Introduction
Public admissions of responsibility by political leaders are often viewed as ethical acts—signs of accountability, leadership maturity, and moral seriousness. Yet these admissions are rarely spontaneous. More often, they are calculated responses to shifting political risks, public expectations, and media environments. In contexts where blame can be damaging, leaders assess not only whether to take responsibility, but when, how, and to what degree. This article examines how blame admission functions as a strategic tool, shaped by the contingent calculus of reputational management and political expediency. Through problematization, it challenges the idealized view of confession and highlights the underlying structures of timing, audience targeting, and cost-benefit analysis that guide when leaders admit fault and when they withhold it…
Enjoying the read? Subscribe to my Substack to get full access to this article and future posts delivered straight to your inbox. Stay informed, stay curious.