IN a letter in SN (Jan 20, 13), Freddie Kissoon contends that the charismatic Dr. Jagan was not “a transformative (sic) leader”. “Transformational Leadership” is a concept commonly used in political science and political sociology (and to some extent in psychology) to describe outstanding leaders who have helped shape or who has the capacity (appeal) to shape political movements leading to revolutions, independence, etc.

These leaders acquire legitimacy from their followers helping to reshape (transform) an entire society; Dr. Jagan was such a leader. “Transformative” is a concept more attuned for usage in theories in “Math”, “Sciences”, “Education”, etc. Kissoon is simply wrong about the use of the term and does not seem to show much knowledge of the concept. Jagan was a great transformational leader.
Transformational Leadership was made popular by American Presidential historian Prof. MacGregor Burns whose book is a must-read by political science students in graduate school.  The great German sociologist Max Weber also wrote on transformational leaders focusing on “charisma” of which our own Prof. Baytoram Ramharack commented about in literature distributed during our campaign for free and fair elections in Guyana.
Using Kissoon’s own definition — “capacity and rare talent to fundamentally reshape an entire nation which accepts the wisdom, sincerity and greatness of that person” – would qualify Dr. Jagan as a transformational leader. Every one of the criteria posited by Kissoon on what qualifies one as a transformational leader was attained by Jagan.
As MacGregor Burns noted, a transformational leader is an inspirational person who motivates people to support him or his party for a great cause such as independence in the case of Jagan. Burns described a transformational leader as energetic, enthusiastic and passionate in his beliefs, going all out to achieve it.
A transformational leader articulates a great vision of society where people would live a much better life. The leader truly cares about people and wants a better society the leader seeks to bring about positive change through his own life as an example advocating and fighting for what he believes in. He is a role model for his followers and is viewed as a person of honour, integrity, decency, etc. He earns respect and his followers believe in him and would go all out to support him and they aspire to be like him.
Psychologist Prof. Bernard M. Bass expanded on Burns’s theory pointing out that followers feel trust, admiration and loyalty for the leader and are motivated to work hard to realise the vision of the leader. For Bass, “the leader offers followers something more than just working for self gain; he provides them with an inspiring mission and vision and
gives them an identity. The leader transforms and motivates followers through his or her idealised influence (Weber’s charisma) and intellectual stimulation. In addition, this leader encourages followers to come up with new and unique ways to challenge the status.”
Dr. Jagan met all the criteria enunciated in the theories of Weber, Bass, Burns and even Kissoon. He wanted independence for Guyana and believed in the idea of a socialist, egalitarian society in which wealth would not be concentrated in the hands of a few. Thus, he was a transformational leader wanting to transform society and had huge numbers of followers, although some people chose to describe him as a “revolutionary” leader for his ideas and positions. Dr. Jagan failed in his mission to transform society because the forces were stacked against him; the PNC conspired against the implementation of his ideas.
Freddie is on record as an avowed critic of Jagan, because Jagan did not hire him and as such one expects him not to include Jagan among the great political figures in the 20th century. Kissoon’s comment that half of the nation did not vote for Jagan does not vitiate the fact that he was a transformational figure. Consider that Barack Obama presided over America where half of the population voted against him and he failed to implement his policies. The Republicans blocked him from achieving his goals and his approval rating is less than 40%, way below Jagan’s. Yet Colin Powell described him as a “transformational” leader. And while it is true that Jagan was confronted with “internecine political and industrial confrontations”, as Kissoon pointed out, one must utilise a balanced analysis in academia by not leaving out the fact that those disturbances were financed by the U.S. and Britain in collaboration with the Guyana christian churches and the PNC, according to the New York Times, London Times, Washington Post, etc. Thus, those disturbances cannot be used as evidence to negate Jagan’s achievements or leadership abilities. Where Jagan failed was in his inability to understand geo-politics and the power of “ethnicity” in multi-ethnic societies. He felt the races could live in harmony. That has not been the case some 60 years later.
Jagan and Obama are viewed as individuals who had the ability to transform their societies and who could bring people together or who could win over opponents. The fact that they failed to effectuate those “transformations” does not negate the fact that they were transformational. Obama won over Whites, Indians, Asians, Arabs, and
Hispanics and a lot of Republicans. Jagan won over Africans in 1953 as well as businessmen despite being a Marxist revolutionary. He succeeded in putting together a multi-class and multi-racial coalition to win a landslide majority in the 1953 elections. He failed in his objective of creating an egalitarian society because he was politically naïve, believing that he could successfully challenge the British-American axis in their own backyard and he paid the price.
The American-British alliance toppled him from office making it impossible to effectuate his goal of transforming the society. The British and Americans in collaboration with domestic forces exploited the racial divide making it impossible to implement his agenda. There was nothing Jagan could have done to win over the other races given Washington’s determination to destroy him.
But he truly believed in his vision of a great society where people won’t be judged by ethnicity and all would enjoy a high and an almost equal standard of living. The fact that he failed in that goal does not mean he was not “transformational.”