Study of the key characteristics of politicians

In a new study of politicians' personalities, humor, charm and raw courage are among the most important character traits for successful leaders.

Bill Jones, Honorary Professor of Political Studies at Liverpool Hope University, combed through biographies and interviews with key political figures to understand the type of people who enter politics, and the strengths and weaknesses of those who hold positions of power.

Jones explains: “Why do aspiring politicians embark on such a perilous journey, involving extremely long working hours, a lack of real job security and, sometimes, a high degree of self-deprecation, just for a chance of reaching the first rung on the ladder? What kind of person, then, wants to become a professional politician?”

The lure of politics

In “Just like us”? The policy of ministerial promotion in the British governmentJones argues that choosing a career in politics is not like choosing any other profession.

He explains: “Politics is essentially about gaining and retaining power to change the way other people live their lives. Some would say – and herein lies the danger given the vagaries of human nature – that it is also about acquiring power for its own sake.”

Jones describes politicians as “strange and peculiar people,” many of whom “seem to have an almost narcissistic interest in themselves.” But he also explains that most of the politicians he has studied do not enter politics “because they are venal, selfish, or ruthlessly selfish,” but rather because they “sincerely believe they can 'make a difference' and have an idealistic sense of service to the local or national community.”

“Success in politics therefore seems to be a mixture of ambition, narcissism, genuine idealism, with perhaps a touch of audacity and necessary cruelty,” he notes.

Characteristics of a politician

Jones studied the biographies of former prime ministers, MPs and Speakers of the House of Representatives, including Harold Wilson, Norman Tebbit, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, to analyse their common traits.

Despite their different motivations, there are certain “inherent skills” that Jones says are important for political success.

Among these qualities he cites charm, optimism, academic ability, memory and decision-making ability.

He also stresses the importance of humour, explaining: “We forgive people who make us laugh a lot and it could be argued that Boris Johnson has based his political style to a large extent on his ability to amuse voters: by amusing them he has avoided making politics as boring as the majority seem to think it is.”

He suggests that a strong constitution is an “often overlooked essential quality” for those seeking senior government positions, as it requires “an extremely robust constitution and a willingness to work long days into the night.”

“I leave the most important quality of all – the mastery of speech – until last, because without a high level of verbal skills, politics in the United Kingdom can never offer any career to its ambitious participants,” he explains. “Since 1945, all our prime ministers have possessed a selection of key skills required, but the most important one has been the ability to speak. Some ministers have been poor orators, their periods in office short.”

Jones also credits women and working-class MPs with some courage: “It must also be acknowledged that women MPs have to survive and try to thrive in a House of Commons culture that is more male-oriented than receptive to women. Finally, MPs recruited from working-class backgrounds also find the House of Commons intimidating given the high percentage of privately educated MPs on the Conservative side and the dominance of those educated at Oxbridge and other universities.”

Ultimately, Jones points out that while politicians “may be similar to us in many ways… they are very different in some important ways.”

“They often appear to be addicted to or infected with a 'political virus' that drives them to compete with other addicts for the limited places available at the top of the country's political elite,” he explains.

Limited selection

As well as looking at what kind of person can become a politician, Jones also dissects the different paths to becoming a minister – and how that can lead to a limited talent pool at the top.

With different paths to becoming a minister, the process can seem mysterious, but Jones maps out its elements: the workings of the whips' offices that inform the prime minister about which MPs are eligible for promotion; the regular reshuffles that weed out underperforming ministers, promote good ones and bring in new blood from the back benches; and the role of the media, which is the means by which MPs communicate with voters and attract the attention of the party leadership.

Because of this varied path to the top, Jones points out that British ministers are often poorly informed about the areas for which they are responsible. British ministers are not promoted on the basis of their technical expertise and on average stay in post for 18 months to two years before being moved to another post.

“It seems strange to those of us who look at the political world from the outside to discover that there is no real preparation for the job of a minister in a ministry, even though he has to manage a budget of billions of taxpayers' money and affect the daily lives of everyone,” he explains.

“In the business world, a new recruit spends years in lower-level positions gaining knowledge about the business before being promoted to a higher level of responsibility,” he continues. “In comparison, a junior minister is often thrown in at the deep end, with huge responsibilities, without any relevant knowledge or skills within an organization that employs hundreds of people and serves millions of people.”

Jones points out that any leader seeking to promote colleagues to ministerial positions faces “significantly limited” resources, explaining that depending on the size of its majority, a government might have a few hundred MPs to put in charge of Whitehall departments and fill the 20 or more Cabinet posts.

“In fact, there is good reason to say that our constitution has a serious flaw – something that reformers have perhaps tended to overlook – and that consideration should be given to removing the (quixotic British) restriction on recruitment imposed by the requirement that ministers also be members of Parliament,” he says.

“Given the widely accepted criticism that our ministerial recruitment pool is too small and lacking in specialist expertise, something radical is needed to attract those with real ability into this precarious and relatively low-paid profession.”

In the book's conclusion, Jones proposes some measures to improve ministerial quality, including removing the requirement of parliamentary qualification for ministerial office and ending party leadership elections and longer terms.

---

---