The material benefits of being a former leader

Andrew F. Cooper - Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, University of Waterloo, Canada

For critics, however, the extended careers of Blair and Clinton highlight the trend toward the commodification of the roles of ex-leaders.  Jimmy Carter maintained strong connections with Atlanta-based companies.  Mikhail Gorbachev has been indiscriminate in his willingness to lend his name to enterprises (including doing adverts for Pizza Hut!).  Nelson Mandela spent considerable time mobilising business support for the fight against HIV/AIDS and the promotion of education.

But none of these other leaders took on the scope and intensity of corporate enterprise featured in the activities of Blair and Clinton.  Blair operates a number of commercial companies, including Windrush Ventures Ltd. and Tony Blair Associates.  Clinton, having been quoted as saying he left office ‘not only dead broke, but in debt’, moved into a position by 2013 where his net worth was US$55 million.  They have in effect become Clinton and Blair Inc.!

Linking these general assessments, it is precisely the dualistic nature of the afterlives of Blair and Clinton that is so striking.  Not only have they built up impressive foundations that focus on making a difference in global affairs, they have maintained connections to the ‘club’ diplomatic world.  Clinton was involved in the spectacular 2009 ‘rescue’ of two American journalists from North Korea.  Blair has maintained his position as the representative to the Quartet of Middle East mediators (the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia).

Nevertheless, the line between good work and material benefit has become blurred. Clinton’s activities comingle his foundation work, paid speeches and official activities. Blair’s foundation and diplomatic roles in Africa and the Middle East can be interpreted as loss-leaders for gaining paid consultancy contracts.

In terms of the wider implications, of course, it is tempting to see Clinton and Blair as a unique category.  After all, there is a narrow list of ex-leaders who can go global with such attention and substantive diversity in terms of the reach of their afterlives.

Most ex-leaders take a far more limited role.  To be sure, some of these roles have a controversial edge as well.  The illustration of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder jumps out, for example, through his position with Gazprom as head of the shareholders’ committee of Nord Stream.

In other cases, however, it is the constructive nature of the afterlife that comes to the fore. Whilst the higher profile individual activities already mentioned are the core focus of my book, other cases keep presenting themselves.  At a conference on January 16 2015 at the White Rose East Asia Centre at the University of Sheffield, case-studies of Japanese former leaders were elaborated upon, most recently the role of Yasuo Fukuda in facilitating the ‘handshake’ at the APEC summit between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.  In part, this role derived from Fukuda’s own personal reputation, but it was also helped by his standing as chairman of the Boao Forum for Asia.

Ultimately, the comprehensive corporate track taken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton has two detrimental effects.  On the one side, it provides some legitimisation for an extension of the ‘dash for cash’ syndrome.  Ex-leaders, looking at the choices before them, will increasingly embrace a model where it is more than possible to comingle a global role and commercial advantage.

On the other side, such commodification inevitably overshadows the alternative projects of ex-leaders.  As showcased by a much wider set of former presidents and prime ministers (some with a high profile and others not so much), this whole phenomenon – akin to the role of celebrities, civil society activists and various types of philanthropists – speaks tellingly to the current complexity of spheres of authority in the global political economy.