Hello, how are you? Today we'll be discussing about political leadership in South Korea. We Koreans are very interesting. We always, Long for advance of new leaders, powerful leaders. However, after the event of the leadership, we tend to reject leadership. There is very clear pattern of vicious cycle of leadership and followership in South Korean politics. However, political leadership offers a very valuable vantage point through which we can understand the dynamics of Korean politics. Let us first define what is meant by political leadership. Political leadership can be defined as an ability of an individual to lead and guide individuals political organizations and the nation. In order to be a competent and effective leader, the leader should satisfy several prerequisites. The leader should have higher level of physical powers. The leader should have superior mental energies and motivational forces. Leader should demonstrate competence in communication and persuasion. And leader should show the ability to project vision and manage a big picture. Finally, the leader needs a higher level of spiritual, And a quality such as the values, wisdom and spirituality. But political leadership Is not really directional as the famous German philosophy Hegel, Friedrich Hegel argues, leader cannot exist without followers. Haeel came up with analogy of a master and servant. Master cannot exist without servant, and vice versa. If a leader should have a good followers. If leader does not have a good followers, the leadership, his or her leadership cannot last long. That is why leadership is a function of a followership. When you talk about leadership, the most frequent source to which we make reference of Max Weber's ideal type of leadership. The famous German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber suggest the three different ideal types of leadership. First ideal type is a traditional leadership. Traditional leadership is characterized by patrimonial, tribal leadership. And such a kind of leadership is based on political and hierarchical control. Most of tribal leaders show their kinds of patterns. Therefore, for example, in today's Afghanistan or Iran. Okay, sometimes there's traditional leaders in the small villages. They have more influence and authority than the government representatives. There is a typical pattern or the classical pattern of traditional leadership. They are seniority matters and family tradition matters. And hierarchical and the patriarchal nature of, relationship in a society becomes very important factor. But Max Weber came up with another type of leadership. That is the charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership is based on personal competence, vision, and charm, okay. Charismatic leadership usually demonstrates unusual, extraordinary communication capability, and persuasion capability. For example, Kemal Pasha, the founder of modern Turkey, is a good example of a charismatic leader. And Abdul Gamal Nasser of Egypt, when he staged the military coup, military revolution and found this new contemporary Egypt, his leadership was charismatic. And some scholars argue that Charles De Gaulle of France also demonstrated that kind of charismatic leadership. Finally, rational leadership. Rational leadership can be found in a contemporary democratic nation. The first two leadership through personal and structural performance, ability to extract the resources and distribute those resources to society, ability to regulate society and ensure safety and effectiveness in society. And in other kinds of so-called irrational leadership can be the source of the legitimacy for leader. But in contemporary world, leader can find its legitimacy and respect from the people from his or her performance, particularly structured performance. In other words, when a leader manage national governance and effective and manner we can call the leader a rational leader. Leaders can be further differentiated depending of its style. Certain leaders show democratic leadership. Democratic leader show honest, competent, forward-looking, inspiring, fair, bold, courageous, and imaginative inner qualities. And democratic leaders usually depend on consultative and consensus building process, okay. It's not necessary top-down one way approach. It is just really combination of democratic leadership really combines both top-down and bottom-up two-way communications. On the other hand, authoritarian leadership refers to direct control and supervision of the people by the leader. By definition, authoritarianism, refers to arbitrary rule. Therefore, authoritarian leadership is based on arbitrary rule. It usually involves top-down approach. And there is no room for dialog and communication. And obviously, consultation and consensus building are lacking in that kind of political leadership. Another type of leadership is paternalistic leadership. It is a very similar to the traditional leadership in the Marx favored, high powered. Paternalistic leadership is based on organic conception of leadership. Leader versus follower, patron versus client, okay? What Japanese call the oyabun versus kobun, the boss versus followers. And in Lebanese politics, the Zuam system is a perfect example. Zuam literally refers to factional leader, okay. Factional leader create patron kind of relationship into community members. All these kinds of show traditional paternalistic leadership. While certain leaders can demonstrate laissez-faire leadership, simply speaking don't do nothing the centralized power, okay? The leader just play as a neutral umpire, okay? And laissez-faire leadership can be compared with analogy of a market system. Market system, ideal type of market system, is laissez-faire system. Therefore, the kinds of decentralized leadership. And finally we can talk about transformative leadership, okay? Usually leader as opposed to managing existing society or political organization within its own framework. Certain leaders want to change, transform and they wanted to redirect followers through intellectual stimulation and group vision. It is what some earlier, modernization theories called revolution from above, in the process of modernization. Major revolution in 19th century in Japan, or Kemalism in Turkey. Or even revolution from above can be seen during the period in South Korea. Likewise, leadership styles vary from country to country, from a certain period to another period.