Psychology of Democracy of The People by The People For The People 2022 Ashley Weinberg Editor Download
Uploaded by
kivietcihatPsychology of Democracy of The People by The People For The People 2022 Ashley Weinberg Editor Download
Uploaded by
kivietcihatPsychology Of Democracy Of The People By The
People For The People 2022 Ashley Weinberg
Editor download
https://ebookbell.com/product/psychology-of-democracy-of-the-
people-by-the-people-for-the-people-2022-ashley-weinberg-
editor-40666208
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Psychology Of Democracy 1st Edition Fathali M Moghaddam
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-psychology-of-democracy-1st-edition-
fathali-m-moghaddam-52570568
The Psychology Of Democracy 1st Edition Darren G Lilleker Billur Aslan
Ozgul
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-psychology-of-democracy-1st-edition-
darren-g-lilleker-billur-aslan-ozgul-33795374
The Psychology Of Populism The Tribal Challenge To Liberal Democracy
Joseph P Forgas
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-psychology-of-populism-the-tribal-
challenge-to-liberal-democracy-joseph-p-forgas-28736736
Disrespectful Democracy The Psychology Of Political Incivility Emily
Sydnor
https://ebookbell.com/product/disrespectful-democracy-the-psychology-
of-political-incivility-emily-sydnor-17514744
Disrespectful Democracy The Psychology Of Political Incivility Sydnor
https://ebookbell.com/product/disrespectful-democracy-the-psychology-
of-political-incivility-sydnor-59156966
Social Evolution Political Psychology And The Media In Democracy The
Invisible Hand In The Us Marketplace Of Ideas Peter Beattie
https://ebookbell.com/product/social-evolution-political-psychology-
and-the-media-in-democracy-the-invisible-hand-in-the-us-marketplace-
of-ideas-peter-beattie-57417226
Social Evolution Political Psychology And The Media In Democracy The
Invisible Hand In The Us Marketplace Of Ideas Beattie
https://ebookbell.com/product/social-evolution-political-psychology-
and-the-media-in-democracy-the-invisible-hand-in-the-us-marketplace-
of-ideas-beattie-7298148
Psychology Of Financial Planning The Practitioners Guide To Money And
Behavior Brad Klontz
https://ebookbell.com/product/psychology-of-financial-planning-the-
practitioners-guide-to-money-and-behavior-brad-klontz-46196452
Psychology Of Trauma 101 Lesia Ruglass Phd Kathleen Kendalltackett
https://ebookbell.com/product/psychology-of-trauma-101-lesia-ruglass-
phd-kathleen-kendalltackett-46279178
PSYCHOLOGY OF DEMOCRACY
Democracy was forged in the furnaces of oppression, whether com-
batting tyranny or affirming the rights of the individual. As democ-
racy is under threat in many parts of the world, there has never been a
more urgent need to understand political thoughts and behaviours.
This lucid and accessible book brings together a global group of
scholars from psychology, political science, communication, sociol-
ogy, education and psychiatry. The book’s structure, based on
Abraham Lincoln’s well-known phrase ‘Of, by and for’ the people,
scrutinises the psychological factors experienced by politicians as
representatives ‘of’ the electorate, the political institutions and sys-
tems devised ‘by’ those we elect, and the societies that influence the
context ‘for’ us as citizens. From trust to risk, from political values to
moral and religious priorities, from the personality and language of
leaders to fake news and anti-democratic forces, this book provides
vital new insights for researchers, politicians and citizens alike.
is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the
University of Salford, UK. He is the founding chair of the Political
Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and a
BPS winner of the Excellence in Occupational Psychology Policy
Impact award. He is the editor of The Psychology of Politicians
(Cambridge, ) and Brexit in the Workplace ().
PSYCHOLOGY OF
DEMOCRACY
Of the People, By the People, For the People
ASHLEY WEINBERG
University of Salford
University Printing House, Cambridge , United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, th Floor, New York, , USA
Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, , Australia
–, rd Floor, Plot , Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – , India
Penang Road, #–/, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.
It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/
: ./
© Cambridge University Press
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
: Weinberg, Ashley, editor.
: Psychology of democracy : of the people, by the people, for the people /
edited by Ashley Weinberg.
: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, . |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
: (print) | (ebook) |
(hardback) | (paperback) | (epub)
: : Democracy–Psychological aspects. | Behaviorism (Political science) |
Personality and politics.
: . (print) | (ebook) | ./–dc
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/
---- Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
List of Figures page viii
List of Tables x
List of Contributors xii
Preface xv
Acknowledgements xx
Psychology of Democracy
Ashley Weinberg
Personality, Politics and Strong Democracy: A Review
of Research and Future Directions
Jo Silvester and Madeleine Wyatt
From Big Ben to the Breakfast Table: Basic Values and Political
Attitudes among Politicians and the Public
James Weinberg
Under the Microscope: Prime Minister’s Questions in the
UK Parliament
Peter Bull and Maurice Waddle
Cognitive Complexity: Sometimes a Boon and Sometimes
a Danger to Democracy
Peter Suedfeld
In ‘A League of Their Own’? Judgement and
Decision-Making by Politicians and Non-Politicians
Barbara Vis and Sjoerd Stolwijk
v
vi Contents
The Mental Well-Being of Politicians
Ashley Weinberg
Trust in Political Institutions and Support for
Authoritarianism: Latin American Students – Does
Civic Knowledge Make a Difference?
Daniel Miranda, Juan Carlos Castillo, Catalina Miranda
and José Daniel Conejeros
New Technology, Language and Gesture in Contemporary
Indian Political Discourse
Rukmini Bhaya Nair
Fact or Fiction: Influences on Voter Decision-Making in a
Disinformation Environment
David P. Redlawsk, Kyle Mattes and Karol Solís Menco
Dissecting the Psychology of a Voter: A Citizen-Centric
Approach in Studying Electoral Experience and Behaviour
Sarah Harrison
Building Trust through a Revolving Door of Leaders:
The Poisoned Chalice
Joakim Eidenfalk and Stuart Woodcock
After the Party Is Over
Jane Roberts
Democracy as a Moral Challenge
Gian Vittorio Caprara
‘Can I Trust My Future?’ Youth Civic Engagement,
Civic Identity and Dystopias
Benjamin Bowman, Thalia Magioglou and Helen Haste
Religious Identity Politics and Genuine Support
for Democracy
Gizem Arikan and Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom
Contents vii
Psychology, Democracy and the Media: Are Citizens
Learning from the News? A Self-Regulated Learning
Perspective
Sharon Coen and Karl Turgut Maloney Yorganci
A Social Psychological Approach to Understanding
China’s Democratisation
Yida Zhai
The Psychology of Radicalised Conceptions of Democracy:
Steps Too Far?
Roderick Dubrow-Marshall
Index
Figures
. A comparison of basic values among political elites and
citizens in the UK page
. Basic values and political attitudes among elites and masses
. Predictors of support for immigration among UK politicians
and the UK public
. Predictors of support for climate action among UK politicians
and the UK public
. ‘Making the headlines’ scenario comparing politicians’
and students’ ratings of probability
. Reflection effect findings
. Institutional trust in Latin America by country
. The scale of institutional trust in Latin America by country/year
. Support for authoritarianism in Latin America by country
. The scale of support for authoritarianism in Latin America
by country/year
. Frequency of keywords used in political speeches by Modi
during his last year before becoming Prime Minister of India
. Frequency of use of terms referring to gender
. Frequency of references to state/nation and religious affiliation
. Frequency of reference to historic Indian politicians in
Modi’s speeches
. Frequency of emotions mentioned in the text of the prime
minister’s speeches
. A comparison of the use of hands and fingers in gestures,
illustrating the contrasting fight-or-flight communicative
styles of Modi and Kumar
. Voters’ identification of words and emoticons as
indicating ‘fight’ or ‘flight’
. Voters’ identification (in per cent) of the gestures used
by (a) present and (b) past key political figures
viii
List of Figures ix
. What the visage says: Emotions on display by Modi
and Kumar
. Item detail for ‘Price Attacks Opponent on Abortion’
(Democratic Primary)
. Fact-check request
. Vote probability and discredited fact-checks,
Republican primary
. Vote probability and discredited fact-checks,
Democratic primary
. Empathic displacement and the articulation between
individual and societal dimensions over the campaign
cycle across six democracies
. Characterisation of the atmosphere of the US
presidential election
. How citizens felt about people voting differently to them
in the lead-up to the US presidential election
. The mediational role that political values exert in linking
basic values to voting
. The hypothetical path of influence showing how traits,
basic values, political values and self- and collective-efficacy
beliefs may contribute to political orientation and participation
. Predicted marginal effect of religious identity strength
conditional on minority status, with per cent
confidence intervals
. Predicted marginal effect of minority status conditional
on religious identity strength, with per cent
confidence intervals
. Predicted marginal effect of religious identity strength
conditional on minority status and government favouritism,
with per cent confidence intervals
. Predicted marginal effect of minority status conditional
on religious identity strength and government favouritism,
with per cent confidence intervals
. Public trust in governments in East Asian societies
. A social psychological approach to understanding
China’s democratisation
Tables
. Sample characteristics page
. Diffuse and specific political opinions among elected
politicians, unsuccessful political candidates and the
British public
. Univariate statistics and correlation coefficients for
latent political attitudes and basic values
. Hypotheses for testing use of the representativeness heuristic
. Logistic regressions predicting expectation order for
Left-wing and Right-wing politicians in the Linda/Vera scenario
. Similarities and differences in the use by politicians
and non-politicians of representativeness heuristics
. Hypotheses on the availability heuristic
. Similarities and differences between politicians and
non-politicians in displaying the biases related to the availability
heuristic and the reflection effect
. Key stressors facing politicians
. Samples of students participating in the International
Civic and Citizenship Education Study per country,
per year
. Independent variable: civic knowledge score
. Descriptive statistics for control variables as a function
of country and year
. Correlations between trust in civic institutions, support
for authoritarianism and civic knowledge
. Regression models: the association between trust in
civic institutions and civic knowledge in Latin America
. Regression models: the association between support for
authoritarianism and civic knowledge in Latin America
. A ‘simplest systematics’ framework for ordinary
interactional gestures
x
List of Tables xi
. Self-reported reasons for vote choice
. Explaining vote decisions, logistic regression (standard errors
in parentheses)
. Efficacy and projected efficacy over the campaign cycle across
six democracies
. The changing of the Australian prime minister via the
revolving door
. Description of the Big Five personality factors
. The motivational goals commonly associated with the ten
basic values
. Religious identity, minority status and genuine support for
democracy: random intercept models
. The effects of religious identity and minority status
conditional on religion–state relationships: random
coefficient models
. Attachment to democracy in East Asian societies
Contributors
, Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin
- , Department of Political Science, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem
, Manchester Centre for Youth Studies, Manchester
Metropolitan University
, Directorate of Psychology, University of Salford
, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Sapienza
Università di Roma
, Instituto di Sociologica, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile
, Department of Psychology, University of Salford
, Instituto di Sociologica, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile
-, Department of Psychology, University
of Salford
, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University
of Wollongong
, Electoral Psychology Observatory, Department of
Government, London School of Economics and Political Science
, Department of Psychology, University of Bath
, School of Social Science, Humanities and
Languages, University of Westminster; and IIAC, Centre Edgar
Morin, Ecole des hautes études en science sociale, Paris
xii
List of Contributors xiii
, Department of Political Science, Florida International
University
í , Department of Political Science, Florida
International University-Universidad del Norte
, Instituto di Sociologica, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile
, Centro de Medición MIDE UC, Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile
, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
. , Department of Political Science and International
Relations, University of Delaware
, Faculty of Business and Law, Open University
, School of Business and Economics, Loughborough
University
, Department of Political Science and Public
Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
, Department of Psychology, The University of British
Columbia
, Faculty of Law, Economics & Governance, Utrecht
University School of Governance
, Department of Psychology, University of York
, Department of Psychology, University of Salford
, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
, School of Education and Professional Studies,
Griffith University, Queensland
, King’s Business School, King’s College London
, Department of Psychology,
University of Salford
, School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University
Preface
Democracy was forged in the furnaces of oppression. Its history has been
colourful and its varieties plentiful. Values of freedom and opportunity
have been its bywords, yet whatever the perceptions, practices and expe-
riences of democracy, its systems have been flouted all too frequently by
power-hungry play-makers. Designated historically as government ‘of’, ‘by’
and ‘for’ the people, perhaps it should be surprising that the processes by
which it operates are not by the design of the wider population, that
information about policies and perspectives is routinely relayed via media
over which citizens have little control, and that school-age education on
the nature of citizenship is rarely prioritised. Each of these threatens public
understanding or agency over how democratic nations are governed,
despite the wars and battles their publics have fought to win such rights.
The intent of this observation is not to toll a bell of doom but to excite
the need for engagement with what we hold dear – whatever one’s political
persuasions. Whether in combatting tyranny in the city state of Athens in
ancient Greece or ushered in by ages of revolution against despotism
around the world, democracy has sought to enshrine principles and rights
we have come to associate with aspiring and successful struggles for rights
as well as survival, in turn refined by ongoing progress and definition. Yet,
in affirming the rights of the individual – as expressed historically by Paine,
Voltaire and others – the challenge remains in how best to recognise the
wishes and political potential of populations. Failure to give this proper
consideration runs risks foreshadowed by political upheaval – whether
quiet or loud – and at worst the undoing of what may have been achieved
historically. Such risks are not confined to one system of government –
democratic or otherwise. As such, in early , minds were drawn to
‘Brexit’ by which the UK withdrew from the European Union, the attack
by an outgoing US president on the outcome of the presidential election,
as well as threats to opposition voices in Uganda and Russia. All are
different in their own way, but suggest that democracy as understood
xv
xvi Preface
globally faces constant challenges. History confirms this is not an unusual
pattern of events and so, when the Psychology of Democracy conferences
began in at the University of Salford, they did not predate such
events by design – despite the temptation to claim considerable foresight.
The lessons of the past were there for all to see – the cycle of events would
bring them back to the centre of our attention.
Democracy, as a process, is founded on hard-won principles of freedom,
equality and commonality of peoples, yet in turn can founder on the rocks
of counter-revolution from within or indeed from outside. Naturally,
opposing views are succour to healthier political debate and ultimately to
recognition of a need for consensus – provided there is respect for the
perspectives of all parties concerned. The success of democratic process
also depends on effective forms of representation. Such are the general
rules of deliberative and participatory democracy, but neither is without
flaw. The form of democracy represented by referenda can make for
difficulties in consensus-building, yet the majority view is required to
prevail. The functioning of political parties and their manifestos means
that the ideas of one side can be moulded over time or indeed adopted by
others. However, consensus is not always possible or desirable, and as
nations approach such ‘political black holes’, the energy – and sometimes
with it the lifeblood – is sucked from the protagonists, with potentially
disastrous consequences for all citizens.
The emergence of democracy as a political system over the last ,
years has involved the battle for hearts and minds of the rulers and the
ruled. While electoral rights and universal suffrage are currently enshrined
in law in many countries and federations with democratic systems, these
have taken anywhere between decades and centuries to reach fruition. This
reflects psychological as well as physical conflicts, from which nations with
either long-standing or more recent commitments to the principles of
democracy have endeavoured to heal and recover. Recognising that the
opportunity to vote is only one part of democratic process, the shaping of
healthy democracy – what it might look like and how it may be actualised
in practice by citizens and nations – is both ongoing and variably experi-
ences poorer or better outcomes, with potential pitfalls as old wounds are
reopened. The role of emotions and all that motivates them cannot be
ignored. Trust and its betrayal are obvious touchstones for electorates.
However, time is not necessarily the friend of well-considered political
options in democracies, as the crunch point in the cycle of elections
inevitably returns. A focus on the short term may be politically expedient
for retaining power but unhelpful for longer-term strategies for the public
Preface xvii
good. The delay and failure in grasping the actions demanded by climate
change is a case in point. Understandably, democracy is a tool for the
expression of political will, but the actions taken by political actors –
leaders and parties – are not necessarily practical or popular, and where
this becomes a consistent pattern, discontent and potentially unrest can
follow. From this perspective, the nature of democracy – in assuming that
it does seek the utilitarian best deal for the majority – means that its
standing is always under question and potentially under threat. As British
prime minister Winston Churchill pointed out in , ‘Democracy is the
worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried
from time to time!’
Despite this less-than-ringing historical endorsement and indeed the
regular tribulations faced by it, democratic forms of government are
widespread and more numerous than forty years ago, making up almost
per cent of worldwide political systems according to the (non-partisan)
Pew Research Centre in . The remainder comprise approaches which
combine elements of democracy with autocracy ( per cent) or are
dictatorships ( per cent). Within a context that adopts aspects of
democratic and non-democratic government, such as Morocco, it is
revealing that prospective legislation is more likely to reflect interests of
the ruling elite, whereas questions raised in parliament are statistically
more likely to reflect wider public concerns. Within more clear-cut
autocracies, such as China, perceptions of democracy certainly differ from
Western perspectives but are not ignored. This use of the term is not new
and led Sir Bernard Crick to note in , ‘Democracy is perhaps the most
promiscuous word in the world of public affairs’.
The opportunity – whether presented or not – to participate in elections
raises its own questions about the efficacy of democracy. Many citizens are
prepared to vote and this covers those who are alternatively excited,
disenchanted or disenfranchised by poor quality systems of voter
registration, or, who as minors in the eyes of the law (under the age of
twenty-one in Lebanon and Singapore), are excluded – despite the likely
impacts on their futures. There are proportions who decide not to vote
Pew Research Centre () Available at www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank////more-than-
half-of-countries-are-democratic/.
M. Shalaby and A. Aydogan () Elite-citizen linkages and issue congruency under competitive
authoritarianism. Parliamentary Affairs, (), –.
Y. Zhai () Popular perceptions of democracy in China: Characteristics and longitudinal
changes. Asian Survey, (), –.
B. Crick () In defense of politics, p. . University of Chicago Press.
xviii Preface
and, as a potential rejoinder, there are many nations with laws obliging
citizens to participate, including the possibility of a financial penalty in
Australia. For those successful in gaining eligibility to vote, there is
hopefully a choice of candidate or outcome, but, once cast, how the vote
is counted is swiftly taken beyond the realm of the individual, either as part
of a ‘first past the post’ system or as a form of transferable vote. After that,
whether the citizen feels their vote has made a difference can depend on
the outcome. Whatever the level of satisfaction, the notion of participation
retains its appeal; yet as political scientist Matt Flinders observes, the
overarching system in which this plays out is viewed less positively:
‘Maybe the problem with democracy – at a deeper level – is that you
cannot have democracy without the politics’.
Nevertheless, at a societal level, such operations – whether considered
democratic or not – seem beyond our individual scope to influence, even for
those who at times have been part of the apparatus that designed or modified
them! For political activists, conceiving an image of votes adding up to make
majorities is less difficult, while, for others, the sheer effort of trying to
visualise thousands or millions of votes prohibits the feeling they have a role
to play, when their individual contribution is weighed on such a grand scale.
Perhaps the opportunity to stand in the room where paper votes are counted
and see and hear the computations, with batches building up behind the
names of political candidates, is one that all citizens should have. Here, at
least, it is clear how one vote can make a difference. Here is the chance to
experience votes being unloaded from ballot boxes, counted, checked, placed
in order and assembled on tables. Here are the wheels of democracy in
action – it is no more important than the casting of the vote by the
individual citizen, yet it is salutary in what it represents and to what it leads.
Democracy comes in many forms. Protest has been the lifeblood of its
struggle for survival and recognition and counter-protest has ensured its
continuing need for reflection. Democracy comes without guarantees and
we do not always get the outcomes we wish, but a democratic backdrop
provides a necessary forum for discussion and debate whatever one’s views.
As American poet Amanda Gorman observed with hope in following
tumult at the heart of government, ‘we weathered and witnessed a nation
that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished’. So, will democracy ensure our
M. Flinders () The problem with democracy. Parliamentary Affairs, , –. Quote on
p. .
A. Gorman () The hill we climb. Poem recited by the author at the inauguration of the th
president of the United States, Joe Biden, and vice president, Kamala Harris, January.
Preface xix
survival and produce the actions and solutions we feel are necessary?
Whatever your view on climate change or on abuses of human rights or
a sense of belonging to a nation or a broader collective of nations, it is clear
that democracy, as a means to providing a voice for the views of all peoples,
plays a vital part.
Globally the impacts of environmental change, of inefficient and insuf-
ficient provision of basic resources for living and of ongoing unrest with
established systems of government highlight the scale of the challenges
facing our species. The unpreparedness of nations for combatting a viral
pandemic has thrown these considerations into stark relief. No respecter of
forms of government globally or nationally, COVID- wrought havoc.
The answer to such a threat remains the power and ingenuity of people
helping others. Yet how best can the people’s potential be fulfilled? The
pandemic opened wider the cracks of inequalities in societies worldwide,
while proffered solutions remain vociferously debated and desperately
needed. Whether rooted in popular dissatisfaction with the daily reality
of governments, or in attempts by a range of stakeholders to shock or
manipulate outcomes to their own benefit, the issues for all who wish to
live within ‘democratic’ systems are shared: striving to ensure a relatively
safe and productive existence for all. We have little option in this particular
choice. While we can be sure that progress is slow, change is possible, but
persistence is the key!
Acknowledgements
I would like to dedicate this volume to my wonderful family. To Anne, for
all her love and companionship and guidance, as well as supporting my
literary endeavours. To my inspiring children, for their talent and passion
in making a positive difference to the world: James, as a champion for
citizenship education and advancing understanding of political behaviour,
and Lottie, through her therapeutic work that empowers the lives of
countless others in their times of need. To my Dad for a lifetime of
encouragement and belief and stimulating discussions about politics. To
my Mum, who we miss in many ways, not least for nurturing my love of
language and the written word.
I am particularly grateful to Janka Romero, commissioning editor at
Cambridge University Press, for supporting the concept and creation of
this book and for her kind patience while it has taken shape, and also to
her colleagues Emily Watton, Santosh Laxmi Kota and Jessica Norman for
all their help and assistance. I would like to thank Divya Arjunan and her
team for producing this book during such challenging times and Paul
Martin for his splendid copy-editing.
Naturally this book would not exist without the endeavours of its
contributors from around the world, whose research shines light on the
psychology of politics and in particular on what makes democracy tick.
Thanks to each of you for trusting me with your work and for giving so
generously of your time.
My thanks go also to those who have participated in our biannual
Psychology of Democracy conferences at Salford since and supported
the establishment of the Political Psychology section of the British
Psychological Society.
Thank you to you, the reader: the book, as well as the future, is in your
hands!
xx
Psychology of Democracy
Ashley Weinberg
Democracy is in danger. Consider these questions if you are unsure
whether this is the case. Do you trust others? Do you believe others will
act on your behalf? Would you take up a cause on others’ behalf? These are
fundamental questions of democracy and how it is practised across the
world. For many, democracy represents political freedom, access to justice
and an assumed range of esteemed values, while, for others, it is a political
system that, at its basest level, needs to be navigated at all costs to achieve
desired goals. For some, democracy represents an impediment to achieving
their desired aims. Where there is attraction to power in the minds of those
involved, there are clear challenges for democracy and for the populations
it purports to represent. The reason such motivations can differ is simple:
it is because we are human.
One paradox of democracy appears to lie in how the power it confers is
used. If we are interested in the common good, why would a nation claim to
have a system that looks like it involves everyone, but teems with examples
in which it does not necessarily serve them? This situation results in negative
perceptions of politics and elected representatives that undermine belief in
democracy, unless democracy is seen to deliver results with which the
majority can agree. It has been suggested by the Cambridge University
Centre for the Future of Democracy () that there is a ‘global democratic
recession’ (Foa et al., ). Perhaps it should come as no surprise that
democracy – as a system of government – is facing its greatest challenges
and, at the same time, the standing of politicians as assessed by polls and
academic studies is invariably low (e.g., Clarke et al., ; Hansard Society,
; Stoker and Evans, ). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the
‘third wave of autocratization’ in the early part of the twenty-first century,
characterised by gradual erosion of democratic functions, is a legitimate
cause for concern (Lührmann and Lindberg, ).
This book explores relevant individual, social and political psychological
mechanisms and processes that contribute, not only to our experiences of
democracy, but also to its relative success or failure. At this stage in human
evolution, the stakes in forms of government that can deliver our survival
could not be higher.
Naturally, the roles and responsibilities of those elected to act on behalf
of the population are brought into sharp focus. Yet, the study of those who
become elected representatives is relatively scarce, so attitudes tend to rely
rather unhelpfully on popular perceptions in which a range of media play
an influential role. In considering, ‘Of the people, by the people, for the
people’, this book seeks to analyse the key factors that shape and determine
our involvement in the government of our lives and of our communities
and nations. Examining democracy, from an emerging awareness of citi-
zenship among young people right through to our involvement with
political processes and institutions and to the experience of those serving
and leaving political office, the psychology of politics is a window to our
future, whoever we are. Seen through the lens of democracy, we ask how
bright is that future?
Who Counts?
The survival instincts of humans have not changed in millennia and, in
order to guarantee continuing success, we need to co-exist effectively
within groups, whether these are the size of family units, communities or
entire nations. As political philosophers have acknowledged, such tasks are
not only daunting for citizens struggling with the challenges and exigencies
of daily life, but also for those who seek and take responsibility for making
democratic systems work: ‘What we require in a democratic society is
enlightened individuals who will be mature and responsible because they
reflect upon the issues which face them’ (Mill, ). Yet, it is at the
individual, community and national levels that we take steps to exert some
control over our environments, whether at home, at work or in govern-
ment. Hopefully, this control is expressed in ways that add positively to
our own and others’ experiences and in so doing lies an important
realisation: in a democracy, we are all politicians, whether we like it or not.
So, how could we organise society for the better? Naturally everyone will
have a differing view or preference, but it is equally likely that – when it
comes to such weighty matters – arrangements do not meet hopes and
expectations. People starve, are deprived or neglected, lose their homes, are
obliged to yield to mightier forces – and without fair reason in a world
supposedly knowing more than before. Yet, while citizens can conceive of
the ideal state of affairs for our families and communities, nations struggle
Psychology of Democracy
to achieve them. The difficulties in agreeing and implementing measures
to combat climate change are a case in point.
Politicians complain of responsibility without real power to effect
change, yet people take a stand where they can – unless they feel disin-
clined by a sense of inevitable failure. So, how would you devise a political
system? Would it be one that serves the interests equally of all, or one that
tends to favour some over others? Power-holders – as though wearing the
ring from Tolkien’s tales – know the temptations all too well. As Lord
Acton observed in , ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power
corrupts absolutely’. Even the prospect of it can tempt those who seek
power towards dubious actions – perhaps to load the dice of the electoral
gamble, whether over-spending on a political campaign or manipulating
information about promised outcomes or political opponents.
These considerations beg an important question: Can we be dispassion-
ate about democracy or indeed about the exercising of power? Walter
Bagehot’s The English Constitution () considers both colourfully and
enthusiastically the definition of one parliamentary system and perhaps
herein lies a major dilemma. It is not only knowing what we really want
that is important, but how we would know what this resembles? In part,
this depends on how our knowledge of our political systems is shaped.
Bagehot recognised that, in changing times, the conundrum about the best
shape of government faces both those in power ‘and. . . a people neither of
whom are guided by a different experience’ (p. ). After all, how can we
live outside of the era of our existence to judge what is best? As a species,
we often learn through trial and error – of our own or others – but the turn
of events decides whether this learning is put into practice.
Consensus and committees that abound in parliaments reasonably give
the appearance of scrutinising policies and actions that should promote the
common good, arguably much more so where these bodies are purportedly
representative of the wider population. However, this itself begs further
major questions for democracy. Just how many and how involved are
people in democracy and how could everyone be engaged in the ways
things are run? For example, where are the voices of those deemed outside
the system? As we have seen in climate change protests, many children are
keen for and deserving of a voice, the logic and fairness of which few can
deny, yet they are without political representation. Similarly, for citizens
without a home or regular dwelling, or access to the Internet, there is no
clear system for registering to vote and they are frequently denied the
franchise. Furthermore, many disenchanted with politics and politicians
are overwhelmed by the prospect of getting to grips with such contested
matters or feel disinclined to participate or perceive their part too insig-
nificant – finding themselves instead on the receiving end of a ‘democratic’
deal. For those who hope that political parties will represent and safeguard
their interests, there are options to join or facilitate their impact in some
way, yet how influential can individuals be? An example of financial
political contributions makes for interesting reading. In , the year of
the UK’s Brexit General Election, £. million was donated to the
Conservative Party from among its fifty largest party donors; this compares
to the main opposition Labour Party’s total campaign fund from all donors
of just over £ million (Sunday Times, ).
Who Has Power in a Democracy?
If politics is about power, then it is naturally about control as well. There
are claims that the way democracy works is rooted in manipulation by a
privileged minority for their advantage, while others point to the practical
challenges in politics of suiting everyone at every turn and to the progress
achieved in areas of one policy or another. Whether these are narratives
with which one concurs or not, the outcome for democracy is the same:
there are seeds of unhappiness in how we feel about it. Hopefully, there are
causes for optimism, too, yet uneasy emotions may lead us to become
either disenchanted with the system of democracy, distrustful and even
angry with the politicians and voters involved or apathetic to hopes we
may have previously held about the future. As David Runciman, author of
How Democracy Ends, suggests, ‘Democracy works best when we take it in
turns to complain about the system. . . [but] ecumenical distrust is some-
thing new’ (The Economist, ).
Our efforts to meet or exceed the demands of daily life are shaped by
our individual thoughts and behaviours. Yet, the notion of running a
country – even though likened by one former prime minister to running
a household – is something harder to grasp. The responsibility carried on
behalf of millions in order to exercise power should make the process of
democracy different from dictatorship, yet there may well be rulers who
nevertheless feel it is their destiny to do so and see no need for recourse to
their wider country-folk. The wielding of power in such an autocratic
manner has gained in pace around the world. Showcasing, garnering and
even creating their own popularity and public persona has variously helped
leaders in recent times in Russia, China, the United States of America and
India in trying to tighten their grip on power. Some observers have harked
back to dictators emerging in Germany and Italy in the s and s,
Psychology of Democracy
whose use of military might and populist rhetoric was key to their tenure,
perhaps after initially using the democratic system to gain office (e.g., Hett,
). Scanning across the last years allows us to compare snapshots of
leaders’ behaviour: from leading a rally chanting against a labelled ‘com-
mon enemy’ to sitting astride their chosen mode of transport – perhaps a
motorcycle or armoured vehicle – while accepting the plaudits of cheering
crowds. Particular parallels are also evident in steps taken to remove
barriers to ruling for life. Not only do these suggest unbridled ambitions
to stay atop the political ‘greasy pole’, but show that public affirmation –
either by superficially democratic means or social approval from a political
in-group – need only be to ‘rubber-stamp’ the legitimacy of their leader-
ship. It is in this context that concerns about the viability and survivability
of democracy more globally are raised.
Much has been written about the psychological motivations of leaders
of all guises in taking power, whether drawing on political legitimacy or
none at all. Perhaps just as concerning is how the use or manipulation of
a democratic apparatus by an autocrat to gain power may reflect on voters
who, initially at least, lend their support, but then find the wheel
controlling power pushed beyond their reach. This raises the question
of our own psychological needs as electorates. A sense of justice might
have us believe it is only a matter of time before dictators fall foul of their
own self-belief or delusions and that, at some point, popular uprising –
within or from outside their boundaries – consigns them to the history
books. However, the notion of ruling without the need to consult
meaningfully or to genuinely foster the support of others is a perennial
source of fear for the majority and a tempting prospect for the power-
hungry, yet it remains a risk in democratic and non-democratic societies.
In the fifth century BCE, Athenian safeguards against such abuse of the
political system included ostracism for up to ten years! Of course, one
difficulty for humankind is the length of time and scale of suffering
peoples are forced to endure waiting for abuse by leaders to be exposed
or addressed.
So, how can we be sure that democracy is preferable? How can rule for
the many be carefully and efficiently realised? First, it requires a shared
desire that it should work and, second, a commitment from those holding
political office to the welfare of current and future generations, which is
hopefully supported by the population. In such a way, history will judge
the role of governments in combating the COVID- pandemic.
Communication between the power-holders and the electorate is key to
this understanding and places considerable influence in the hands of the
media and its sponsors and owners. Therefore, overly comfortable relations
between politicians and the purveyors of media can create problems of
their own.
Whatever one’s role in a democratic system – as a voter, party member
or political decision-maker – the need for control, the search for the
empowerment of oneself or others, the notion of freedom of choice in
what happens next and an ongoing commitment to citizenship are char-
acteristics that shape our perception of its relative success or failure. Each
of these represents a range of psychological constructs that underpin
attitudes towards democratic behaviours in society as well as in exercising
political power at a national level. In order to understand what makes
democracy tick, we must also examine our own motives, expectations and
emotions as individuals.
People as Politicians
Unease with politics is an understandable consequence of decisions being
made away from the public eye or beyond the easy influence of our lives as
citizens. Yet, we should not lose sight of our own role as politicians in daily
life, seeking to influence our immediate environments – families,
communities and workplaces – by communicating, persuading and acting
to achieve change. This can range from efforts to put food on the table to
successfully navigating the worlds of work, study and relationships. In
addition, each of us may find ourselves operating along a continuum –
whether oriented towards our own needs or, indeed, seeking to represent the
needs of those around us. One could argue that this is no different a scenario
for professional politicians, yet, whether we see politicians as serving them-
selves or others, it plays an important role in how they are perceived.
Naturally, the transparency of the systems in which we and they operate
influences such perspectives and, in part, the openness of political processes
to public view is due to the nature of representative democratic systems by
which politicians are elected to decide on actions on behalf of the electorate.
Attention to such dynamics is bound to inspire a range of emotions.
Democracy means something slightly different to so many, but, on any
given day, we are aware of actions that run counter to its prized principles.
As basic human rights, we are affronted and distressed by attempts to curb
freedoms. In response to a brutal crackdown on civilian protests and the
arrests of leaders of the political opposition, marches by huge numbers of
an unsettled population, carrying white flags and flowers, echoes the same
sentiments across years of history from Peterloo to Belarus. Collective
Psychology of Democracy
action and peaceful protest as expressions of democratic principle demon-
strate that political awareness is within all of us and the propensity towards
emotion over democratic values should come as no surprise.
It is natural that these emotions should have a voice, for, without their
expression, resentment simmers and, with their expression, an uneasy
legacy lingers. For the dictator, autocrat or unaccountable government
official, here is a conundrum: whether to risk the free expression of
emotion by public protest or to contend with the consequences if it is
ignored or suppressed? In a democracy, there are expectations of greater
tolerance of expression of views, as its essence lies with political freedom
and chances of progress, which in turn support advances towards equality.
The risk for any democratically elected government is that, once elected,
should it ignore its electors’ wishes, the chances of re-election are reduced;
yet, frustratingly for the electorate, this brings no guarantees of a respon-
sive government. In such cases, what public protest against unpopular
policies symbolises can be far stronger than one may assume. For what
remains are troubling questions: how does a democratically elected gov-
ernment make such gross errors that it is at odds with the people who
originally voted for it? ‘Events’ (as lamented by former UK Prime Minister
Harold Macmillan) play their part, of course, but where the gap in
mismatched expectations and the trap of undelivered promises exists, the
more a gulf in democratic functioning is apparent. The discretion afforded
to leaders to make choices may seem politically necessary, but how well
does this serve democracy? Democracy may be the game, but politics are
the rules by which it is played – as they are in any autocracy or other
system of government.
Achieving procedural democracy, by which the rules with which we live
are subject to democratic principles, rather than to political manoeuvrings
for those in power, is one difference between having a democratic form of
government and a fully functioning democracy (Moghaddam, ). In
considering the psychological factors involved in successful steps towards
democracy, Fathali Moghaddam () has charted the roles of first-,
second- and third-order change, following on from his modern-day obser-
vations of Iran and the United States of America. Respectively, these point
first to large-scale political reform, second to institutional structures to
support such reform and finally to the development of democratic char-
acteristics at the level of individual cognitive styles and behaviours.
Accordingly, he proposes, ‘the psychological citizen can become capable
of constructively participating in, and supporting, a democracy through
acquiring a variety of cognitive and behavioural skills and practices’
(Moghaddam, , p. ). Such ‘political plasticity’, Moghaddam ()
argues, is needed to cement in place the values that might guarantee the
psychological foundations for ensuring the success of democracy, not
necessarily from the viewpoint of only one form is right – but from one
that minimises the risks of incumbents of any political shade from perpe-
trating anti-democratic deeds. Therefore, ‘For democratic actualisation to
occur, the democratic citizen must develop the appropriate social skills to
implement action based on the following convictions’ (Moghaddam,
, p. ): recognising one’s fallibility, questioning societal assumptions,
changing opinions based on evidence, seeking knowledge from a range of
sources and understanding and learning from people with other life
courses, being open to new experiences and to sharing one’s own with
others, being guided by ethical principles and undertaking pursuit of
activities ‘of higher value’ while recognising the differing worth of experi-
ences. On reading these, one’s mind may consider with interest our own
habits – as well as those of elected and unelected politicians. This is not to
say that people are naturally without the capacity to act democratically in
everyday life, but, as Helen Haste and colleagues point out later in this
volume, the role of educating for citizenship and meaningfully nurturing
such values in society is vital for the future survival of democracy.
From Sabres to Umbrellas: The Fortunes of Democracy
Why does the perception of a threat to democracy evoke strong emotion?
For many, ignoring the will of the people represents injustice and is
reminiscent of wars necessitated by would-be invaders who care little for
the right to vote and free speech. Either way, the unwritten message ‘you
do not matter’ is a powerful call to arms in both material and metaphorical
terms. Perhaps it is a more powerful motivator than any subtext suggesting
that ‘you do matter’!?
Of course, as voters we recognise that policies will not suit everyone
equally and, in voting for candidates or supporting a proposition at
referendum, we are probably aware of wider considerations than a political
party or movement with which we may not agree entirely. So, voting often
represents a compromise between what we think and what is on offer and,
in this way, can be considered an act of reasonableness on our behalf. Not
surprisingly, we expect those we support to treat our vote and our faith in
them fairly and with respect. Where such a psychological contract goes
unrewarded, we are likely to feel aggrieved or worse. It is fair to say that
unmet expectations are the enemies of happiness.
Psychology of Democracy
The pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in August transformed
from largely peaceful gatherings, objecting to reforms shifting the territory
towards compliance with the rest of China’s non-democratic government
system. Huge crowds faced armed police in demonstrations over the
proposal to transport those accused of crimes to China, with accompany-
ing concerns about their legal rights. In other words, what appeared to be
at stake were the rights of the individual, not only to vote, but to have a
voice enshrined in the administration of the law – an issue that formed a
cornerstone of the Magna Carta signed in England almost years
previously and that is recognised by those denied fair trial around the
world. The symbolic use of umbrellas by pro-democracy protesters in
Hong Kong to combat the teargas fired by police gave rise to depiction
of their action as ‘The Umbrella Movement’.
What may not have been apparent to those involved was that, in August
– almost exactly years before the Hong Kong protests, a peaceful
demonstration in Manchester, England of , workers and their families
saw calls for political rights and became a symbol of democratic struggle. The
marchers, including women wearing white and carrying flowers (also echoed
in Belarus in ), were met by militia deployed by local magistrates fearful
of disorder. Charging through neighbouring streets and into the crowd on
horseback with sabres drawn, the soldiers injured over and killed
unarmed civilians, including a baby. The bicentenary of what became
known as the Peterloo Massacre – so named after the defeat of Napoleon in
and the location in Manchester of St Peter’s Fields – was commemo-
rated by a monument, events and marches, in turn characterised by the
Brexit-related politics of modern-day Britain. Limited media coverage meant
that the significance of the event was less than might have been expected.
However, within days, the importance of what had been the largest gathering
of UK citizens found resonance with demonstrations for democracy over
, miles away. Not only is democracy a worldwide phenomenon, but so
is the struggle to maintain it over time, as well as across the globe.
Similarly, the action of populations taking to the streets is seen across
many contexts and countries, voicing concern and protests against threats
and destruction of political rights and resources. From the Arab Spring
risings of the early s, which sought to overthrow established autocratic
regimes, to long-running street battles in Chile in – over pro-
posals to raise transport fares, extreme expressions of emotion about how
we are governed and treated as citizens are universally evident.
Furthermore, considering the global impact of political emergencies is
vital, as these tend not to exist in isolation, but influence events elsewhere,
as evidenced by the figure that . per cent of the world’s population are
considered migrants (IOM, ). It is salutary that ‘voting with one’s
feet’, as a result of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and central Africa,
has fuelled a far-reaching diaspora. Similarly, mass migration from
nineteenth-century Russia came in response to pogroms and a Tsar who
presided over mass hunger and programmes of persecution. For those
seeking refuge or economic stability, the precious commodity of political
rights can be hard to maintain or – indeed – regain.
Emotions and the Principles of Democracy
In the context of the evolution of democracy, demonstrations of fear and
anxiety and tussles fuelled by the prospect of losing valuable commodities
and thereby a measure of control are variously echoed across history.
Political resources available to the population are frequently rooted in
access to natural and essential resources and, therefore, such capital is a
critical issue. Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, ) describes
the negative psychological impact of the threat of losing what one has. It
follows that direct links can be observed between perceptions of threat,
associated political rhetoric and motivations to seek redress. If the price of
negative emotion is undeliberative attitudes in resolving political matters,
how far can positive outcomes for democracy be guaranteed? This is not to
suggest that negative political change must flow from the experience of
negative emotions. The titles of the pamphlets of Thomas Paine, whose
words fuelled the zeal of American uprising against British imperial rule
and were used to defend revolutionary ideals in France, exemplify the
strategy of evoking and harnessing emotion. ‘Common sense’ () sold
, copies in the United States of America and ‘The rights of man’
() is thought to have sold . million copies by the time of Paine’s
death in (National Archives, nd). In such ways, concepts of freedom
and equality were given a voice and used as rallying cries for major political
change across the Atlantic and, over time, in calling for revolution and
experimentation in new forms of government. Marx and Engels’
Communist Manifesto () played a similar role in mid-nineteenth
century European revolutions and found various expressions in
twentieth-century upheaval across the globe, whether for democracy or
against it. However, for continuity and progress of a political system, John
Stuart Mill (), as noted earlier in this chapter, suggested that reflection
more than emotion is a prerequisite for successful practice in a democratic
society. So, who was right?
Psychology of Democracy
It has been argued that support for Brexit (the UK’s withdrawal from
the European Union) represented a popular backlash against the system
and a clawing back of resources with the slogan ‘Take back control’. It
produced far more than a war of words in Parliament, but also acts of
violence against Members of Parliament (MPs) – including murder – and a
General Election that put pro-Brexit politicians (known as ‘Brexiteers’)
into a majority government. Amid this, aspersions cast by the prime
minister on Parliament and his capacity for provocative comments fanned
the flames of discord. While the history of one is not the history of all, such
upheaval finds resonance in other countries, including – for example – in
the United States of America, where a rise of populism was harnessed by a
president uncritically harking back to a so-called ‘golden age’ and carried
significant risks for how democracy was enacted. The advent of a super-
ordinate goal – a threat to survival of our species by a virus – certainly
provided motivation for all to refocus on a common enemy, for, as history
confirms, we do not thrive where division rules.
In recognising that democracy finds expression in a variety of forms, it is
important to understand that, however it is manifest, it can in turn
influence how we feel about its use and misuse. Accordingly, the role of
emotions in narrating the battle for democratic traditions deserves scru-
tiny, not only for understanding political discourse, but the impact of that
discourse on subsequent events. For example, the establishment of the
Icelandic parliament (the ‘Althing’) around CE was notable, not only
for what it represented in a proto-democratic form of law-making based on
an annual fortnight’s gathering of the island’s whole community (Byock,
), but in the choice of location – on land forfeited following the
outlawing of a farmer who had murdered a slave (Bronowski, ).
In current times, we are frequently bombarded with information about
political events and perspectives likely to arouse a range of accompanying
emotions, especially where we perceive criticism of or threats against the
political group with which we identify (Huddy, Mason and Aarøe, ).
It is not surprising that emerging empirical studies shed light on how
uncivil verbal attacks against a viewpoint can promote combative
partisanship on the part of the listener (Gervais, ) and, more widely,
the venerated philosopher Martha Nussbaum () has sought to pro-
mote understanding of the role of emotions in politics. As the history of
democracy necessitates such a focus on relations among and between the
rulers and the ruled, traditionally philosophy has promoted values that, in
turn, are used to justify that scrutiny and, sometimes, the overthrow of
regimes – whether violently or peacefully. These are evident from many
sources: from the premise of Hobbes and Locke that governments should
safeguard the welfare of the populace, from Voltaire’s elucidation of civil
liberties, from Wollstonecraft’s calls for rights for men and women and
from Rousseau’s social contract in which law-making was seen as expres-
sing the people’s will. Furthermore, the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill
espoused the promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number –
a concept most apparently resonant with that of democracy.
The Fourth Estate
Casting a retrospective eye over history, it is not fanciful to view the
fortunes of democracy as often in flux, whether in conflict within or
between parties of rival influence or, indeed, whole populations. One
key to the success of this form of government lies with the checks and
balances incorporated into the political system or invoked to restore
equilibrium and faith in its underlying values. These take a variety of
forms and include the notion of a ‘free press’ or, these days, ‘media’ – by
which political processes and decisions can be scrutinised and relayed to
the public – as a cornerstone of democratic functioning. Yet, the last fifty
years have seen some of the best and worst fortunes for news reporting.
Such a spectrum spans the Watergate revelations of US presidential wrong-
doing in the early s to the closure of the -year-old UK-based News
of the World in following the hacking of a murder victim’s phone. It
encompasses sacrifices – sometimes by assassination – of reporters’ lives in
a number of countries worldwide amid regime pressures to advance their
own propaganda. As such, the global challenge of political objectivity in
search of publicising the ‘truth’ continues to be played out in public view.
‘A check on behalf of the governed and not the governors’, a free press was
envisioned as giving ‘them [the people] full information of their affairs’
(Jefferson, ). Yet, it is much clearer in modern times that the relation-
ships between media and the people are subject to a range of influences.
Not least is the role of those who own and sponsor media outlets, from
newspaper proprietors to state outlets and social media entrepreneurs and
the algorithms they employ. The potential for cosiness, collaboration and
conflicting interests raises questions such as, ‘Whose news is this?’
Decisions about which stories to cover and how to cover them are
constant in a fast-paced / media culture with dedicated channels
providing rolling news stories and instant commentary. Competition for
‘space’ is pushed to a premium as complex decisions are reached by
unelected individuals about which issues to cover ‘in the public interest’.
Naturally, journalists work as hard as any occupation to keep audiences
Psychology of Democracy
informed and relationships with editors are likely to play a key part, but
the premium of accuracy remains a cause for vigilance and, sometimes,
concern. Not dissociated from this, the labelling of fake news and ‘alter-
native facts’ (as described by a US presidential aide) does not signify the
birth of the underlying concept of misleading information. There have
always been temptations to use propaganda at many levels in politics,
whether considered ‘spin’ to promote positive perceptions or flagrantly
misleading messages to stir more extreme emotions. However, the ubiquity
of social media serves to emphasise the impact and impetus of information,
as it means anyone can become a news source.
At one time considered a democratising force for the expression of
opinion, concerns that the Internet is subject to forces of manipulation have
been fuelled by the behaviour of some social media organisations, where user
profiling of personalised information for political ends has itself brought
reputations into question (e.g. use of citizens’ data during the US
presidential election). This offers a worrying insight into the potential for
exploitation of information, however, the targeted marketing of social media
users is commonplace and also widely seen as an extension to political
campaigning processes (Dommett and Temple, ). Aside from this,
there is widespread disquiet over the potential influence via cyber-espionage
of ‘unfriendly’ governments during democratic electoral campaigns.
As consumers of news, how conscious are we of the processes underlying
its production and selection for our consumption, or indeed how com-
fortable are we with its commodification? Do we worry that what we learn
from any medium is ‘true’ or does a level of scepticism or acceptance guide
us? Perhaps more importantly for the processes of democracy, how much
does the news we feel more comfortable believing actually influence our
own political behaviours and, specifically, determine how we vote? We
play more than a passive role in using the news, by processing information
in ways shaped by psychological as well as political preferences and we
would not easily wish to see ourselves ‘tricked’. Arguably, news
organisations can take a share in the responsibility for political outcomes,
yet, in a democracy, government-sponsored attempts to address potential
wrong-doing by the media are rare and, as the UK’s Leveson inquiry
showed in , also require careful handling for fear of undermining
the freedom of the media and this cornerstone of democracy itself.
The Structure of This Book
There is no doubt that ours is a future with challenges – yet, challenges are
also the history of our species. Naturally, we need to consider how best to
proceed and certainty is not always plentiful. Systems of government can
underpin successful survival on a large scale, however, the search for
answers is by its very nature an optimistic goal and the endeavours of
those who have been kind enough to contribute to this book demonstrate
a wonderful commitment to sharing understanding. Their generosity
comes at an important juncture and stands to provide a great service to
us all. Faced with our ongoing personal decisions about democracy,
whether to engage, stand back or walk away, this book aims to shed light
on the hidden political psychological processes and to interrogate a range
of issues that characterise democracy and how (well) it works. We hope
you will share this enthusiasm!
Psychology of Democracy: Of the People, By the People, For the People is
divided into three sections in recognition of three levels of political and
psychological experience suggested by theoretical and practical consider-
ations. Established ecological frameworks for contemplating influences
upon the lives of individuals (Bronfenbrenner, ) have been refined
with reference to democracies and clearly indicate the need to understand
political experience at a range of levels. Indeed, the structure of this book
reflects these levels of consideration proposed by Moghaddam () and
explores the psychological conditions and motivations for what he
describes as first-, second- and third-order change at the macro-, meso-
and micro-levels of our existence. Beginning with the last of these, the
book seeks to apply this structured approach to relevant psychological and
political factors, using the nomenclature suggested by Abraham Lincoln’s
oft-quoted Gettysburg address. Organising the content in this way – as
outlined below – permits the opportunity to consider political micro-level
characteristics of politicians as representatives ‘of the people’, actions
within political meso-level systems enacted ‘by the people’ and the role
of wider macro-level influences of religion, education and media, which set
the context ‘for the people’.
Of the People
‘Of the people’ focuses on the psychological characteristics ‘of ’ individuals
who serve as politicians and, at the micro-level of individual, cognitive and
social functioning, this section considers politicians from each of these
perspectives on the human condition.
In seeking to share an empirically-driven knowledge base, this portion
of the book examines the roles and influence of a range of psychological
factors – in studies with politicians – that shape and impact on all of our
Psychology of Democracy
abilities to function. Through focusing on the influence of major
personality traits on politicians in their career development, Jo Silvester
and Madeleine Wyatt highlight the importance of the role of attributes
ascribed to them and, in particular, implications for the emergence of
leaders and how personality shapes their success in office, as well as
indications for future directions in research. In considering the aspect
of personality characterised by basic values, James Weinberg investigates
the role of psychological predispositions in the political attitudes held by
politicians, examining how far those who run as candidates and become
politicians differ in their values from the wider public and how important
the public consider these values to be. Turning the focus to what is more
clearly visible of politicians at work, Peter Bull and Maurice Waddle
review research in which the UK showpiece parliamentary confrontations
known as ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ are analysed for their adversarial
nature, use of equivocation in dealing with questions and the impact of
this often-lively political interchange on public perceptions of Parliament
and politics.
In order to aid our understanding of how politicians think, Peter
Suedfeld explores ‘cognitive interactionism’ in which individual capacities
to process information, make decisions, adopt perspectives and perceive
the social world can vary depending on the political contexts in which
these occur; taking into account viewpoints across the political spectrum,
positions of relative power as well as the influence of stress. Given the
importance of decision-making in politics, Barbara Vis and Sjoerd Stolwijk
use data drawn from experiments with politicians and members of the
public in the Netherlands to ask whether and how they differ and consider
the roles of cognitive shortcuts and political experience in the judgements
at which they arrive. In an arena where politicians are less often considered,
Ashley Weinberg reflects on the significance and prevalence of politicians’
experiences of psychological ill health, drawing on international studies
assessing symptoms and reviewing the potentially damaging impact of
sources of pressure on MPs and the functioning of political workplaces.
By the People
If there is a key to answering the big challenges for survival then arguably it
lies in the capacity to harness the combined abilities of our species to do so.
Government ‘by’ systems that comprise people tends to underpin the
success of such efforts and, traditionally, democracy has garnered a repu-
tation as a more inclusive – although far from perfect – approach than
alternatives (Flinders, ). Nevertheless, the fortunes of democracy are
mixed, as research and events have borne out. Despite the increased
proportion of the world’s nations adopting democratic systems of govern-
ment over the last thirty years, levels of public distrust with these political
processes are high (van Prooijen and van Lange, ). Efforts to meet
global challenges for survival depend on systems of government and the
people within them, whether as citizens, elected politicians or employees of
political institutions, yet our understanding of the psychological factors
that underpin the functioning of democracy is relatively limited (Conover,
Searing and Crewe, ). This section of the book considers how
democracy operates at the level of institutions and processes charged with
maintaining the political system. Tracing the chronology of political
involvement that brings voters and politicians into the same arena, ‘By
the people’ examines social and political experiences and behaviours in the
democratic process at the meso-level.
This section seeks insights into the psychology of democracy as its
biggest stakeholders – the voters and the politicians – contemplate one
another around the globe. Beginning with the development of the rela-
tionship between would-be voters and political institutions and processes,
this section opens with Daniel Miranda, Juan Carlos Castillo, Catalina
Miranda and José Conejeros considering whether civic knowledge affects
trust in political institutions among school-age students surveyed in Latin
America, where positive attitudes towards aspects of authoritarianism
suggest concerning trends in advance of reaching voting age. Seeking to
capitalise on what appeals to the electorate, perhaps it is not surprising to
learn of the assertive styles of communication observed in use by would-be
leaders – including the subsequent prime minister – on the campaign trail
in India, as the detailed analysis by Rukmini Bhaya Nair reveals politicians’
extensive use of linguistic and gestural devices in seeking to influence
voters in the world’s largest democracy. Yet, how do political tactics such
as negative campaigning and false information impact on potential voters
in the context of the United States of America? David Redlawsk, Kyle
Mattes and Karol Solis Menco simulated a presidential primary election to
test the impact of online campaigns and fact-checking – they confirm that
negative campaigns grab attention, but, in this study, it was not attention
of the desired kind and lying politicians were indeed punished at the
virtual ballot box.
This begs the important question, what really happens to us when we
vote? Drawing on surveys conducted in the United States of America,
South Africa, the UK, France, Germany and Georgia, Sarah Harrison
Psychology of Democracy
argues for electoral psychology as representing a major shift from focusing
on what political institutions require to what matters to citizens. This
necessitates a new understanding of positive and negative emotions as
experienced before, during and after voting, as well as of the roles of
identity and collective assumptions about other voters in exercising these.
Once in office, what can leaders do to safeguard their political futures? The
background of selected policy areas of immigration and climate change set
the scene for frequent changes in leader in Australia, where attempts to
rebuild trust through a triad of integrity, competence and responsiveness
are analysed by Joakim Eidenfalk and Stuart Woodcock in case studies of
three prime ministers. This brings the section to its natural conclusion:
leaving office. The psychological impact of the end of political careers is
examined by Jane Roberts, drawing on her in-depth interviews that probe
the experience of loss and potential dislocation in UK MPs and council
leaders, whether deciding to go or forced by circumstances. Yet, she asks, is
democracy too easily discarding the skills of its servants, as well as the need
to treat politicians with more compassion and inadvertently obliging
political survivors to tighten their grip?
For the People
This section of the book considers social-psychological factors operating
‘for’ all of us, shaping the macro-level contexts within which we live and
the degree to which these significantly underpin the relative success or
failure of democratic systems.
While humankind faces enormous threats to its existence, clearly there is
no democratic mandate for an ongoing age of species extinctions. However,
it is widely held that – ultimately – these cataclysmic possibilities are the
cumulative result of everyday behaviours of citizens, organisations and
nations. This attests to the associated behavioural challenge faced in our
daily lives – when the problems are owned by us alone, it can be difficult
enough to address, but, when these are global in their impact, it is far harder
to envision how we might make the difference and swim against the tide.
Democracy faces a similar challenge. ‘How does my vote make any differ-
ence?’ is a common question posed at elections. At this level, self-worth and
possessing a sense of agency play important roles in our perceptions –
perhaps far more so than has been acknowledged. So, what are the factors
that shape the psychological backdrop to our political experience?
Understandably, our focus tends to be drawn to issues that define our
daily concerns – whether preoccupations with ongoing conflicts or trade,
or personal access to health, social care and education. Yet, the psycholog-
ical processes that shape our beliefs and feelings about such weighty
matters are often hidden from view. ‘For the people’ assesses wider societal
influences on our psychological experiences of politics and democracy
in particular.
Beginning with an examination of the links between personality and the
moral underpinnings of democracy, Gian Vittorio Caprara highlights the
significance of both individual and collective moral responsibility upon
citizens living in a democracy and how our relative successes in this
endeavour are rooted in relevant values and self-knowledge. Benjamin
Bowman, Thalia Magioglou and Helen Haste trace the fortunes of civic
engagement in school-age students, drawing on qualitative data from the
UK and Greece, recognising the real and potential challenges facing young
people and their aspirations in times of dramatic change. The wider
societal context is further examined in the four remaining chapters of this
section, with consideration of religion and media, as well as prevailing
political contexts – both national and group-based – which are not widely
considered democratic.
Gizem Arikan and Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom draw on worldwide survey
data to focus on the relationship between religious identity and support for
democracy, which appears to be influenced, not only by belonging to a
religious minority, but by how the minority community is treated by the
state, with clear implications for the strength of their religious identity.
Media provide another important lens through which we experience
politics and major technological advances have reshaped how and where
we access political news and information. Sharon Coen and Karl Turgut
Maloney Yorganci consider how political knowledge is manifest, as well as
ways in which it is developed through interaction with the Internet and
traditional news media, proposing a self-regulated learning model that
shapes what we view as political knowledge, how it makes us feel and
what it means for how we see ourselves.
China, with the world’s largest national population, is not generally
viewed as a democracy outside of the country. However, democracy is
widely considered within China and Yida Zhai uses a social-psychological
framework to analyse the impact of economic modernisation and political
culture on popular perceptions of democracy and the potential for
democratisation. The creation and operation of cultural norms and what
implications these have for political reasoning are examined by Roderick
Dubrow-Marshall in unpicking radicalised conceptions of democracy, as
envisioned by extremist groupings, whether political or not.
Psychology of Democracy
What This Book Does
In seeking to further our understanding of the links between psychology
and politics, this is the first book written by scientists from many disci-
plines about the functioning of democracy and the influences upon our
experiences of it, based on research findings from around the world.
Contributors also include participants of the Psychology of Democracy
conferences that began as biannual events at the University of Salford in
– these inspired the book and curiously predated the political
phenomena that saw the UK retreat from the European Union and the
election of a populist president in the United States of America.
This volume expands its focus to feature new research findings from
researchers on the influences of relevant public and political behaviour in
North and South America, Asia, Africa and Australia, as well as Europe. In
recognition of the many different perspectives and influences involved in
the wide-ranging concept of democracy, it is important to consider its
worldwide context. As such, Psychology of Democracy is unique in providing
an empirically informed psychological analysis of our capability to address
global political turmoil and change.
The book brings together academics from multi-disciplinary specialities
including psychology, political science, communication, sociology, linguis-
tics, education and psychiatry to consider human aspects of democratic
government and citizenship. Using empirical data gathered through
research using a range of methodological paradigms at international,
national and regional levels, these academics aim to address the key
questions of how well democracy works and how well it can work, taking
into account the psychology of political organisations, political processes,
societal influences such as education, religion, culture, media and new
technology and the people involved, including politicians, voters and non-
voters in democratic and non-democratic contexts.
The Psychology of Politicians (Weinberg, ), published by Cambridge
University Press, was the first research-based book to examine the hidden
processes that influence how politicians behave, showcasing insights from
European researchers into their functioning. Psychology of Democracy casts
the research net globally, shedding new light on how social, cultural and
other psychological processes impact on the democratic experiences of
those who govern and are governed, as well as examining the factors that
shape behaviour in a range of political arenas. As the significance of the
motivations and behaviours that characterise systems of government
gathers pace, it is becoming more evident that, while the public remains
sceptical of politics, a failure to understand how it operates can impact on
us all and on the effective functioning of democracy, whether actualised
or not.
Jacob Bronowski helped to summarise this dilemma in The Ascent of
Man ():
If we are anything, we must be a democracy of the intellect. We must not
perish by the distance between people and government, between people
and power, by which Babylon and Egypt and Rome failed. And that
distance can only be conflated, can only be closed, if knowledge sits in
the homes and heads of people with no ambition to control others, and not
up in the isolated seats of power (p. ).
Similarly, Rajni Kothari, during his last interview, given in , echoed these
sentiments: ‘I also suggest that intellectuals must intervene in the political
process by linking critical ideas to political ideas. If we close the possibility of
criticism, the gap between ideas and processes will increase.’ Recognising the
role and threat of inequality in our experiences of government, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg () went further: ‘I think the notion that we have all the
democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is
supposed to be.’ Taken in the round, the words of such eminent thinkers
serve to emphasise the role to be played by the citizenry, including politicians,
media and academics, in raising awareness and promoting good practice in
government of the people, by the people, for the people.
R E F E R EN C E S
Lord Acton. Lord Acton to Archbishop Mandell Creighton, April .
Accessed at: https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/lord-acton-writes-to-bishop-
creighton-that-the-same-moral-standards-should-be-applied-to-all-men-polit
ical-and-religious-leaders-included-especially-since-power-tends-to-corrupt-
and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-.
Bader Ginsburg, R. (). Interview. The New Republic, September.
Bagehot, W. (). The English constitution, nd Edition. London: Little, Brown
and Company.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronowski, J. (). The ascent of man. London: British Broadcasting
Corporation.
Byock, J. (). The Icelandic Althing: Dawn of parliamentary democracy. In J.
M. Fladmark (Ed.), Heritage and identity: Shaping the nations of the north (pp
–). The Heyerdahl Institute and Robert Gordon University. Donhead
St. Mary, Shaftesbury: Donhead. Available at: www.viking.ucla.edu/publica
tions/articles/icelandic_allthing.pdf
Psychology of Democracy
Clarke, N., Jennings, W., Moss, J. and Stoker, G. (). The rise of anti-politics
in Britain. Southampton: University of Southampton.
Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D. and Crewe, I. M. (). The deliberative
potential of political discussion. British Journal of Political Science, (),
–.
Dommett, K. and Temple, L. (). Digital campaigning: The rise of Facebook
and satellite campaigns. Parliamentary Affairs, (), –. doi:./
pa/gsx
Flinders, M. (). The problem with democracy. Parliamentary Affairs, ,
–.
Foa, R. S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. and Collins, R. (). The global
satisfaction with democracy report . Cambridge, UK: Centre for the
Future of Democracy.
Gervais, B. T. (). Rousing the partisan combatant: Elite incivility, anger and
anti-deliberative attitudes. Political Psychology, , –.
Hansard Society (). Audit of political engagement: The report.
Available at: www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/reports/audit-of-politi
cal-engagement-
Hett, C. H. (). The death of democracy: Hitler’s rise to power. London:
William Heinemann.
Hobfoll, S. E. (). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptual-
izing stress. American Psychologist, (), –.
Huddy, L., Mason, L. and Aare, L. (). Expressive partisanship: Campaign
involvement, political emotion and partisan identity. American Political
Science Review, (), –.
International Organization for Migration (United Nations) (). World migra-
tion report . Accessed at: www.un.org/sites/un.un.org/files/wmr_
.pdf
Jefferson, T. (). Jefferson’s preference for ‘newspapers without government’
over ‘government without newspapers’. Available at: https://oll.libertyfund
.org/quotes/
Kothari, R. (). Interview with Rajni Kothari, Founder-Director, Centre for
the Study of Developing Societies by Hilal Ahmed, Priyadarshini Vijaisri
and Abhay Kumar Dubey, CSDS, Delhi. Available at: www.india-seminar
.com///_interview_kothari.htm
Lührmann, A. and Lindberg, S. I. (). A third wave of autocratization is here:
What is new about it? Democratization, (), –. doi:./
..
Mill. J. S. (/). On liberty (Reprinted). Middlesex: Penguin.
Moghaddam, F. (). The road to actualized democracy: A psychological expla-
nation. Niels Bohr Lecture in Cultural Psychology, Aalborg University.
Available at: www.ccp.aau.dk/digitalAssets//_niels-bohr-lecture-
road-to-actualized-democracy.pdf
(). The psychology of democracy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association Books.
National Archives (n.d.) Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. www.nationalarchives
.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/docs/rights_man.htm
Accessed April .
Nussbaum, M. (). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Stoker, G. and Evans, M. (Eds.) (). Evidence-based policy making in the social
sciences: Methods that matter. Bristol: Policy Press.
The Economist (). The death of democracy and birth of an unknown beast;
interview with David Runciman, September. Available at: www.economist
.com/open-future////the-death-of-democracy-and-birth-of-an-unknown-
beast
The Sunday Times (). The Sunday Times rich list. May.
van Prooijen, J. W. and van Lange, P. A. M. (). Power, politics and paranoia.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weinberg, A. (Ed.) (). The psychology of politicians. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Of the People
Personality, Politics and Strong Democracy
A Review of Research and Future Directions
Jo Silvester and Madeleine Wyatt
Introduction
US presidential elections in recent years have been dominated by media
discussion of candidates’ personal qualities, such as ‘conciliatory’ or ‘sleepy’
Joe Biden and ‘bold’ versus ‘messiah complex’ Trump. Supporters and
opponents alike appear equally keen to identify, celebrate and vilify the
personalities of candidates, as well as of those who achieve office. Likewise,
candidates and their supporters expend significant effort (and resources) in
attempts to influence and shape how members of the public perceive their
personality as well as that of their opponents – and, with growing use of
social media, they have more opportunity than ever to do so.
The United States of America is certainly not alone: interest in the
personalities of political elites is a global phenomenon – and one that shows
little sign of diminishing. Researchers have argued that politics has become
increasingly personalised across many Western democracies (Caprara and
Zimbardo, ; Garzia, ), with candidate characteristics such as
personality, integrity and appearance becoming more important for voters,
and a more dominant focus in the overall evaluation of candidates and
political elites (Caprara et al., ; Nai, Martínez and Maier, ;
Wattenberg, ). Although personalisation applies to many prominent
leaders in business, sport and the public sector, the personalities of political
leaders appear to have a special hold over our imagination, and an important
impact on our engagement with democratic process. Unsurprisingly, per-
haps, such deep-rooted interest has also generated a wealth of research in
political science and psychology (c.f. Caprara and Silvester, ). One
popular question is whether strong democracy can be developed by identi-
fying and nurturing individuals with the characteristics needed to become
good political leaders capable of delivering responsible government.
Our aims in this chapter are to introduce and provide an overview of
existing research on personality and political leadership, identify gaps and
consider areas for future studies investigating relationships between per-
sonality characteristics of political leaders and the development of strong
democracy. We begin by examining what is meant by personality, how it
has been conceptualised by researchers and why it is considered important
for political leadership. Next, we draw on existing studies from political
science and psychology to examine evidence that personality contributes to
political leadership, and the theories and methods used to generate this
evidence. Building synergies with the broader leadership literature, we divide
our focus into two areas. First, we consider leadership emergence in politics,
by examining research that explores whether personality characteristics
influence an individual’s attraction to politics, their desire – or motivation –
to become a politician, how politicians’ characteristics are perceived during
elections and their success in political campaigns. In short, we ask, ‘Do
personality characteristics contribute to the likelihood that an individual will
be elected to political office?’ Second, we consider leadership effectiveness
(i.e. the success of an elected member in political office) by examining
evidence that personality characteristics influence how politicians behave
in office, including their decision-making and their likelihood of gaining
more senior positions within their political party or legislature. Finally, we
consider future directions for research and practice in this area, including the
development of new methods for examining personality in political elites, as
well as likely challenges, including research that accommodates the need for
political leaders to balance authenticity with efforts to present in different
ways to appeal to and persuade diverse groups of voters.
Personality and Politics
Although there are many different ways of studying and thinking about
personality, psychological approaches to its understanding and examina-
tion are broadly concerned both with what makes us different and what
makes us similar to others. Personality can be conceptualised as the
characteristic sets of behaviours, cognitions and emotional patterns that
evolve from biological and environmental factors (Corr and Matthews,
). Caprara and Cervone () describe personality as the patterns of
behavioural habits and qualities expressed through physical and mental
activities that characterise individuals as purposive agents and distinguish
them from others with whom they interact.
Studies of personality and political leadership have been similarly
diverse. These have explored many different individual characteristics, such
as personality traits, motives, cognitive style, values and biological traits
Personality, Politics and Strong Democracy
(e.g. facial appearance), of different populations (e.g. political candidates,
elected members in local, national and international legislatures, and leaders
of political parties, presidents, prime ministers) and in the context of
multiple political outcomes (campaign performance, voter perceptions, suc-
cessful legislation, contribution to debates, avoidance of war). We begin with
a brief introduction of the aspects of personality studied in political elites.
Trait theories are among the oldest and most researched aspects of
personality. Defined as ‘dimensions of individual differences in tendencies
to show consistent patterns of thought, feelings, and actions’ (McCrae and
Costa, , p. ), personality traits are relatively stable, enduring dispo-
sitions that influence how individuals experience, interact and, potentially,
change their environment. It is assumed that, within a population, people
vary in the extent to which they possess particular traits. Psychologists also
differentiate between single- and multi-trait theories of personality. Single
traits relevant to political research include Machiavellianism, a personality
disposition reflecting an individual’s willingness to control or manipulate
others (Christie and Geis, ); Authoritarianism, an individual difference
originally identified by Adorno et al. () associated with predisposition
to conform and obey authority (Duckitt, ); and Narcissism (Raskin and
Hall, ), where those scoring high tend to lack consideration for others,
and engage in bragging and exaggeration of personal accomplishments
(Hart, Adams and Burton, ).
Since the s, personality researchers have sought to identify the small
number of core personality traits that can explain personality across popula-
tions and cultures. A substantial body of evidence now exists to support a
five-factor model (FFM) of personality (McCrae, ) that comprises
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness
and Neuroticism. According to Costa and McCrae (), extraverts tend
to be more outgoing, sociable, persuasive and energetic than introverts;
conscientious individuals tend to be achievement-oriented, reliable and
likely to persevere in the face of setbacks; openness to experience relates to
individuals’ need for variety, novelty and change; agreeableness refers to an
individual’s level of compliance, altruism and trust; neuroticism (also
referred to as emotional stability) is typically associated with being more
anxious and less able to deal effectively with conflict and criticism.
Researchers (e.g. Mondak, ) have theorised the importance of the
FFM for understanding political leadership.
All of these traits are normally distributed, with people varying along a
continuum on each, and have been found to predict a diverse range of
outcomes, including leadership emergence and effectiveness in non-political
work contexts (e.g. Judge et al., ). Paradoxically, in some instances, the
same trait may predict different political leadership outcomes (Wyatt and
Silvester, ).
Other individual characteristics included within a broader psychological
conception of personality, and considered important for leadership, include
intelligence or cognitive ability and cognitive style (Judge, Colbert and Ilies,
); motivation and ambition; empathy and charisma. All have been
explored in relation to political leadership. However, psychologists also
differentiate between biological traits (e.g. facial appearance, height), psy-
chological traits (e.g. personality, intelligence), or ‘basic tendencies’, and also
characteristic adaptations, which are considered the consequences of traits,
such as needs, values and motives (McCrae and Sutin, ). Values are
relevant for political leadership because values refer to what an individual
considers important and will therefore drive their actions, determine how
they judge others and justify their choices (Caprara et al., ). Needs,
motives and values are features of personality that relate to the nature of
goals set by individuals and how these goals are pursued.
Leader Emergence
In leadership research more widely, psychologists differentiate between
‘leader emergence’ and ‘leader effectiveness’ – emergence focuses on the
factors that differentially impact on whether an individual is likely either to
be identified as someone with the qualities needed to be appointed as a
leader (e.g. leader selection) or to become a future leader (e.g. supported as a
prospective parliamentary candidate). Similarly, in business, leader emer-
gence may occur when an employee is identified as having the potential to
move to a more senior role with managerial responsibilities or when an
individual from outside the company is recruited into a leadership role. In
both cases, the individual is perceived to possess the ‘right’ qualities by one
or more with the power to promote or appoint them to a leadership role.
However, in politics, leader emergence is more complicated because it
requires that an individual gains support and therefore legitimacy through
the democratic process of an election. In this section, we examine the
relevance of personality for political leadership emergence in four areas:
(i) How does personality influence the likelihood that an individual
will stand for election and become a political leader?
(ii) How does personality impact on what sort of political leader an
individual wants to become (i.e. what they stand for)?
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
„Misschien wel, schipper! We wachten op het schip „Hollandia” waar
Kolonel van Dorth, de Bevelhebber van de landingstroepen, aan
boord is.”
„Dan kan men wachten tot het zog het schip vooruit loopt. Als de
„Hollandia” niet naar de haaien is, dan ben ik wel een harpuislepel.
Dat schip had al lang hier moeten zijn, want het is nog afgevaren
vóór het onze.”
„Ik begin ook te gelooven dat de „Hollandia” naar den
kabeljauwskelder is,” sprak Blokmaker, „doch ik denk, dat we hier nu
niet zoo heel lang meer zullen liggen, want de Vice-Admiraal heeft
me gelast, straks een paar booten uit te zetten en op het eiland
visch, bokkingen, oranje-appelen en citroenen te gaan halen.”
„En waar gaat het dan op af?” vroeg Steven.
„Vraag het aan den bezaans-gaffel, die weet het misschien,”
antwoordde Blokmaker.
Pas was dit door Blokmaker gezegd, of het bevel van den Admiraal
werd door Piet Heyn aan boord van het dichtst bij liggend schip
„Neptunus” gebracht, om de ankers te lichten en onderzeil te gaan,
daar men op Kolonel van Dorth niet langer kon wachten. Het
Admiraalsschip moest maar gevolgd worden.
Half ontevreden, dat men nu nog niet wist waarheen de tocht was,
ging men onderzeil en stevende Zuid-zuid-west. Toen men op zes
graden Zuiderbreedte gekomen was, seinde de Admiraal alle
Bevelhebbers bij zich aan boord en toen dezen er waren, opende hij
zijn’ lastbrief.
Een paar uren later wist ieder, die op de vloot was, dat de
lastbrieven van den Admiraal het bevel inhielden, om San-Salvador
in Brazilië te gaan veroveren. Dit land behoorde vroeger aan
Portugal, doch was, na de inlijving van dit land bij Spanje, natuurlijk
eene Spaansche bezitting geworden, hoewel bijna nog alles
particulier eigendom van Portugeezen was, zoodat land, stad, forten
en baai ook bijna uitsluitend geheel door Portugeezen verdedigd
werden. Ook wist men, dat de Admiraal, in plaats van Kolonel van
Dorth, die denkelijk met zijn schip vergaan was, tot Bevelhebber der
landingstroepen aangesteld had: Majoor Allert Schouten, een oud
gediende uit het leger van Zijne Excellentie Prins Maurits. Aan moed
en dapperheid ontbrak het hem niet, doch hij was honderdmaal
beter om een gegeven bevel uit te voeren dan er een te geven, dat
zou later blijken. Of de Admiraal dat niet wist, is niet bekend, doch
als hij wist, kon hij toch moeielijk een ander benoemen, want van al
de Officieren van de landingstroepen, was hij de hoogst geplaatste,
en op zijn gedrag viel niet het minste aan te merken, terwijl iedere
soldaat van hem wist te vertellen, dat hij vechten kon, als een
leeuw.
Vol vroolijken moed werd de tocht nu voortgezet. Schepen aanvallen
en na plundering in brand steken, muren beschieten en bestormen,
roem, eer en buit behalen, wat kon iemand, die ten oorlog voer,
meer verlangen? Men was, dat wist ieder, voor zoo iets
aangemonsterd!
Den achtsten Mei kreeg men de Allerheiligen-baai in het gezicht en
werden andermaal de Bevelhebbers geroepen om op de „Zeelandia”
het plan van aanval te bespreken, opdat alles met orde en regel
geschieden zou, wat zeer noodig was, daar een deel van het gevecht
op het land en een ander deel op het water zou gehouden worden,
en de een op den ander zou kunnen rekenen. Er werd besloten den
vijand eerst van de zeezijde aan te vallen, en dan, te midden van het
gevecht, het landingsleger te ontschepen.
San-Salvador was voor eene verdediging zeer gunstig gelegen, doch
het fort San-Antonio, dat de haven of den ingang der baai moest
beschermen, lag veel te hoog om schepen, die reeds in de baai
waren, te beschieten. Hoewel er van het fort vreeselijk gevuurd
werd, leden de onzen geen schade, want de kogels vlogen boven de
toppen der masten heen.
De Portugeezen van de stad konden evenwel meer kwaad doen, en
de oorlogsvloot, die in de baai lag, liet de Hollanders ook maar niet
ongestoord naderen. De ontvangst toonde, dat de Portugeezen, al
waren ze ook aan Spanje onderworpen, hun’ ouden heldenmoed nog
niet verloren hadden. Uit deze kleine mededeeling blijkt voldoende,
dat de Portugeezen geheel handelden als de Oost- en West-Indische
Compagnie bij ons deden. Evenmin als onze oorlogsschepen in
dienst van de Republiek waren, behoorde de oorlogsvloot der
vijanden tot het Spaansche Rijk. Zij was geheel en al eene
oorlogsvloot van verbonden Portugeesche kooplieden.
Die krachtige verdediging verbaasde niet een der onzen. Ze hadden
volstrekt niet verwacht, dat ze zonder slag of stoot zulk eene
belangrijke en sterke havenstad zouden innemen en ze hadden op
een’ kloeken tegenstand gerekend. Dat de kogels van San-Antonio
geen doel troffen, was een meevallertje, maar uit de stad van het
strand, en vooral van het fort San-Marcello do Mar, dat midden in de
baai op eene rots van arduinsteen opgebouwd was, scheen men
goed te willen maken, wat San-Antonio te kort kwam.
„Dat gaat er dan zeker eens op zijn ouderwetsch op los, Admiraal,”
sprak Marten tot Piet Heyn, in wien de zeerob nog maar altijd niet
een’ man kon zien, die in rang zoo ver boven hem stond.
„Ja, Marten, maar het gaat mij te langzaam! Blokmaker, ziet ge ginds
die vijftien vijandelijke schepen liggen?”
„Jawel, Admiraal!”
„Best, die zullen we met behulp van „de Neptunus,” „de Groningen”
en „de Nassau” voor onze rekening nemen!”
„Maar het fort, dat er achter ligt, zie ik ook, Admiraal,” zeide Marten
eenigszins schroomvallig.
„Het fort zie ik niet van al de schepen, Marten! Dat zullen we zien,
als we de schepen op de vlucht gejaagd, of vernield hebben,”
antwoordde Piet Heyn.
„Gansbloed, wat een kerel,” riep Marten, thans werkelijk den afstand
tusschen schipper en Vice-Admiraal geheel vergetende. „Gij zijt er
een uit de duizend, Piet! Mijn zuidwester zal in eene zeilkooi
veranderen, als we dat varkentje niet gewasschen krijgen. Een
zwabberpaai ben ik, als ik bakzeil inhaal.”
„Komaan, Steven, een Wilhelmusje, oude jongen,” zeide Blokmaker.
„De Portugees moet hooren met welk slag van volk hij te doen
heeft.”
De onzen waren ook kerels. (Bladz. 172).
Vroolijk klonken de tonen van Steven’s trompet langs het water,
doch weldra werden ze geheel en al verdoofd door het gedonder der
kanonnen. Tot zeven uren hield men het gevecht vol, toen Piet
Heyn, nadat „de Groningen” buiten staat geraakt was, den strijd
voort te zetten, eensklaps drie sloepen, elk met twintig matrozen
bemand, op den vijand afzond. Het is bijna ongeloofelijk, dat de
Portugeezen zich hierdoor zoo bevreesd lieten maken, dat ze haast
niet wisten, wat te doen. Maar de onzen waren ook kerels. Ze
klommen aan boord van het grootste schip, doch vonden dit reeds
verlaten en in brand gestoken. Drie andere schepen vatt’en mede
vuur en thans werd de vlucht algemeen. Piet Heyn meende, dat
men, van den schrik onder de vijanden gebruik makende, ook
meteen het lastige arduinsteenen fort wel bemachtigen kon. Hij liet
aan den Admiraal verlof vragen om dit te mogen doen, en deze was
met dit voorstel zeer ingenomen. De wakkere Vice-Admiraal talmde
niet lang. Hij liet veertien booten uitzetten. In elke boot namen
twintig mannen plaats, terwijl hijzelf wel zorgde, er één van te zijn.
Met den trompetter Steven bevond hij zich in de voorste boot. De
onderneming was gewaagd genoeg, en zelfs Marten, die in de
tweede boot was, noemde het een „gevaarlijk karweitje”, want men
was te weten gekomen, dat de bezetting uit zeshonderd man
bestond.
Maar de brutale regeert de halve wereld, en hoe men ook van het
fort schoot, weldra lag Piet Heyn met zijne boot tegen den muur, en
Marten volgde met de andere bijna op hetzelfde oogenblik.
„Houd-je goed, schipper,” riep Steven, die in de eene hand een
zwaard hield, en de andere gebruikte om de trompet vast te houden.
„Houd-je goed, man! Volg mijn voorbeeld maar, dan kan-je jezelven
overtuigen of iemand, die eene schorre trompet blaast, ook bang
uitgevallen is.”
„Akelige toetermajoor, belast den hond en blaf zelf,” antwoordde
Marten geraakt. Toch stond hij op, maar niet, omdat Steven hem dit
beval, doch om zelf naar boven te klauteren. Hij sloeg zijn’
bootshaak in den muur en....
„Ben-je nou heelemaal van Lotje getikt, kerel?” schreeuwde
eensklaps Marten tot Steven, die tegen hem opklom om zoo op de
borstwering te komen. Steven stoorde er zich evenwel niet aan,
maar was al boven, en eer Marten zich wat verplaatsen kon, stond
Piet Heyn al op zijne schouders en sprong ook op het bolwerk.
Steven was de eerste van allen, die in de sterkte was, en, alsof zijne
trompet moest scheuren, zoo blies hij het krachtige en geliefde
„Wilhelmus”.
„Ha, Steven, ben-je daar, jongen?” riep Piet Heyn, die de tweede
was. „Dat is een goed begin! Valt aan! Valt aan! Slaat dood! Geen
genade! Hoezee!”
De Portugeezen stonden verbluft en gingen op de vlucht. Weldra
waren al de booten aangekomen en het fort was genomen. De
laatste, die op de borstwering stapte, was Marten. Hij ging
regelrecht naar Steven toe, die nog maar uit al zijne macht stond te
blazen, en hem bij de schouders schuddende, schreeuwde hij: „Zeg
ereis, droge gruttenteller, jij moet me nog eens voor ladder
gebruiken, als je het hart hebt. Dan zal ik je met je magere
spillebeenen en je bolle wangen, als een gerezen papbeschuit, zoo
mooi koppetje onder doen duikelen, als je ooit gezien hebt,
waterhoen, die je bent! Wat heb-je mijn tuig onklaar te maken,
als....”
Daar vloog hem de wollen muts van het hoofd en kreeg hij een’
musketkogel door de pijp van zijne wijde broek.
„Dat heb-je voor je razen, oude scholker,” zei Steven lachende, daar
hij onder het schudden van Marten onmogelijk had kunnen blazen.
De kogels, die Marten bijna het hachje hadden doen inschieten,
kwamen van den vijand, die het veroverde fort eenige kogels
toezond, doch het dan stil liet liggen, om later alweer te gaan vuren.
Er kwam een oogenblik van rust, wat ieder welkom was, want men
had zich in het zweet gevochten. Piet Heyn wuifde zich met den
zakdoek koelte toe, en riep: „Mannen, op het fort gedurende den
nacht overblijven, zullen wij niet, want de schepen zijn te zwak
bemand en zouden gevaar loopen, zoo niet genomen, dan toch in
brand gestoken te worden. Beter het fort verlaten en dat mogelijk
weer prijs gegeven dan de schepen kwijt. Maar, eer wij de stukken
vernagelen en alles vernielen, een paar kanonskogels tot afscheid
aan het volk daar aan het strand. Het kan ons nog te veel kwaad
brouwen. Hebben wij die luî daar op den loop gejaagd en hier alles
onbruikbaar gemaakt, dan keeren wij naar boord terug. Komtaan,
over een half uur moet San-Marcello do Mar niemendal meer zijn, en
ieder onzer het scheepsdek onder de voeten hebben. Na gedaan
werk is het goed rusten.”
Aan dit bevel werd ten spoedigste voldaan, want die Portugeezen
daar op het strand, konden met hun schieten het den Hollanders al
te lastig maken, en af en toe zag men een der onzen door een’
welgemikten musket-kogel doodelijk gewond of getroffen neervallen.
„Vuur!” commandeerde Piet Heyn toen zijne mannen een paar
kanonnen naar het strand gericht hadden.
De Portugeezen hielden eenigen tijd wakker stand, doch namen
eindelijk, toen het aantal hunner dooden te groot werd, de vlucht.
Nu werden de vijandelijke kanonnen vernageld en de dapperen
keerden naar hunne schepen terug.
Toen ze weer op de „Gelderland” waren, klopte Piet Heyn zijn’
schipper op den schouder en zeide: „Zie-je wel, Marten, eerst
konden we het fort zelfs van buiten niet zien, en nu hebben we het
van binnen bekeken. Hoe bevalt je dat?”
„Best, Admiraal, best! Maar als we weer eens zulk een kattebelletje
te verrekenen hebben, mag ik lijden, dat u en het volk een’ bril
opzet om een fatsoenlijk schipper niet aan te zien voor eene ladder,
weet u! Alles behalve pleizierig zulk eene vracht op den nek!”
„Nu, nu, je bent er toch ook nog aan den slag geweest, dat heb ik
best gezien. En kwam-je, tegen je wil, ook wat laat om van leer te
trekken, troost-je dan met de gedachte, dat je een’ volgenden keer
de eerste zult wezen,” zeide Piet Heyn, ondeugend lachende, waarna
hij zijne kajuit binnenging en den schipper alleen liet brommen.
„Zeg, Marten,” riep eensklaps Blokmaker, „zeg, waar is Steven toch?
Ik zie hem nergens!”
„Steven? Wel, aan boord, waar anders?”
„Neen, niet aan boord. We missen hem.”
„Wat? Is hij er niet? Weet gij het zeker?”
„Zoo zeker, als ik weet, dat tweemaal twee vier is.”
„Dan is hij nog op het fort. Ik ga hem halen. Wie gaat er mede?”
riep Marten.
Aanstonds verklaarden zich tien wakkere gasten daartoe bereid.
Zonder tegenstand te ontmoeten beklom men, toen de duisternis
reeds ingevallen was, de gehavende muren, en begon men onder de
gesneuvelde Portugeezen naar Steven te zoeken.
„Wacht,” zei Marten, „hier heb ik gestaan toen ik, even vóór we het
fort verlieten, met hem praatte. Komt eens hier met eene lantaarn!”
Men kwam en zocht, doch tevergeefs.
Eindelijk ontdekte men een veertig schreden verder eenige
beweging. Men ging er heen en....
„Ben-je daar, Marten?” vroeg iemand met zwakke stem.
Marten herkende de stem van Steven en zeide: „Maar, Steven, hoe
lig-je daar zoo? Kom, sta op! Hier is je hangmat toch niet,
kameraad!”
„Laat me maar liggen, Marten! Ik zal het zoolang—niet meer—
maken.”
„Wat blief-je?”
„Ik—was de eerste—op—het fort;—ik wilde—de laatste—zijn.—Jelui
—waart al—in de—b-boot,—er stonden nog—een—veertig van de
„Groningen”—toen—een k—kogel;—ik weet—niet—wat er—met—me
gebeurd is.—De—borst—doet me—pijn.—Zal-je moeder—goe—den
dag—zeg—zeggen en—en—Piet Hey—Heyn,—den—den—Admi—
Admiraal!—W—wel—te—r—rus....”
„O, God! Steven, wat doe-je? Ben-je dood? Steven, zeg, jongen!
Zeg, dat het niet waar is! Steven, hei, hei, word wakker! Een
„Wilhelmusje”, toe dan, kerel,” riep Marten bijna krankzinnig van
schrik en smart.
Men naderde van de stad.
„Mee, schipper, mee! De vijand schijnt te komen. Haast u, gauw
wat,” riepen de matrozen.
„Niet zonder hem. Hij zal op de „Gelderland” wel tot zijn verhaal
komen,” antwoordde Marten en nam den trompetter op. De anderen
hielpen hem, en juist bijtijds was men in de boot en in het duister
van den nacht verdwenen, toen de Portugeezen aankwamen. Eenige
musketschoten werden door hen op goed geluk gelost, doch
kwetsten niemand.
Ook Piet Heyn had vernomen, dat Steven niet teruggekeerd was en
stond nu, nieuwsgierig naar den afloop der zaak, over de
verschansing in zee te kijken.
„Wel, mannen, hebt gij het verdwaalde schaap gevonden?” riep hij
den terugkeerenden toe, toen hij hen gewaar werd.
„Jawel, Admiraal, gevonden wel, maar dood,” antwoordde een der
matrozen.
„Neen, hij kan niet dood zijn,” liet Marten zich hooren. „Hij heeft zich
overblazen; hij zal wel bijkomen. Hier, helpt hem voorzichtig naar
boven! Maar voorzichtig, hoor-je! Zijne borst doet hem pijn, heeft hij
me gezegd.”
Steven werd op het dek neergelegd en de scheepsbarbier
verklaarde, nadat hij hem den pols gevoeld en overal betast had:
„Dood!”
Op dat woord barstte Marten in een hevig geween los. Hij viel op
Steven’s lijk en zijne eigenaardige zeemans-uitdrukkingen niet
kunnende veranderen, riep bij op bijna gillenden toon: „Steven,
Steven, jongen, vergeef me, dat ik je uitgescholden heb. Wakkere
maat, moest jij alleen nu door zoo’n blauwe boon het licht
uitgeblazen worden? En dat nog al zonder van mij gehoord te
hebben, dat je woord gehouden en getoond hebt, zooals je bij Sint-
Vincent zei, dat je, als het er opaan kwam, zoudt laten zien, dat je
de gort waard was? Arme maat! Arme maat!”
De matrozen namen Marten, die, na de hevige opwinding, stom van
smart geworden was, van het lijk af.
„Blokmaker,” zeide Piet Heyn, „waar is Steven’s trompet gebleven?”
„Ze ligt naast hem, Admiraal!”
„Bind ze hem op de borst eer de zeilmaker zijn werk doet,” sprak
Piet Heyn. „De arme jongen en zijne trompet waren onafscheidelijk
één. Ze moeten één blijven, ook daar in de diepte.”
Getroffen door zulk een fijn gevoel bond Blokmaker de trompet op
dat plekje van de borst, waar Steven pijn gevoeld had. Toen kwam
de zeilmaker met een lap schoon zeildoek, wikkelde Steven’s lijk er
in, en de timmerman bond dat aan eene plank, die aan het
voeteinde met kogels bezwaard was, vast.
Toen dat alles gedaan was, trad Piet Heyn nader. Eerbiedig deed hij
het gebed.
Na het „Amen!” klonk het bootsmansfluitje en een paar matrozen
schoven de plank met haar’ treurigen last half over boord.
„Een-twee-drie! In Godsnaam!” zeide Piet Heyn.
Weer klonk het bootsmans-fluitje en de plank met haar’ last
verdween in de diepte.
Uit een afgelegen hoekje keek Marten toe, en met dikke tranen op
de wangen snikte hij: „Goed gevoeld van Piet, goed gevoeld! Geen
ander mocht op die trompet meer blazen. Ze waren één die twee:
Trompetter en Trompet!”
ZESTIENDE HOOFDSTUK.
Een schipper heeft ook oogen.
De beweging der landingstroepen dreigde aanvankelijk niet gunstig
te zullen slagen, want toen de Admiraal het sein gegeven had, dat
de troepen aan wal zouden gaan om het fort San-Antonio in te
nemen, toonden de soldaten daartoe niet veel lust te hebben. Het
fort scheen sterk en op zulk een fort was geen buit, maar wel een
pak slaag te bekomen, en het eerste wilden ze graag in ontvangst
nemen, maar voor het tweede waren ze niet thuis. Toch wist Majoor
Schouten de landing te volbrengen, en—pas waren de soldaten aan
den wal, of de bezetting van het fort sloeg op de vlucht naar de
stad, achtervolgd door de onzen, die nu niet bang meer waren.
Inmiddels werd de Majoor ook door de invallende duisternis
gedwongen de vervolging te staken. Hij liet derhalve zijne
manschappen blijven, waar ze waren en zeide hun, dat ze met het
krieken van den dag verder zouden gaan, en trachten de stad zelve
te veroveren.
Doch wat gebeurde?
De inwoners van San-Salvador zich van twee zijden bedreigd ziende,
maakten van den donkeren nacht gebruik om de stad te verlaten en
in de bosschen, die daar in den omtrek gevonden werden, zich te
verschuilen. De Roomsche Geestelijkheid, die al te veel gehoord had
van de dolzinnige Watergeuzen, die het leven van geen enkelen
Roomschen Geestelijke, als ze hem in handen kregen, spaarden en
de vreeselijkste martelingen voor hem bedachten, hield de
Nederlanders, die hier kwamen voor geen ander volk dan
Watergeuzen, en hoewel men in dien tijd niet meer zoo wreed te
werk ging, kon de Geestelijkheid van deze ruwe mannen toch geen
vriendelijke behandeling verwachten. Daarom, vreezende dat deze
mannen de stad veroveren zouden, gaf zij het sein tot deze vlucht,
en weldra was San-Salvador bijna geheel verlaten. Alleen de
Bevelhebber, een man met onverschrokken moed, en Dom Diego
Furtado de Mendoça geheeten, trachtte die schandelijke vlucht te
beletten, en toen dit hem niet gelukte, besloot hij met zijn gezin en
eenige getrouwen te blijven. Hij verkoos eene eervolle
gevangenschap boven eene lafhartige vlucht.
Zoodra de dag aangebroken was, begaven de landingstroepen zich
verder opweg. Die weg zou zeker niet gemakkelijk te vinden zijn
geweest, zoo er niet twee mannen geweest waren, die hier al meer
hadden vertoefd, en de boschrijke omstreken der stad dus
eenigszins kenden. Deze twee mannen waren Dirk Pietersz. Colver
en Dirk De Ruyter.
San-Salvador, het tegenwoordige Bahia, bestond toen alleen uit de
Bovenstad en lag in eene verrukkelijk schoone landstreek, bijna
tusschen het geboomte verscholen, zoodat men haar wel uit de baai,
doch niet van het strand zien kon. De tegenwoordige Benedenstad,
het volkrijkste en drukste gedeelte van Bahia, bestond toen alleen
uit eenige gebouwen en gebouwtjes, die bij eene aanlegplaats
noodig zijn, doch bij de komst van onze vloot waren ze verlaten. Zoo
kwam het, dat het landings-legertje gidsen noodig had om bij de
eigenlijke stad te komen. Majoor Schouten liet zijn oog naar alle
richtingen gaan om niet onverhoeds aangegrepen te worden, wat
stellig in het nadeel der onzen zou afgeloopen zijn, want het volk
gedroeg zich zeer wanordelijk en de Bevelhebber scheen de kunst
niet te verstaan, zijn gezag te laten gehoorzamen. Niemand evenwel
belette hun het voorttrekken, en eindelijk kwamen ze voor de
poorten der stad, welke ze geopend vonden.
„Gemakkelijker kan het niet,” zeide Hopman Helmont. „Wij hebben
de stad zoo maar in te trekken. Die Portugeezen zijn me ook helden,
ja! Geen wonder, dat Koning Filips II zijn leger, onder Alva, niet veel
meer dan moest laten zien om het heele land voor Spanje te
veroveren!”
„We zullen evenwel wijs doen, als we handelen, alsof de poorten
gesloten waren. Wie geeft ons de verzekering, dat het geen list is,”
sprak de Majoor. Hij liet daarop terstond een paar veldstukken
voorbrengen, en reeds stond men gereed los te branden, toen zich
een Portugees met een wit vaandel in de hand op den wal
vertoonde.
Deze verzocht den Hollandschen Bevelhebber te spreken, en toen de
Majoor verscheen, zeide de Portugees, dat de stad in den
afgeloopen nacht door het krijgsvolk en de burgers verlaten was.
„Wie zendt u?” vroeg Schouten.
„Mijn Meester, Dom Diego Furtado de Mendoça.”
„En wie is deze?”
„De Bevelhebber, Senor!”
„Is deze dan nog in de stad?”
„Mijn Meester is geen lafaard, Senor! Hij, zijn gezin en eenige
dapperen zijn gebleven.”
Thans gaf Schouten bevel, met de noodige voorzichtigheid binnen
de poorten te gaan, en zoodra men in de stad was, zag men, dat de
Portugees waarheid gesproken had. Nauwelijks was men, zonder
ergens tegenstand ontmoet te hebben, op de markt gekomen, of de
soldaten sloegen tot plundering over en hier was het, dat Majoor
Schouten toonde, dat hij geen goed Bevelhebber was, want, hoewel
zelf niet mee plunderende, liet hij het ruwe volk toch rustig zijn’
gang gaan. Het huis van den Bevelhebber lag het eerst aan de
beurt. Eenigen der belhamels trapten de deur open en kwamen
binnenstormen onder het geschreeuw van: „Slaat dood! Slaat
dood!”—Men liep eene zaal in en .... daar stond men tegenover Dom
Diego, die met waardige houding de plunderaars en roovers
afwachtte.
Wat was het, dat het woeste volk opeens tot staan dwong? Wie was
de toovenaar, die den arm, met de bijl om te dooden, onmachtig
deed nederdalen? Welke machtige geest deed eensklaps die
roofzuchtige tijgers in makke lammeren verkeeren?
„Spaart mijn zoon!” (Bladz. 182).
Die toovenaar was niemand anders dan Dom Diego. Hij was een
kloek en gezet man met hoog voorhoofd en kort gesneden haar.
Zijne donkere oogen staarden kalm, waardig en onverschrokken de
plunderaars aan. Zijne geheele gestalte was vorstelijk, en rustig
sprak hij tot de woeste rabauwen: „Komt gijlieden om mij te
dooden? Spaart dan mijn’ zoon! Hij is nog te jong om uw’ vijand te
zijn!”
Die houding en die taal maakten een’ diepen indruk op de woeste
mannen, en toen Allert Schouten binnentrad, weken ze zelfs
eerbiedig terzijde.
„Is u de Bevelhebber der stad?” vroeg Schouten beleefd.
„Die ben ik,” luidde het korte antwoord.
„Goed,” sprak Schouten, en zich tot zijn volk keerende, zeide hij:
„Schaamt gij u niet om u als roovers te gedragen? Met uw leven
blijft gij borg voor de veiligheid van dezen man. Hij is een held.”—
Hierop wendde hij zich weer tot Dom Diego en zeide: „Senor, men
zal uw leven eerbiedigen, en al wat ge hier om en bij u hebt, zal
veilig zijn. Straks kom ik terug. Ik moet de verdere plundering
trachten te beletten.”
Na dit gezegd te hebben, verwijderde hij zich; maar de plundering
tegen te gaan, dat was boven zijne macht. Met de meest mogelijke
ruwheid brak men alle woningen, pakhuizen en kantoren open, zocht
er het beste uit en liet het overige in de schromelijkste wanorde
liggen.
Toen de Majoor zag, dat de soldaten niet tegen te houden waren,
stuurde hij Hopman Knijf naar den Admiraal om dezen te zeggen,
dat men in de stad was, en dat hij geen kans zag, zijn volk in
bedwang te houden en de plundering tegen te gaan. Zoodra
Willekens deze tijding vernomen had, zond hij Piet Heyn met eenige
gewapende sloepen naar de stad om de woeste soldaten tot hun’
plicht te brengen, want de rijkdommen der stad dienden, als buit,
aan de Compagnie terhand gesteld te worden.
Piet Heyn zelf was er met Blokmaker en Marten spoedig, en weldra
zag hij, dat hij hier een’ moeielijken post had. Zoo de soldaten niet
dadelijk naar hem luisterden, zou hij genoodzaakt zijn om, als hun
vijand, tegen hen op te treden, en dat zou, voor het behoud van het
veroverde, zeer gevaarlijk zijn.
Blokmaker en Marten waren al vooruit geloopen naar een’ hoop
plunderaars.
„Wil-je met je lange vingers wel eens handig van dat goed blijven?”
riep Marten.
„Voor jou zeker?” antwoordde een ruw en breed geschouderd
soldaat, die blijkens zijn’ tongval, uit het Kleefsche kwam.
„Neen, voor onzen Vice-Admiraal Piet Heyn!”
„Voor Piet Heyn? Ha, ha! Krijgt die anders zijn aandeel niet in den
buit? Is hij bang, dat hij te kort komen zal? Al was hij de Koning van
Frankrijk, een’ soldaat de plundering te beletten, dat krijgt hij toch
niet gedaan!”
„Dan zal ik je mores leeren,” riep Marten, en op den reusachtigen
soldaat toeloopend, gaf hij hem zulk een’ vuistslag in het gelaat, dat
de reus suizebollend neerviel. Dat hielp voor een oogenblik, want het
bracht schrik, en eer deze over was, verscheen Piet Heyn aan het
hoofd van zijne gewapende matrozen, en het kostte hem nu niet zoo
heel veel moeite de plunderaars tot staan te brengen.
„Admiraal, een woordje, alsjeblieft,” sprak nu een ander soldaat. „Ik
wou u wat vragen.”
„Wat hebt gij te zeggen?” vroeg Piet Heyn.
„Is dan alles, wat wij hier vinden, niet de buit van de Heeren der
West-Indische Compagnie? Moeten wij nu voor hen stelen en rustig
toezien, dat zij den roof verdeelen zonder, dat wij er iets van
krijgen?”
„Ja, soldaat, dat moet gij toezien! Dat moet ik ook toezien. De
Compagnie heeft u gevraagd, of ge voor eene vastgestelde soldij in
de maand voor haar vechten wilt. Dat heeft ze mij ook gevraagd, en
wij beiden hebben het aangenomen. Was er geen stad te veroveren
of geen buit te behalen geweest, dan zouden we toch onze soldij
ontvangen. Zijn voor de Compagnie de mogelijke nadeelen, dan zijn
voor haar ook de mogelijke baten.”
„Admiraal, gij hebt gelijk! Wij zullen het plunderen staken, al zegt
men ook tot spreekwoord: de kat komt een graatje toe,” luidde het
kalme antwoord en men plunderde niet meer.
Terwijl dit in de stad voorviel, was, tot verbazing van de geheele
vloot, het schip „Hollandia” aangekomen. We weten, dat Kolonel van
Dorth hier aan boord was. Hij was bij de uitreis, door storm, voorbij
het eiland Sint-Vincent naar Sierra-Leona, meer dan honderd mijlen
van Kaap Verd geslagen, en was, na lang naar de vloot gezocht te
hebben, maar op goed geluk naar de Allerheiligen-baai gekomen,
waar hij het plan, de inneming van San-Salvador, volvoerd vond.
Toch was zijne komst niet overbodig; want al was het Piet Heyn nu
ook al gelukt de oproerige plunderaars te bedwingen, er heerschte
onder de troepen zulk een geest van weerspannigheid, dat er wel
eene krachtige hand noodig was om hen tot rede, plicht en
gehoorzaamheid te dwingen.
Dat de soldaten zoo heel anders waren dan de matrozen, valt niet te
verwonderen. Slechts een zeer klein deel der troepen bestond uit
Nederlanders. De anderen waren allen huur-soldaten, mannen uit
alle landen van Europa, die soldaat-zijn hun ambacht noemden en
hem dienden, die het meest betaalde.
Kolonel van Dorth, die zeer goed begreep, dat het behoud der stad
geheel afhangen zou van de soldaten, daar dezen bleven, ook als de
vloot vertrok, trachtte op kalme en bezadigde wijze de orde te
herstellen, wat hem ook gelukte, tot groote verwondering van
Majoor Schouten, die dit tevergeefs beproefd had.
Onderwijl dit geschiedde brachten de matrozen den rijken buit aan
boord. De Compagnie zou tevreden zijn; want het gevondene was
meer dan voldoende om het onderhoud der vloot te bestrijden,
terwijl ze nu bovendien nog in het bezit was van de hoofdplaats van
Brazilië, en daardoor in de gelegenheid een’ meer dan voordeeligen
handel op deze gewesten te drijven. En terwijl men zoo bezig was,
alles op orde te brengen, kwamen er van tijd tot tijd nog eenige
Portugeesche schepen binnen, welke van de verovering niets wisten,
en deze schepen, hoewel niet rijk geladen, want men moest de
lading te San-Salvador innemen, vielen zonder slag of stoot in onze
handen.
Maar te midden van al deze bedrijven sneuvelde Kolonel van Dorth
bij gelegenheid, dat hij een’ verkenningstocht om de stad deed. Het
land verloor in hem een uitstekend Aanvoerder en de nieuwe West-
Indische bezetting een onmisbaar man. Wel werd hij opgevolgd door
den moedigen, maar veel minder geschikten Majoor Allert Schouten,
die echter kort daarna ziek werd en overleed. Nu was Allert’s
broeder Willem de Bevelhebber, doch deze, hoe dapper ook, was
voor die taak nog veel minder berekend dan zijn broeder. Het gevolg
hiervan was dan ook, dat San-Salvador reeds een jaar later door de
Spanjaarden, onder Don Frederik de Toledo, heroverd was. Dit
geschiedde alleen door de lafhartigheid van den toenmaligen
Bevelhebber Knijf, die den afgezetten Willem Schouten was
opgevolgd.
Doch keeren we tot onzen Piet Heyn terug.
Admiraal Jacob Willekens was reeds den acht-en-twintigsten Juli
vertrokken, Piet Heyn achterlatende om nog eenige zaken te
beredderen. Deze was hiermede den vijfden Augustus klaar en stond
juist gereed, de ankers te lichten en de baai te verlaten, toen Marten
op hem afkwam.
„Wel, wat hadt ge, goede vriend?” vroeg Piet Heyn.
„Ja, Admiraal, ge zult me vervelend noemen; maar ik heb wat op het
hart.”
„En dat is?”
„Wel, toen Jan Pietersz. Koen Jacatra veroverd had, stichtte hij op de
puinhoopen eene nieuwe stad en liet die Batavia noemen.”
„Dat weet ik; maar wat zou dat?”
„En hoe heet de plaats, die wij hier voor de West-Indische
Compagnie veroverd hebben?”
„Wel man, suft ge, of hoe heb ik het met u? Ze heet San-Salvador,
dat weet ge toch?”
„Juist, en hoe heette ze vóór de inneming?”
„San Salvador, hoe anders?”
„Juist, Admiraal, Portugeesch of Spaansch was ze, toen we haar
namen; Portugeesch of Spaansch blijft ze, als ze zoo blijft heeten.
Geef haar een’ anderen naam! Noem haar Delftshaven, dat is een
echt Hollandsche naam.”
„Dat is het; maar wat dan?”
„Doe dan, alsof ge hier thuis waart, Admiraal, en blijf hier; want ik
voorzie er in, dat die mooie heeren aan den wal de stad zoo netjes
weer in handen van den Spanjaard zullen spelen, als ge ooit gezien
hebt.”
„Dat geloof ik ook, Marten! Edoch, ik kreeg het bevel terug te
keeren, en een Vice-Admiraal moet aan zijne minderen steeds een
voorbeeld van gehoorzaamheid geven!”
„Admiraal, als de Heeren Bewindhebbers hier waren....”
„Ze zijn hier niet, goede vriend! Ze zijn ver van ons!”
„Dat weet ik, Admiraal, maar a l s ze hier waren en ze zagen, wat wij
van die bende landroovers zien, dan zouden ze zeker zeggen:
„Admiraal, blijf met uwe schepen voor San-Salvador! Gij zijt er hard
noodig!”
„Ge meent het goed, Marten! Ik voorzie ook niet veel goeds; maar ik
weet zeker, dat de Compagnie weer terstond eene nieuwe vloot in
zee zenden zal. Wie weet of we, eer het jaar om is, weer niet hier
zijn.”
„Om toch te laat te komen, Admiraal,” antwoordde Marten knorrig en
ging aan zijne bezigheden.
Een uur later was het smaldeel, bestaande uit drie schepen en een
jacht, onderzeil.
Piet Heyn kreeg onderweg geen tegenbevel om terug te keeren,
zooals hij gehoopt had, en tegen November was hij weer te
Rotterdam, om eene poos bij vrouw en Ouders van de doorgestane
gevaren en vermoeienissen uit te rusten. Hij was nog niet lang
binnen, of hij hoorde, dat de voormalige Bevelhebber van San-
Salvador te Rotterdam in de herberg Sint-Lucas gevangen gehouden
werd. Piet Heyn had, als man van moed, eerbied voor Dom Diego en
daarom besloot hij op zekeren morgen hem eens te gaan opzoeken.
Zoodra Piet Heyn zijn’ naam had laten noemen, werd hij
oogenblikkelijk toegelaten.
De Vice-Admiraal werd door den armen gevangene hartelijk
ontvangen. Ook hij had eerbied voor een’ man, als Piet Heyn, van
wiens heldenmoed hij getuige geweest was.
„Wees welkom in mijne residentie, Heer Admiraal,” sprak hij, met
treurigen glimlach. „Mag ik u mijn gevolg voorstellen? Dom
Columbo,—Dom Barthelomeo en Domna Lucretia.”
Piet Heyn lachte. De drie voorgestelden waren drie honden, die Dom
Diego in zijne gevangenschap tot het maken van allerlei kunstjes
afgericht had.
Weldra kwam het gesprek op San-Salvador, en toen Piet Heyn veel
verteld had van het groote belang, dat de Compagnie er bij had, dat
deze stad ingenomen werd, viel Dom Diego hem in de rede met te
zeggen: „Zeker, daar had de Compagnie groot belang bij. Dat heb ik
dadelijk begrepen. Maar ze heeft een belang, dat nog veel grooter is
dan het nemen van de stad, het land, de forten en de baai!”
Piet Heyn keek verbaasd op en vroeg, of hij ook mocht weten welk
belang dan nog grooter was.
„Welzeker, Senor, welzeker! Dat grootere belang van de Compagnie
is: te behouden, wat ze heeft laten nemen!”
„Nu, dat zal ze wel ook.”
„Ja, op hare manier; maar dat is de rechte niet.”
„Welke is dan toch wel hare manier, Senor? Ik begrijp u niet. En hoe
kunt gij hare manier kennen? Ze heeft u toch van hare plannen niet
onderricht?”
„Zij bemoeit zich niet met een’ wegkwijnenden, gevangen vijand, en
toch doorgrond ik hare plannen volkomen. Haar eenig doel, haar
opstaan, haar zitten, haar naar bed gaan, haar eten, drinken,
slapen, ja, haar droomen is: goede zaken maken, geld verdienen.
Geld, geld, allemaal geld! Eerst de beurzen tot overloopens toe
gevuld, en dan eenige pogingen aangewend om met het geld, dat
uit de beurzen rolt, de stad te verdedigen. De Compagnie houdt
San-Salvador niet. Plunderaars zijn slechte oorlogsvoerders. Ge
vraagt hoe ik dit weet? Door ondervinding, Senor, door
ondervinding! Te veel voorspoed maakt zorgeloos. Het rijke Spanje is
hiervan het bewijs. Eens zal er een tijd komen, dat dit groote
gebied, nu nog het rijkste land der wereld, een’ gelapten
schoudermantel bedelen zal om zijne, door den honger vermagerde,
leden te bedekken.”
„Dat geloof ik ook, Senor!”
„Dat doet me genoegen; maar geloof dat ook van uwe West-
Indische Compagnie! Ik zal den val van Spanje en de vrijwording van
Portugal, dat mijn Vaderland is, niet beleven en den ondergang van
uwe Compagnie niet zien. De koude lucht in dit vochtige klimaat
doet mij nu al voelen, dat ik weldra aan waterzucht sterven zal. Maar
gij zijt nog jong, ten minste, betrekkelijk jong. Gij zijt ook krachtig,
een zoon van dit land en tegen zijn klimaat bestand. Gij zult het
misschien nog beleven. En als ge dan den ondergang van Spanje of
van uwe West-Indische Compagnie ziet, herinner u dan dat Dom
Diego Furtado de Mendoça Kruisheer, en door Koning Filips
genade,”—hij grimlachte bij deze woorden—„Grande van Spanje, en
eenmaal Bevelhebber van San-Salvador, thans een arm berooid
gevangene, die zijn’ tijd tusschen zijn’ zoon en zijne hondjes
verdeelt, dit eenmaal gezegd heeft. Laten wij thans over andere
onderwerpen spreken.”
Toen Piet Heyn een paar uren later de deur van de herberg Sint-
Lukas dichtsloot, en hij zich door het gewoel van de toenmaals reeds
drukke Hoogstraat heen gewerkt had, kwam hij voorbij de West-
Indische pakhuizen, waaruit men bezig was de kisten suiker te
dragen, welke bij San-Salvador buitgemaakt waren.
„Schipper en Kruisheer profeteeren hetzelfde,” bromde hij, „doch dat
de Compagnie karig is om geld uit te geven om te trachten te
behouden, wat ze heeft, dat is niet waar.”
„Nu nog eens de Spaansche Zilvervloot, Admiraal!” zeide iemand,
hem op de schouders tikkende.
Piet Heyn zag om en herkende den oudsten van de Bewindhebbers
der Compagnie, die bij hem gekomen was om hem de betrekking
van Vice-Admiraal op de West-Indische vloot aan te bieden.
„Ja, maar deze zal niet zoo gemakkelijk te nemen zijn, als San-
Salvador met de Allerheiligen-baai er bij, Mijnheer!”
„Gemakkelijk, gemakkelijk, daar vragen wij niet naar. Maar zulk eene
vloot zou beter zijn dan eene stad, als San-Salvador. Dat is zoo klaar
als de dag.”
„Mag ik u vragen waarom, Mijnheer? Eene vaste bezitting geeft niet
alles opeens, maar is op den duur toch voordeeliger.”
„Papperlepap, men kan wel hooren, dat gij geen aandeelhouder zijt.
Ge vergeet het onderhoud en de verdediging eener vaste bezitting.
Eene Zilvervloot wordt genomen en daarmee uit. Alles is winst. Maar
tusschen twee haakjes, weet gij wel, dat San-Salvador ernstig
bedreigd wordt?”
„Ja, onlangs gehoord, Mijnheer!”
„Men vreest, dat ze daarginds zich te spoedig zullen overgeven, en
daarom heeft men het jacht de „Haese” er heen gezonden om te
zeggen, dat er spoedig hulp zal komen. Ja, ja, San-Salvador heeft
hier veel buit doen binnenkomen; maar het zal een bijleggertje
worden. Let op mijne woorden. Goeden morgen!”
De Bewindhebber ging aan zijne bezigheden en Piet Heyn vervolgde
zijn’ weg, thans geheel overtuigd, dat de profetie van schipper en
Kruisheer, van vriend en vijand, binnen korten tijd reeds vervuld zou
worden.
In het begin van Juli kwam de tijding: „San-Salvador heeft zich op
eerlijke voorwaarden overgegeven aan Don Frederik de Toledo.”
„Wat heb ik u gezegd, Admiraal?” vroeg Marten onzen Piet een paar
dagen later.
„Je hebt goed gezien, schipper! Heel goed!”
„Och, ja, Admiraal, een eenvoudig mensch heeft oogen om te zien,
en een schipper heeft ook oogen, weet u!” luidde Martens antwoord
en hij voegde er nog bij: „Binnen kort zullen we weer wel voor een
ander karweitje geroepen worden. Tot ziens, Admiraal!”
ZEVENTIENDE HOOFDSTUK.
Een pleistertje op de wonde.
„Nu, Moeder Heyn, nu kom ik je misschien wat nieuws vertellen,”
sprak op een’ Aprilmorgen in 1626 eene buurvrouw, die bij Moeder
Heyn in huis trad.
„Zoo, buurvrouw? Als het maar goed nieuws is!”
„Goed nieuws? Of het! Weet-je het al van je zoon Piet?”
„Wat? Ik zie hem tegenwoordig zoo weinig.”
„Wel, de Heeren Bewindhebbers der West-Indische Compagnie
hebben hem tot Admiraal benoemd. Is dat geen goed nieuws? Wat
belief-je?”
„Wat zal ik zeggen, buurvrouw? Toen ik nog een twintig jaar jonger
was, heb ik dikwijls gehoopt, dat hij het in den zeedienst ver
brengen zou. Ik heb mijn’ wensch verkregen, want Piet bracht het
ver; hij werd Vice-Admiraal. Maar nu ik zooveel ouder geworden
ben, begeer ik niets hoogers meer voor hem. Ik wilde wel, dat hij nu
maar bij honk bleef. Hij heeft genoeg oververdiend om rustig te
kunnen leven, en moest nu tevreden zijn. Hij heeft toch geen
kinderen. Voor wie heeft hij anders te zorgen dan voor Annetje en
mij? En dat doet hij goed. De Heere zegene hem!”
Juist op dat oogenblik kwam Piet binnen en vertelde met van
blijdschap stralende oogen aan zijne Moeder, dat hij tot Admiraal
benoemd was.
„Een mensch zijn zin, een mensch zijn leven, jongen! Gij moet
weten, of ge er blij mee zijn moet, ja ofte neen. Ik zag u liever aan
den wal blijven. Na den dood van uw’ Vader, aan wien ik toch altijd
nog eenig gezelschap had, gevoel ik mij zoo verlaten, als ge zoo ver
zijt.”
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com
You might also like
- Factors Affecting The Intensity of Market Participation of Smallholder Sheep Producers in Northern Ethiopia Poisson Regression ApproachNo ratings yetFactors Affecting The Intensity of Market Participation of Smallholder Sheep Producers in Northern Ethiopia Poisson Regression Approach12 pages
- Encouraging Employee Performance With Occupational Safety and Occupational HealthNo ratings yetEncouraging Employee Performance With Occupational Safety and Occupational Health6 pages
- Psychometric Methods Theory Into Practice 1st Edition Larry R. Price Instant DownloadNo ratings yetPsychometric Methods Theory Into Practice 1st Edition Larry R. Price Instant Download87 pages
- Marketing-Orientated Pricing - Understanding and Applying Factors That Discriminate Between Successful High and Low Price StrategiesNo ratings yetMarketing-Orientated Pricing - Understanding and Applying Factors That Discriminate Between Successful High and Low Price Strategies24 pages
- Designof Experiments Conceptand Applicationsof Plackett Burman DesignNo ratings yetDesignof Experiments Conceptand Applicationsof Plackett Burman Design25 pages
- JNTUH MBA Course Structure and Syllabus 2013No ratings yetJNTUH MBA Course Structure and Syllabus 201380 pages
- Regression Modeling Strategies Frank E Harrell JR FullNo ratings yetRegression Modeling Strategies Frank E Harrell JR Full79 pages
- Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences 10th Edition Edition Gravetter - Ebook PDF All Chapters Instant Download100% (5)Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences 10th Edition Edition Gravetter - Ebook PDF All Chapters Instant Download49 pages
- Pengaruh Kualitas Produk Dan Harga Terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Mobil Daihatsu Grand Max Pick UpNo ratings yetPengaruh Kualitas Produk Dan Harga Terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Mobil Daihatsu Grand Max Pick Up11 pages
- Good Artificial Intelligence With PythonNo ratings yetGood Artificial Intelligence With Python65 pages
