African Journal of
Political Science and International Relations

  • Abbreviation: Afr. J. Pol. Sci. Int. Relat.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1996-0832
  • DOI: 10.5897/AJPSIR
  • Start Year: 2007
  • Published Articles: 382

Review

What Americans want from their leaders in the U.S. and foreign nations: A comparison of Universities’ roles in the leadership development of the American State

Mohammed Viquaruddin
Department of Political Science, Deogiri College, Aurangabad - 431 005, Maharahstra, India.
Email: [email protected]

  •  Accepted: 23 January 2012
  •  Published: 31 March 2012

Abstract

American Universities are playing a great role in shaping leadership and development. Their work, as regards the vital role played by them, can give us the concept of Democracy for all. The historical outlook of that which was mentioned by Mark R. Nemec and Ann Arbor in their book “Ivory Towers and Nationalist Minds: Universities”, and Benjamin I. Page and Marshall M. Bouton, “The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans want from our leaders but do not get”, shows leadership and the development of the American State peculiarly and prominently by the Association of American Universities (AAU) which awarded the legitimacy to the situation that arises in favour of the United States of America (USA). Emphasis was made on the policies of university education that all Political Science Departments should include public policy in the curriculum. Universities continually used the agenda to establish institutions by defining the importance of social, political and foreign issues which were not under the circumstances according to public opinion. The general domain of foreign policy could not find evidence of prevalent horizontally constrained foreign policy belief system, regarding national security and trade. When authors analyzed the surveys made by Chicago Council of Foreign Relations (CCFR), it was observed that the public only cares about the numerous foreign policies. On the other hand, authors compared the attitudes of the masses and elites across identical issue dimensions. It was observed that they could not ascertain whether the U.S. foreign policy would look very different if elites were more responsive to the public or if the policy is broadly discussed.

 

Key words: Universities, leadership, categorisation, democracy for all, United States (U.S), foreign policy.