Although "proconsul" is an official title only with respect to magistrates of ancient Rome, the word has also been applied to various British, U.S., and French officials in modern times. Studies of leadership typically divide leaders into policymakers and subordinate administrators. The proconsul occupies a position between these two categories. Max Weber classified leadership as traditional, rational-legal (bureaucratic), and charismatic. A proconsul could be both a rule-following bureaucrat and charismatic personality. The rise of bureaucracy and rapid communication has reduced the scope for proconsular freelancing.
In leadership theory Despite the gulf between ancient and modern proconsuls, writer Carnes Lord has proposed a single definition to allow the phenomenon to be analyzed in the context of leadership theory: "delegated political-military leadership that rises in the best case to statesmanship." South African historian John Benyon defines a proconsul as a leader with "semi-independent and extraordinary capacity to shape the periphery" of an empire. Modern writing on leadership tends to stress the distinction between "administration" on the one hand and "policy" on the other. This emphasis can be traced to an essay by Woodrow Wilson written in the late 19th century. In earlier epochs, it was common for leaders to combine the two roles. Since this is no longer the case, specific terminology is required to describe such officials. In his classic study, Max Weber distinguished among three modes of legitimate governance: traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic. In the form of bureaucracy, the rational-legal mode is dominant in the modern world. But a modern proconsul may also resort to aristocratic, or charismatic, leadership. In the Roman Republic, a proconsul was typically a former consul and thus an experienced commander-in-chief. Having held the Republic's highest office, he was a statesman as well as an administrator. Rome's patrician class was prepared to exercise aristocratic leadership, both civil and military. Several factors are said to limit the scope of proconsular authority in modern times. Democracies put the military under civilian authority and tend to avoid policymaking by military leaders. Modern government emphasizes bureaucracy and rulemaking, while the Romans were aristocratic. Finally, modern communications allows for greater central control. Although transoceanic telegraph lines were laid by the mid-19th century, Lord describes the late 19th century as the heyday of British proconsular authority. Lord Curzon in India, Frederick Lugard in Nigeria, Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, and Lord Cromer in Egypt all took imperial initiatives that London approved only reluctantly. As ruler of Japan and Korea after World War II, U.S. General Douglas MacArthur consciously modeled himself on a Roman aristocrat. The role of U.S. General David Petraeus and others in Iraq suggests a continued need for proconsular leadership, according to Lord. Modern technology makes communication easier than ever; however, as email and PowerPoint presentations proliferate, clarity and intellectual discipline is lost. Another factor is that civilian policymakers, whether on the spot or in the metropole, may lack the skills needed to manage military forces, yet proconsuls are at best an ad hoc solution to a reoccurring problem. Managing a large territory in occupation or conflict requires a range of skills and the ability to deal with various organizations. No one is trained as a proconsul and the available administrators have experience in at most one relevant agency or service. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. attempted to deal with this issue by creating an integrated civilian-military command structure called Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS).
British Empire British colonial officials sometimes referred to as proconsuls include Alfred Milner in South Africa, Lord Curzon in India, Lord Lugard in Nigeria, and Lord Kitchener in Egypt and Sudan. These leaders were able to take imperial initiatives even when the government in London was reluctant. Conservative and Unionist governments were notably more tolerant of such freelancing than Liberal governments were. These proconsuls ruled in the age of the transoceanic telegraph, so rapid communication did not end proconsular independence.
United States Various American commanders and ambassadors have been referred to as proconsuls. Writer Carnes Lord discusses the following figures in the framework of proconsular authority:
William Howard Taft in the Philippines (1900–1903) Leonard Wood in Cuba Lucius D. Clay in Germany Douglas MacArthur in Japan Edward Lansdale, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Creighton Abrams, Ellsworth Bunker, and William Colby in South Vietnam Wesley Clark in Bosnia in 1994–99 Paul Bremer in Iraq in 2003 David Petraeus in Iraq in 2004–08 and Afghanistan in 2010–11
References
Further reading Lord, Carnes (2012a). Proconsuls: Delegated Political-Military Leadership from Rome to America Today. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-25469-4.
