In the modern era of nation-building, the interplay between personal leadership narratives and national development trajectories has grown increasingly pronounced. Leadership plays a central role in shaping the direction and pace of national development. In many post-colonial and rapidly developing countries, political leaders frequently assert their personal centrality in achieving economic progress, national unity, and global recognition.
The declaration “I am the best leader” is not merely a rhetorical flourish – it signals a deliberate strategy to fuse personal authority with national destiny. While such approaches may deliver short-term gains, they also raise critical questions about institutional durability, accountability, and the risks of personalized rule.
Developmentalism refers to a state-led approach to economic growth, often characterized by heavy infrastructure investment, industrial policy, and centralized planning. Leaders who preside over such programs frequently equate national success with their personal vision and capacity. From South Korea’s Park Chung-hee to Rwanda’s Paul Kagame, the development miracle is often closely associated with a strong leader. These leaders position themselves as irreplaceable technocrats and visionaries, emphasizing metrics such as GDP growth, urban transformation, and poverty reduction as validations of their leadership.
In constructing the Development Miracle, the “miracle” narrative often depends on symbolic infrastructure (e.g., highways, dams, smart cities); international diplomacy and aid coordination; control of media narratives and suppression of dissent; and performance-based legitimacy over electoral legitimacy.
Leaders assert “I am the best” by juxtaposing their administration with prior regimes’ failures or external threats. They often highlight improved access to education and healthcare, rapid urbanization and modernization and expansion of national pride and identity.
Leadership cults refer to a political culture in which a leader is elevated above institutions, ideology, and accountability. Such cults are characterized by excessive glorificationof the leader in state narratives; iconography and symbolism(statues, slogans, portraits); attribution of all successto the individual leader and suppression of dissentunder the guise of national unity or developmental urgency
This phenomenon differs from charismatic leadership in general; a cult of personality implies institutional imbalance, where formal checks on power are weakened in favor of personal
Regarding the Cult of Leadership and political risks, while development gains can be tangible, the personalization of credit raises risks which includes institutional weakness in which bureaucracies are undermined when loyalty outweighs competence; suppressed pluralism in which dissent is often reframed as anti-development or anti-national; as well as succession crises in which the image of an irreplaceable leader complicates transitions. The tendency to centralize both credit and power around one individual fosters a fragile political environment, where state continuity is uncertain, and opposition lacks space to mature.
There are several cases which illustrates this assertion. President Kagame has been praised for transforming Rwanda into a fast-growing, clean, and digitally ambitious economy. However, critics warn of authoritarian tendencies, suppressed opposition, and centralized decision-making, raising questions about long-term democratic resilience.
Erdoğan’s tenure has involved massive infrastructure expansion and middle-class growth. Yet, his consolidation of power has weakened judicial independence and media freedom, prompting concern over democratic backsliding.
Ethiopia’s late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is frequently cited as a model of the “developmental state” leader during his reign of EPRDF No.1. Under his rule, Ethiopia experienced rapid infrastructure expansion and doubled its GDP. PM Meles Zenawi presented himself as both a philosopher-king and a technocrat, asserting that his leadership uniquely fused ideology with implementation.
However, the centralization of power around his person also generated concerns over repression, ethnic tension, and the marginalization of opposition voices – issues that would later contribute to political volatility.
A leadership cult, even when aligned with developmental goals, can undermine institutional checks and balances, reduce transparency in economic planning, concentrate power in informal networks as well as lead to overreliance on a single figure for national vision
In contrast, institutionalized leadership that shares credit, promotes meritocracy, and allows for contestation tends to produce more sustainable developmental outcomes.
To conclude, the quest to assert personal superiority in the realm of national development is a double-edged sword. It may yield impressive statistics and international applause, but it risks cultivating a fragile political ecosystem that depends on one leader’s continuity. True leadership in the 21st century should be measured not by how indispensable one becomes, but by how effectively one empowers institutions, decentralizes capacity, and builds an enduring democratic legacy.
