May I be one to come to the defense of this writer? It is not poorly written. Rather, it is written in an academic, literary and slightly old-fashioned style. One of "little"'s many accepted definitions is "trifling, trivial, unimportant." (e.g., I can't remember every little detail). So "little men" can mean men who are small in stature, or, in this case, men who are otherwise unimportant, who fill the power vacuum created by an inactive Presidency.

I agree with Kathleen. I think it means that men of relatively little power compared to the President, such as his bodyguards or staff members, suddenly become responsible for making very important decisions to prevent chaos. I also agree that it's poorly worded.

Where did you read this? It's not written very well. From the context, I THINK that the writer means "Should the Chief Executive be inactive, [people who had previously not had any political power] start taking over at once." Let me know if that is still unclear. And don't take any advice from this guy; he sounds like a nut job. ;-)

Based on the context you put the words in it would suggest that the moment the president fails to act that there will be people within the organisation that will begin to make some of the presidents decisions for him/her to ensure that law and order remain. If not, as mentioned, the alternative will be anarchy. Note: I'm not sure where you are getting your material from but those with English as their native tongue would struggle to follow what the author is saying here