Blog

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just suffered a significant political blow at the hands of the man he long enabled, former President Donald Trump. Last week McConnell came out in support of the all-important so-called border bill – only to have Trump subsequently bury it. The result: McConnell’s influence over his Republican colleagues has been further weakened, an indicator he is finally reaping what he sowed. Unlikely Trump would’ve been reborn without McConnell’s enduring enablement – both during Trump’s presidency and after.  

Peter Navarro is another Trump Enabler, previously described as “a trade advisor” to the former president. Navarro stayed loyal to the last – doing what he could to keep Trump in office long after it became clear that he had lost the 2020 election. But like McConnell, Navarro has been summoned to pay the piper. He has just been sentenced to four months in prison for defying a House subpoena relating to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.  

Enablers are followers – but of a particular sort. In my book, The Enablers: How Team Trump Flunked the Pandemic and Failed America, I define them as “followers who allow or even encourage their leaders to engage in, and then to persist in behaviors that are destructive.”* I write that given the enabled are leaders, their destructions have implications not only for them but, crucially, additionally, for others, sometimes for many, even millions of others.

McConnell is a character in the book, described as an Enabler who was key to Trump’s political survival. “There was a moment at which the senator’s support for the president was pivotal. McConnell personally and politically protected Trump during the first impeachment trial, which made it possible for the president to finish his term without the proceedings upending or even significantly impairing him.”

Navarro is also in the book, described as a Trump toady, always obligingly and obsequiously saying only what the president wanted to hear. Why? Because Navarro needed, desperately needed, to be a player. To be part of the action. To have proximity to power.      

Since Trump left the White House, different Enablers have taken different paths. Some, like McConnell, have continued, whatever they privately think, publicly to support the former present. Others made different choices. Others chose to speak out against the man they once served.

In a perfect world these recovered Enablers would have spoken out earlier, would frequently say their piece, and would do so forcefully. But, in this imperfect world, I’ll take what I can get. Speaking truth to power and about power – especially power that persists – is better than staying silent.

Examples:

• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, Mark Milley: “We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.” (September 2023)
• Attorney General under Trump, William Barr: “The fact of the matter is he is a consummate narcissist, and he constantly engages in reckless conduct that puts his political followers at risk and the conservative and Republican agenda at risk.” (June 2023)
• White House Chief of Staff under Trump, John Kelly: “A person who has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” (October 2023)
• U.N. Ambassador under Trump – and later his opponent for the Republican nomination, Nikki Haley: “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t ever let that happen again.” (January 2021)
• White House national security advisor, John Bolton: “By the time I left the White House I was convinced he was not fit to be president… I think it is a danger for the United States if he gets a second term.” (June 2023).

   Bad leadership is impossible without bad followership. Bad leaders are impossible without bad followers. Like bad leaders, bad followers are accountable, responsible for their actions. But when bad followers have second thoughts and, as a result, break publicly away from the bad leaders they once faithfully followed … well, it can’t hurt.

———————————————-

*Cambridge University Press, 2021.

The Europeans just proved they learned their lesson. They learned from experience that Russian President Vladimir Putin is like all bad leaders – unless they are stopped they get worse. Without fail.

It’s what, predictably, he has done in the past – both at home and abroad. And it’s what, predictably, he will do in the future – both at home and abroad. Putin is a far worse leader now – much more oppressive at home, and much more aggressive abroad – than he was twenty or even ten years ago.

It’s why members of the European Union got their act together. First, with one exception they reached an agreement on what they would do because they concluded they must. Second, they took turns bullying and cajoling the sole holdout -– he was of course Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – until he finally caved.* Third, as of a day ago they are prepared to provide Ukraine with a significant aid package over a four year period, of some $54 billion dollars.

Similarly, precisely because most in the West have learned their lesson, members of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance to which the United States of course belongs, is doing a much better job than it did in the past of preparing for further Russan aggression. Europe, especially the countries of East Europe, is obviously much closer to the action than is the U.S. It’s why after Russia invaded Ukraine, Finland and Sweden made the historic decision to become NATO members. And it’s why countries such as Estonia fear nothing so much as another Trump presidency. Another Trump presidency during which virtually assuredly NATO would be, at best, derided and short-changed, and at worst starved and even scuttled.   

While the U.S. Congress dithers over continuing to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to keep Putin at bay, he is doing everything he can to expand his war machine and keep it humming. In the past year Russia’s economy has been militarized, and its army has had huge infusions of capital to provide it with new and better weapons. (Including, significantly, from Iran.)

Americans should make no mistake. If we lay claim to “Ukraine fatigue” we will, in time, pay dearly.  Unless, of course, Putin is not a man but a leopard. A leopard who changes his  spots.  

————————————————————————-

*For more on Orban see my piece posted on December 20: Little Leader with a Big Stick – Barbara Kellerman  

It’s the question with which I introduced my volume consisting of classics of leadership literature.* It’s also the question that, framed more broadly, has been top of educators’ mind for at least the last decade. What should anyone learn?  

Our institutions of higher education have drifted away from teaching the liberal arts in favor of the hard sciences and the professions. Hence the constant concerns about depriving American students of what once was thought the heart of a first-rate undergraduate education.    

Yesterday’s column by David Brooks in the New York Times was typical. He wrote that the way to save a “sad, lonely, angry and mean” America was to “to rediscover the humanist code.” To return to the idea that great books, poems, paintings, and pieces of music will nurture the better angels of our nature. Will nudge us toward clarity, empathy, decency and, yes, “wisdom.”

For years I have argued somewhat similarly. I have argued that the way leaders ought to learn is first to get a good education; then to be properly trained; and finally to be developed lifelong – to engage in continuous learning.**

What might a good leadership education consist of? Ideally, it would require at least a year steeped in the humanities – in, for example, history, philosophy, and literature. But… here’s the thing. It doesn’t have to be a year. It can be a month or even a week. For a leadership learner having some exposure to the humanities is much, much better than having none! Every single leadership course and curriculum, no matter how short or long, no matter how general or specific, should have some exposure to what Brooks calls “the humanist code.”  

How’s this to start?

• Short readings from Confucious, Machiavelli, and Arendt.
• Short viewings of David’s “Napoleon Crossing the Alps’ and Picasso’s “Guernica.”  
• Short discussions about Stanton’s “Declaration of Sentiments,” King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” and Mandela’s “I Am Prepared to Die.”
• Short hearings of “Le Marseillaise” and “We Shall Overcome.”

How’s that to start? Great!

————————————————————————————————————

*Barbara Kellerman, ed., Leadership: Essential Selections on Power, Authority, and Influence, McGraw-Hill, 2010.

** Barbara Kellerman, Professionalizing Leadership, Oxford University Press, 2018.

In her 2017 autobiographical book, What Happened, Hillary Clinton writes at length about the price of being a woman in American politics. Especially though not exclusively during the 2016 presidential campaign, which she lost to her opponent, a political newbie by the name of Donald J. Trump.  

Repeatedly Clinton describes how difficult it was to be a woman in public life, from the early days during which she was wife of the governor of Arkansas (beginning in 1979), all the way through to 2016 when she was the odds-on favorite to win the White House. Clinton was regularly and relentlessly slammed for a range of sins from being too aggressive to being too uptight. She writes, her hurt and anger hardly concealed, about the ways in which “her face, her body, her voice, her demeanor” were always being scrutinized and about how her “stature” was always being “diminished.”

Fast forward to Nikki Haley in New Hampshire, where she just finished campaigning against the self-same Trump, now for the Republican Party presidential nomination. Haley lost the primary to Trump by 11 points. But she did not lose because she was a woman. In fact, arguably the most striking thing about the entirety of Haley’s campaign so far is that her gender has essentially been a non-issue. Sure, last night, during his ostensible victory speech, Trump commented, derogatorily, on her what she was wearing. “When I watched her in the fancy dress, that probably wasn’t so fancy,” he couldn’t help but snipe.  But in the main, whatever the gripes against Haley during this primary season they have not been grounded in her womanhood.

Credit Haley for striking an excellent balance between looking feminine and looking professional. And for striking an excellent balance between being proactive and being aggressive. Anti-Trumpers have been railing against her for not taking on Trump more fulsomely and forcefully. But it could well be that she’s the “last woman” standing precisely because she did not. Could be that had she done so early on, gone on the warpath against Trump months ago, she would’ve long been gone.

Similarly, credit the American people for making progress – for putting gender to the side. This could of course still change. Trump is not done. But if he takes her on for being a lady, he’d better watch out.

In what will be a series of posts on Donald Trump’s followers I have certain points I plan to make. But there’s no virtue in adhering to a particular order, so when something happens that derails my originally intended sequence, no problem. I’ll comment as the occasion arises.

In recent days has been such an occasion. It centers on a man about whom I’ve written several times before: Jamie Dimon, since 2005 chair and chief executive officer of JPMorgan, the largest bank in the world. (For some of my previous posts on Dimon see the link below.)

In the piece that I posted on April 22, 2022, titled “Leader Tenure Redux – the Case of Jamie Dimon,” I raised questions about the length of his tenure, which even a couple of years ago I deemed too long. Now I’m persuaded that I was right. For all that Dimon has accomplished on behalf of the financial colossus of which he’s been at the helm for nearly two decades, it’s past time for him to get out.

Why do I write this now with an even greater degree of certitude? Because of remarks he made last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Remarks that put him squarely in the column of Trump’s followers. Dimon would deny this, he would say he did no such thing. But, by normalizing Trump, which he did, he sent a signal to Wall Street, and to corporate leaders around the world, that Trump was not nearly so bad as some were suggesting.

Let me be as clear as I can. I consider Trump to be a bad leader – a leader who is both incompetent and unethical. Therefore, to normalize a leader like Trump is not only to be a follower, but also to be a bad follower.   

What exactly did Dimon say that was so bad? “Take a step back, be honest” he told an interviewer on CNBC. Trump “was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. He wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues.”

I will not here challenge each of these points, for they are not the point of this piece. Rather it is that by approving Trump’s positions and policies on each of these critical issues Dimon is giving him a pass. He is giving Trump a pass on who he is, on what he says, on what he has done in the past, on what he is doing in the present, and on what he says he will do in the future. Which is, among other terrible things – terrible if you happen to prefer democracy to autocracy – to be “a dictator on day one” and to call for “termination of the Constitution.”

A few months ago, Dimon suggested that his preferred 2024 presidential candidate was not Trump but Nikki Haley. I have no reason to think that Dimon changed his mind, which makes his talking points about Trump that much more offensive. And dangerous. For it appears his remarks about the former president are purely transactional. Dimon seems to have concluded that Trump could well be reelected. So, what Dimon is doing is protecting his neck or, more directly, covering his ass.  

Let me be as clear as I can. As the rise of autocrats and dictators always and everywhere testifies, the only thing necessary for the triumph of bad leaders is bad followers. Therefore, if Donald J. Trump ever becomes president again, it will not be because he is so big and bold but because others, Dimon among them, are so small and sniveling.    

—————————————————————————–

Barbara Kellerman on Jamie Dimon

For the better part of a decade nothing in American politics has been more difficult to fathom than the dedication of Trump’s followers. A dedication and often even a passion that has endured against what would seem all odds. Donald J. Trump’s attractions are not, obviously, difficult for everyone to understand, but they are for most. For most Democrats certainly, and for many Republicans.

In theory, Trump should have been dropped from political contention years ago. It’s not even apparent what made him a viable political candidate in the first place. For the American presidency no less. In 2015, when he first declared that he was running for the White House, he seemed to come out of nowhere. Trump had never held any political office. Trump had never had any government experience. And Trump had never served in the military. What he was instead was a New York City real estate developer, a television reality star, and a self-promoting gadabout who liked nothing so much as boasting about his billions and hanging out with the young and beautiful, the rich and famous.

But from the start candidate Trump was an astonishment. His showmanship and bombast were not only not off-putting, but they were immensely appealing. As reporter Tim Alberta wrote at the time, “He was a larger-than-life character, someone with whom Americans of all ages had become familiar…. He was universally recognized and increasingly on the right, seen as a kindred spirit, his rants against political correctness resonating more with each passing day.” Trump was, let’s face it. a political star from the start. When he shouted at the crowd, “We Can Make this Country Great Again,” they hooted and hollered in response, their boisterous support for the man and his message rang through the room.

What has changed since then, since Trump’s earliest days in the political ring? Not much. Just further evidence that despite who he was and is, despite what he did and did not do, large numbers of his followers remain as devoted as dedicated. They remain so notwithstanding that during his four years in office the Republicans lost control of the presidency, the Senate and the House; that he failed to deliver on what he promised would be a string of Republican victories in the 2022 midterms; and that in the last year he was charged with fully 91 felonies in four different criminal cases. Still, if his followers judge him, they forgive him. Either they genuinely adore him, or they go along to get along.

This distinction is key. While we tend think of every Trump supporter as motivated by the same things in the same way, they are not. Those who follow Trump because they love him are an entirely different type from those who follow him because they assess it is in their interest to do so. It’s often said about Trump that his followers constitute a cult. Arguably, some do. But by no means all. Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy who decried Trump in the immediate aftermath of the January 6^th insurrection, and then in short order flew to Florida to kiss his ring, did an about face not because he changed his mind about the man but because he thought the better of making the man his enemy.

This is the first in a series of posts about Trump’s followers – who I divide into two categories. The first is Trump’s tribe. The second is Trump’s team. Trump’s tribe is comprised of those who make up his base. Ordinary people who continue to see Trump as their tribune – and to see in him them. Trump’s team consists of other key supporters such as elected officials; political appointees; hirelings and underlings; media stalwarts; right-wing idealogues; and deep-pocketed Republican Party funders.

As is well known by now, a good many members of Trump’s team regard him with disdain and even disgust, they see him as stupid as well as crude. But here’s the thing: so long as his base continues so ardently and abjectly to be in Trump’s thrall, so will they. In this sense Trump’s political magic act is so remarkable not because it works with the Republican elite but because it works, brilliantly, with the Republican base. On the surface, then, Trump’s base consists of his most impassioned followers. But the truth is that they are the leaders. If Trump’s repeat candidacy for the presidency has brought American democracy to the precipice, it is they who have led us there.

I tend to tilt at windmills – to engage in professional quests that turn out fruitless.  One such is my failed attempt to change how we use the words “leader” and “leadership.”

Nearly invariably it is presumed that both are preceded by the adjective “good.” We assume without question that to learn how to be a leader is to learn how to be a good leader. Similarly, we assume without question that leadership classes and programs and centers and books and tapes and videos are dedicated to promoting leadership that is good.

All of which would be fine… if we did not also assume that the adjective “good” was entirely unnecessary because there was no such thing as “bad.” That bad leadership either did not exist or it did not pertain. And that therefore paying attention to bad leaders and, or to bad leadership was merely a theoretical exercise, one of no practical value. Sort of like saying that medicine ought to concentrate entirely on promoting good health – never mind about repairing or at least improving bad health.  

What to me is a serious problem that continues to plague leadership education, training, and development came to mind again this week when I was reading the “president’s letter” from Peter Salovey, president of Yale University. This one appeared in the most recent issue of Yale Alumni Magazine – it was about “learning to lead in times of crisis.”

Salovey made the usual mistake: he equated leading with good leading. When he wrote, for example, about how others “modeled” for him the “qualities of a leader,” he obviously meant though felt no need to so specify the qualities of a good leader. Similarly, when he wrote about teaching Yale students “vital skills for leadership,” it was taken as a given that these skills would be employed only by leaders who were good.

Where is this written in stone? Why do we wear rose colored glasses? Why does Salovey ignore the real possibility that a Yale undergraduate who learns how to lead will end a bad leader – not a good one. Bad as in ineffective. Or bad as in unethical. Or bad as in both.

I don’t get it. But then, I never did. Which likely means I never will.   

Barack Obama is a leader. During the eight years he was president of the United States he had obvious power, authority, and influence. Since then he has chosen largely to retire from public life – which does not, however, mean that he has none of what he had. While he no longer has power – he is, for example, not now commander in chief – he still does have the authority associated with having been a two-term president and he still does have influence. When he speaks people listen.   

Michelle Obama is different – though she is no less relevant to the point I make. As the wife of the president, she did not of course have any formal power. She did though, as First Lady of the United States, have some authority. And she did, due mainly to her immense personal popularity, have influence. Moreover, her influence continues. She has some 57 million followers on Instagram; when she writes a book it’s a guaranteed best seller; when she wears a red dress red dresses become instantly stylish; and when she speaks, her legions of ardent admirers hang on to her every word. Four years after she left the White House, she was still voted the most admired woman in America and even now there’ s data to suggest that if she ran for president, she would in a heartbeat catapult to the front of the Democratic line. So, when she spoke publicly yesterday about the upcoming presidential election – on an interview show she said she was “terrified” at the thought of what might happen – it was, or it should have been, a big story.  

Both Barack and Michelle Obama seem strongly to prefer no longer being in the public eye or, at least, no longer being directly involved in politics. Though they are still relatively young, by and large they appear content to write books and make films, to earn large sums of money and enjoy the later fruits of their earlier labors.

All well and good if it were not widely feared – both at home and abroad – that the state of our democracy is in peril. That Donald Trump’s base will hold fast no matter what. That the previously centrist Republican Party has metamorphosed into a cult of MAGA loyalists. And that Trump will therefore win a second term.

Michelle Obama is right to be scared silly about what would happen if Trump won a second term. It is widely believed – and supported by the evidence in my soon to be published book, Leadership from Bad to Worse – he would without doubt be more erratic and extreme in the White House during his second term than he was during his first.

While in the last week Joe Biden seems finally to be going on offense, his approval ratings remain weak and his personal appearances less than inspiring. Moreover, the same applies to his running mate, Kamala Harris, who is performing no better than is he. What this means is that while it’s still early in the year, the outlook for never-Trumpers is, at least, worrisome. This upcoming presidential election is by no means in the bag for either of the top two candidates.

For Democrats and others concerned about the possibility of another Trump presidency this means they must step up. Leaders especially – and I don’t just mean political leaders – have a responsibility to make their voices heard, to reach out actively and even aggressively to the American people, to make sure that earlier this year they get the message and that later this year they get out and vote.

Barack and Michelle Obama are quintessential examples of leaders who have an obligation to lead. Not to stay on the sidelines but to enter the fray. The Obamas are, if you will, victims of their own success. Precisely because they are still stars – maybe she even more than he – they owe it to themselves, to their two daughters, and to the American people to shine their light on our political plight.  

Initial stipulations:

First, while there are no bad leaders without bad followers this post will focus on the former.

Second, I am not expert on the Israeli military. For my information I relied on remarkable reporting in the New York Times.

Third, this piece is about the military but for years Israel’s public leaders have been bad – as in ineffectual and in some cases unethical – across the board. Now its political leaders, intelligence leaders, and military leaders bear joint responsibility for a series of failures of previously unimaginable magnitude. Assigning direct blame for this or that gone wrong is therefore impossible – for instance distinguishing mistakes made by the Israeli military from those made by Israeli intelligence. Or distinguising the mistakes of the Israeli military from those of political elites who have contributed mightily to what became deep cleavages in Israeli society. But complexities notwithstanding, each of these institutions is responsible for making its own decisions and for their implementations.       

Fourth, the mistakes that culminated in Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, which are the focus of this piece, were wide ranging and far reaching. We now know, to take a single example, that for years the Israeli government failed diligently and intelligently to follow the money.  Money that was flowing to Hamas and ultimately made it possible for the organization to fund a major military operation.    

Finally, while all nations who experience a significant surprise attack are traumatized, Hamas’s assault on Israel triggered a trauma greater even than most. For Israel it signified not just a threat but an existential one. And it destroyed Israeli’s self-image. For decades they had seen themselves, and been seen by others, as singularly well prepared to defend themselves against any military threat. Their intelligence apparatus and their fighting forces were widely perceived as among the best in the world – until now.

The failures of the Israeli military leading up to October 7^th fall into two groups: those that occurred before and those that occurred during.

Failures Before

Above all this was a failure of imagination so great it boggles the mind. By every account (the Times is just one), the Israeli military had, literally, dismissed the possibility that its sworn enemy, Hamas, would attack, could attack, from Gaza. To reiterate, this was a failure on two counts: not believing that Hamas would attack; and not believing that Hamas could attack, certainly not in a way that would instantly rain down murder and mayhem. This failure, this failure of the imagination, was the most important – impossible to plan for an attack if you are persuaded there will be no attack. The terrifying truth nevertheless is this: Israel’s military had come to believe that “Hamas was neither interested in or capable of launching a massive invasion.”  This despite the Israeli’s having obtained plans indicating this was precisely what Hamas intended to do. In other words, this failure was not a matter of poor intelligence. It was a failure to believe or at least seriously to consider the intelligence that was in hand.

Every other failure that preceded the attack was a consequence of this first one. Why prepare for an armed invasion if you think it inconceivable that an armed invasion will occur? Why even have a battle plan? And, if you did somehow have a battle plan why bother deciding how to execute it when the need to do so will never arise?

Why for that matter waste time collecting information about something that will never happen? Might as well do what Israel’s military did – it cut back eavesdropping on Hamas radio traffic. As a former national security advisor to the prime minister put it, “The army does not prepare itself for things it thinks are impossible.”

Failures During

Precisely because the Israeli military did not prepare itself for what it considered impossible it could not defend its citizens when the impossible came to pass. It is this that explains why hundreds of Israeli hostages were taken and why more Jews died on October 7^th than on any other single day since the Holocaust.

It took over an hour to elicit any Israeli military response at all to the Hamas attack which was both sudden and substantial. Initially it consisted of rockets raining down while thousands of Hamas fighters broke through what obviously were wholly inadaquate barriers and stormed into Israel. Israeli reservists, meantime, were initially as hapless as helpless: on the assumption they would be warned well in advance of any attack they had never been trained rapidly to mobilize and deploy. Moreover, Israel’s military failed for a time fully to grasp what had just happened – Hamas had breached the border fence in more than 30 locations! In those early hours Hamas even had an enormous advantage in firepower. The unwitting and unprepared Israelis went into battle equipped with pistols and rifles while Hamas had “heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and landmines and more.” Compounding the situation was the fact that just two days before the attack Israel’s military had moved two commando companies away from the Gaza border to the West Bank. And… because October 7 was a Jewish holiday, and, again, because an attack by Hamas was simply not on anyone’s radar, not literally or figuratively, about half the 1500 soldiers normally stationed along Israel’s border with Gaza were away. They had gone home for the holiday.   

The failures of the Israeli military leading up to October 7^th were so all-encompassing and deeply mortifying they will for the indefinite future stain the state. So… now what? Not good enough for the government to say, as it repeatedly does, that there will be investigations but only when the war is over. Not good enough at all. It should not be good enough for Israelis. Nor should it be good enough for Americans who are Israel’s most important allies by far.

Israel’s top political leaders, its top intelligence leaders, and its top miliary leaders should be held directly and promptly responsible for the incalculable catastrophe that befell their people – and now the Palestinian people as well. I know, easy for me to say. But, if we have learned nothing over the course of human history, bad leaders should, they must, be stopped sooner not later by those who refuse any longer to put up with them.  I’m not saying that pushing people from their perch is easy. I am saying it’s better, far better, than that putting up with the alternative. Than letting bad linger and finally fester.   

I define followers by their rank – not by their behavior. In my lexicon followers are subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than their superiors, and who therefore usually, but not inevitably, fall into line.

My Follower of the Year 2023 is Alexei Navalny. No single individual is so strikingly lacking in power, authority, and influence as is Navalny – and is nevertheless leaving such a significant imprint. Navalny’s years-long resistance to Russia’s dictator president, Vladimir Putin, is destined forever to linger.

I’ve been writing about Navalny on and off for years. I pointed out in my 2012 book, The End of Leadership, that Navalny was Putin’s most prominent and politically dangerous opponent.  In 2017, in a post titled “Alexei Navalny – The Real Deal,” I observed that Navalny remained at the forefront of Russian dissent, that he had been repeatedly denounced and arrested by the Russian regime, and that those who dared to follow his lead were themselves vulnerable to Putin’s corrosive corruption and overweening power.

Since then, Navalny’s situation has gone from bad to worse. In August 2020 he was poisoned – government agents were implicated in the near successful attempt to murder him – and flown for treatment to Berlin. After his recovery several months later, Navalny voluntarily returned to Russia where he was immediately arrested. Since then, he has not been a free man. His prison terms get ever longer – this year he was sentenced on charges of extremism to 19 years in prison, these in addition to the 9 previously assigned – and harsher. And just this month he disappeared for three weeks, his whereabout unknown, only to resurface in a different penal institution, this one remote from Moscow, deep in the Artic.

When Navalny reappeared two days ago, he used X to announce that he was “relieved” that his journey to the gulag was over, and that he was in a good mood. This raises two questions: First, why is Putin not silencing him once and for all? Second why did Navalny choose to return to Russia from Germany when his fate, permanent imprisonment under harsh conditions, was almost certainly sealed?

My responses are obviously speculative. Still, as to why Putin hasn’t done him in – especially since other of Putin’s diehard opponents are long since six feet under – recall that he did try. Putin did try at least once to have Navalny done away with, an occasion on which he came close. But given Navalny survived the attempt to poison him, and given the attempt received worldwide attention, it has become difficult for Putin to murder him without looking like, well, a murderer. In this case not of a blatant bad guy, such as Yevgeny Prigozhin, but of a world-famous good guy, Navalny. (Prigozhin, a notorious thug and ultimately an enemy of Putin’s, died recently in a plane crash, widely understood to have been engineered by the Russian president.)  For now, at least, Putin seems to have concluded better to lock Navalny up and throw away the key, than to kill him and make him a martyr.

As to Navalny’s choice to deny himself a good life – his freedom, family, and friends, his health and welfare – clearly it was deliberate. Made with full forethought, with the near certain knowledge of what was to come. When in the wake of the Russian government’s attempt to assassinate him by poisoning him, he returned from Germany to Russia he knew it might well mean his martyrdom.

Alexei Navalny has no power, no authority, and nearly no influence. Over the years some Russians followed his lead, publicly dissented as did he, but not many. Navalny is therefore a follower who however has refused to follow – which means he remains entirely at Putin’s mercy. Mercy is not, however, Putin’s strong suit. Just yesterday a court in Siberia sentenced an ally of Alexei Navalny’s – her name is Ksenia Fadeyeva – to nine years in a penal colony for running an “extremist organization.” After the verdict was announced one of her lawyers said it would be appealed. Fat chance the appeal will succeed.  

Some of the world’s greatest leaders once were followers in that they spent time behind bars – Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Paul, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King to name some. But each of these was eventually released – even Mandela who was locked up for more than 27 years. Whether Navalny will ever again be free man is, at best, uncertain. Meantime he can take solace from his mission which has already been accomplished. The near successful attempt on his life, his relentless tribulations and repeated trials, and now his apparently unending captivity are charges against his captor that will stand forever.