In the media dominated public sphere, for an average voter, politics has moved from the corridors of the Capitol to the TV studios on Sunday morning which has forced political leaders to focus their attention on the competition for the most public aspect of it namely for the political agenda. At any given moment numerous political actors exert oft en incompatible claims regarding the nature of policies. Most of the authors dealing with the concept of political leadership agree that its features become most apparent in the situation of crisis (disorder). The complexity of the public sphere requires that presidents have to perform the role of “insiders” and “outsiders” simultaneously and convert their efforts into a legitimate public policy. Incompatible nature of such demands creates a (competitive) space in which leaders operate relatively freely, so long as they do not cross the imaginary line of accepted behavior.

Most of the authors dealing with the concept of political leadership agree that its features become most apparent in the situation of crisis (disorder). This is particularly true of the presidential leadership. What the studies of Congress and interest group politics bring to the understanding of modern leadership is the awareness that leadership is exercised in daily – almost routine – interactions that might be called situations of “normalcy.” In general, the executive studies focus on governance and efficiency and Congressional and interest group ones add the dimension of representation and deliberation.