, its success does not depend on the strengths or weaknesses of a single politician with a make-belief strategist tag!
Above all, preparation beats theatrics.
Political confidence can be impressive, but preparation is harder to defeat.
Before a major pronouncement, public meeting, election or policy dispute, a serious political party should know its facts.
It should understand the relevant legislation, financial implications, previous statements, publicly available records and the strongest arguments on the opposing sides - not all the opponents efforts are wishy washy! The goal is not to embarrass an opponent. It is to be sufficiently prepared that political claims can be examined calmly and accurately verified.
Secrecy, tending on cultism, should not be confused with strategy.
Some politicians believe that keeping everyone guessing is evidence of superior strategy. Sometimes it is simply poor communication.
Effective organisations can explain their objectives without revealing every operational detail. They can maintain confidentiality, where genuinely necessary, while still giving supporters and the public a clear understanding of their principles and policies. In fact, transparency can make it more difficult for an opponent to define the organisation through speculation.
Of course, there is need to remain disciplined when provoked.
A confident political operator may attempt to draw opponents into unnecessary arguments. Responding emotionally can shift attention away from substantive issues.
The more disciplined response is to repeatedly return to evidence, policies, performance and the concerns of the electorate. The useful simple rule being:
Opposition parties should not allow another politician to determine their entire agenda.
Tactically, the real test is whether the party can adapt.
Political strategy is not about predicting everything correctly. Circumstances change. Public priorities change. Alliances change. New information appears. The party that continually learns from evidence has an advantage over one that assumes its existing strategy is automatically correct.
Ultimately, the weakness of a politician who believes he is the only strategist is not necessarily that he lacks intelligence or experience. It is that politics is too complex for any one person to control completely. The strongest response is, therefore, not to search for a new political genius. It is to build a team capable of thinking independently, checking its assumptions, understanding the public, communicating clearly and adapting when circumstances change.
Conclusion
The most important lesson is that political strategy should not be a competition between two personalities claiming to be the smartest person in the room. It should be a competition between ideas, organisation, evidence, leadership and the ability to respond responsibly to changing circumstances.
A politician who believes he is the only strategist may concentrate power around himself. The alternative is to distribute strategic thinking across a capable team. That difference — between one person believing he has all the answers and an organisation capable of asking better questions — can fundamentally change the quality of political competition.
Oluwole Akinwumi, PhD
A Development Economist
Write from Scotland, UK
+447488485660
Tags
Opinion
