Jonathan Johnson-Swagel

Can power be exercised ethically, or does leadership inevitably demand moral compromise? This question has shaped political philosophy for centuries, dividing scholars into those who see moral constraints as fundamental to just governance and those who argue that effective leadership sometimes necessitates bending or even breaking ethical norms. The tension between justice and power is particularly evident in debates on war, sovereignty, and democratic governance, where leaders must often balance ethical commitments against pragmatic necessities.

This essay explores how political and ethical thought grapple with the challenge of moral leadership. Drawing on thinkers such as Jean Bethke Elshtain, Reinhold Niebuhr, Michael Walzer, Hannah Arendt, Paul Kahn, Carl Schmitt, Alasdair MacIntyre, and others, it examines whether moral leadership is possible in a world where power is often exercised under conditions of uncertainty, crisis, and institutional constraint. While just war theory, Christian realism, and democratic ethics illustrate that moral purity is unattainable in governance, leadership remains fundamentally linked to ethical responsibility. A failure to uphold justice in the exercise of power risks transforming leadership into mere domination, where decisions are dictated by expediency rather than a commitment to the common good.

By engaging with these intellectual traditions, this essay argues that ethical leadership is not about the rigid application of moral absolutes but about sustaining a continuous engagement with justice in the face of difficult choices. Leadership requires decision-making under uncertainty, yet this does not absolve leaders of moral responsibility. Instead, it demands that they navigate the complexities of power with an awareness that their authority must be accountable to ethical principles—even in crisis.

A central theme in political philosophy is whether power is inherently corrupting or whether it can be exercised within moral limits. Jean Bethke Elshtain, a leading scholar of just war theory, firmly rejected the idea that power exists in a separate realm from ethics. She argued that while leaders may face difficult choices, they are never free from moral responsibility. Her defense of just war theory rested on the belief that ethical constraints, even when imperfectly applied, serve as necessary guardrails against unchecked violence.

Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realism presents a similar view, acknowledging that while justice is never fully realized in political life, leaders must not use this as an excuse for ethical cynicism. Niebuhr recognized that power often requires compromise, but he insisted that these compromises must be made in pursuit of higher moral ends rather than as a justification for self-interest or domination. His famous critique of moral absolutism—that purity in politics is an illusion—does not excuse leaders from moral engagement but rather calls for a more pragmatic, yet still principled, approach to ethics in governance.

These perspectives challenge the assumption that ethical leadership is either naïve idealism or cold pragmatism. Instead, they suggest that true leadership involves navigating moral complexity with an awareness of ethical obligations. This distinction is crucial because it shifts the focus from whether leaders can always act morally to whether they recognize the ethical weight of their choices. Elshtain, Niebuhr, and Walzer collectively argue that while no leader can achieve perfect justice, power must remain accountable to moral reflection.

However, this principle is complicated by the reality that politics is unpredictable. Hannah Arendt emphasized that political action occurs in a realm of uncertainty, where leaders must make decisions without fully knowing their consequences. This unpredictability makes it easy for leaders to justify moral compromise in the name of necessity. Some political theorists defend this approach, arguing that leadership is about results, not ethics. Others counter that neglecting ethical considerations leads to the abuse of power, as history has often demonstrated.

One of the most compelling illustrations of this debate is the just war tradition. Michael Walzer argued that war can be justified if it follows ethical principles, such as proportionality and discrimination between combatants and civilians. However, critics question whether war can ever truly be contained within moral limits. Elshtain defended just war theory as an essential framework for restraining violence, yet she acknowledged its imperfections. The dilemma she presents is emblematic of broader questions in political ethics—should leaders act based on idealized ethical standards, or must they respond to circumstances as they arise, even if doing so means violating moral rules?

The answer to this question is not straightforward. If leaders abandon moral considerations entirely, power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to pursue justice. Yet if moral rules are treated as rigid constraints, leadership may become paralyzed in moments of crisis. The challenge, then, is not to choose between ethics and pragmatism but to recognize that ethical leadership requires constant negotiation between ideals and reality.

The question of whether power can be constrained by ethics becomes even more pressing when examined through the lens of sovereignty. Paul Kahn and Carl Schmitt present a vision of power that challenges traditional notions of ethical responsibility. Kahn argues that political power is not merely a tool of governance but a symbol of national identity, deeply intertwined with the way societies understand their own authority. This perspective suggests that leadership is not just about decision-making but also about shaping the moral and political culture of a community.

Schmitt, by contrast, defines sovereignty as the ability to suspend law in times of crisis. His famous claim that “sovereign is he who decides on the exception” suggests that power, in its most fundamental form, is defined not by adherence to ethical norms but by the ability to transcend them when necessary. This raises a troubling question: if sovereignty is characterized by the power to suspend ethics, is moral leadership even possible?

Some scholars argue that Schmitt’s perspective must be resisted because it provides a dangerous justification for authoritarian rule. If leaders can discard ethical and legal constraints whenever they claim an emergency, then moral leadership becomes meaningless. Others, however, contend that crisis governance inherently requires flexibility, and that ethical decision-making must sometimes adapt to extreme circumstances. This debate is not merely theoretical—it has played out in real-world scenarios, from wartime executive powers to emergency responses to global crises.

Elshtain’s work offers a counterpoint to Schmitt by insisting that even in emergencies, power cannot be exercised without moral reflection. While necessity may force leaders to make difficult choices, ethical leadership requires acknowledging the costs of those decisions rather than treating them as mere strategic calculations. Leaders who recognize the moral burden of their actions—even when acting under necessity—are more likely to remain accountable to justice in the long term.

This tension between power and ethics is one of the defining dilemmas of political leadership. While crisis governance sometimes necessitates difficult compromises, a complete suspension of ethical responsibility undermines the legitimacy of leadership itself. If ethical constraints are seen as disposable in times of crisis, then justice becomes secondary to control—an outcome that risks eroding the very foundations of democratic governance.

A further complication in the relationship between leadership and ethics arises in modern bureaucratic governance. Pierre Manent has argued that as political structures evolve, personal rule has been replaced by institutional decision-making, diffusing moral responsibility across bureaucracies. While some see this shift as a safeguard against authoritarianism, others warn that it erodes individual accountability.

Daniel Sulmasy’s work in bioethics provides an instructive parallel. He has shown how medical ethics, once grounded in personal moral judgment, has increasingly been treated as an administrative task. When decision-making is proceduralized, ethical questions risk being reduced to technicalities rather than moral deliberations. This pattern is evident in politics as well, where leaders may justify controversial decisions by appealing to institutional necessity rather than personal responsibility.

This raises a crucial question: does bureaucracy erode moral leadership, or does it simply shift the form in which ethical decision-making occurs? While institutions can provide necessary checks on power, they must not become a mechanism for evading moral responsibility. Ethical leadership within bureaucratic structures requires ensuring that institutions remain accountable to justice rather than simply serving as instruments of policy enforcement.

If bureaucracy disperses moral responsibility across institutions, democratic governance adds another layer of complexity to ethical leadership. Unlike absolute monarchies or authoritarian regimes, where power is concentrated in a single ruler, democracies distribute decision-making across elected officials, courts, and civil institutions. This structure is meant to ensure accountability, but it also creates tensions—particularly when moral leadership is constrained by political survival, public opinion, or the limitations of legal frameworks.

Franklin Gamwell argues that ethical reasoning must shape democratic governance at a fundamental level, rather than functioning as an afterthought. In his view, democracy is not merely a procedural system but a moral project—one that requires ongoing engagement with justice, not just adherence to institutional rules. This perspective challenges the idea that leadership is simply about navigating political realities. Instead, it insists that moral responsibility must be a guiding principle in democratic decision-making, even when it conflicts with short-term political interests.

This claim stands in contrast to thinkers like James Davison Hunter, who highlight how cultural conflicts complicate ethical leadership. Hunter’s analysis of moral debates in public life suggests that contemporary politics often reduces ethical reflection to ideological competition. In this environment, leadership can become more about winning debates than pursuing justice, as leaders feel pressure to align with popular sentiment rather than moral principle.

This raises an important dilemma: to what extent can democratic leaders pursue moral ideals when doing so risks alienating voters or undermining their ability to govern? The temptation to prioritize political expediency over ethical consistency is particularly strong in democracies, where leaders depend on public approval. This dynamic has been evident in major political crises, where leaders who act based on moral conviction rather than political calculation often face electoral backlash.

Despite these challenges, democratic systems still provide mechanisms for ethical accountability that other forms of governance lack. Public discourse, legal oversight, and civic engagement all create pressure for leaders to justify their decisions in ethical terms. However, for these mechanisms to function effectively, leaders must resist the tendency to view power purely as an instrument of political strategy. Instead, they must cultivate a leadership ethic that integrates moral reflection with political decision-making, ensuring that democratic governance does not devolve into mere power management.

At its core, the question of whether power can be exercised ethically comes down to whether leadership can function without ethical constraints. While some argue that leaders must operate outside strict moral frameworks in order to govern effectively, history provides numerous examples where the absence of ethical limits has led to political catastrophe.

Michael Walzer’s work on war and morality illustrates this problem vividly. He argued that ethical constraints on war—such as limiting civilian casualties—are not merely idealistic but essential for preventing moral collapse in conflict. His critics, however, point out that such rules are often violated in practice. This raises a troubling question: if moral rules are consistently broken, do they still function as meaningful constraints on leadership?

Elshtain’s perspective offers an answer to this dilemma. She acknowledged that just war theory is imperfect, but she insisted that rejecting ethical limits entirely would lead to reckless violence. Her argument applies beyond warfare—if leaders abandon moral responsibility under the justification that ethical rules are “impractical,” governance risks becoming a pure exercise in power rather than a pursuit of justice.

This insight is particularly relevant to leadership in times of crisis. During emergencies, the temptation to suspend moral constraints in favor of expediency becomes strongest. While some flexibility in governance is necessary during crises, history shows that leaders who abandon ethical accountability often create long-term harm that outweighs any short-term benefits. The use of emergency powers in wartime, national security policies that erode civil liberties, and economic decisions that prioritize stability over justice all demonstrate how moral compromise can quickly become institutionalized if ethical boundaries are not actively upheld.

Thus, ethical leadership is not about moral absolutism, nor is it about ignoring practical constraints. Instead, it requires a continuous engagement with ethical principles, ensuring that power remains anchored in justice rather than mere expedience.

Hannah Arendt’s warnings about bureaucratic dehumanization offer a final, sobering perspective on moral responsibility in leadership. She observed that when responsibility is spread across systems, individuals may feel less accountable for their actions—a pattern she famously analyzed in her study of totalitarian regimes. This insight applies far beyond authoritarianism: in modern bureaucracies, corporate governance, and democratic institutions, the fragmentation of responsibility creates the risk that leaders justify harmful decisions as merely following established procedures.

If moral leadership is to have any meaning, it must involve personal responsibility, even within large institutional systems. This does not mean rejecting bureaucratic structures or democratic mechanisms but rather ensuring that they remain accountable to ethical principles. Elshtain’s work suggests that this is possible, but only if leaders recognize that power always carries a moral weight—one that cannot be outsourced to institutions, legal frameworks, or public opinion alone.

This is the fundamental challenge of leadership: to hold power while resisting the temptation to treat it as an end in itself. Leadership is not merely about making decisions; it is about choosing between justice and expediency, between responsibility and self-interest, between ethical engagement and moral indifference.

The question of whether leadership can be ethical is not one that can be answered definitively. However, this essay has demonstrated that the traditions of just war theory, Christian realism, and political theology all converge on a common insight: while moral purity is unattainable in governance, the pursuit of justice remains essential.

Power that is not guided by justice risks becoming arbitrary and destructive. At the same time, if morality is treated as a rigid set of rules, it may become disconnected from the real challenges of leadership. The strongest ethical traditions do not offer easy answers, but they remind us that justice, however difficult to achieve, must always remain part of the conversation about power.

Ethical leadership is not about perfection. It is about recognizing that even in moments of crisis, even within bureaucratic institutions, and even in the face of political constraints, power cannot be separated from moral responsibility. Leaders must constantly engage with the question of justice, not as a theoretical exercise but as a practical obligation.

History has repeatedly shown that when leaders abandon ethical reflection, the consequences are profound. Whether in war, governance, or crisis management, the difference between just leadership and tyranny often lies in whether those in power recognize the ethical stakes of their decisions.

Thus, while ethical leadership may never be fully realized, it remains an ongoing pursuit that defines the legitimacy of power itself.