Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Great leaders - born or made?

By Souchou Yao - posted Wednesday, 3 January 2007


In Chinese society, it is a cultural ideal that leadership should be defined by “moral authority”. It is a cultural ideal that Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and the old men of the Chinese Communist Party are quick to exploit. The more conventional, less spectacular route to leadership is by the cultural huckstering Chinese called “buying face”.

To “buy face” those aspiring to power give money and gifts to retirement homes, orphanages, hospitals and so on. It is a highly public and ritualised affair especially, for example, during Chinese New Year when, with the media in tow, there is proof of the generosity and moral character of the donor.

There are, however, serious limitations to this mode of leadership. Once you depend on money to give you influence, more face-buying money will have to be spent. There is no letting up.

Advertisement

Once you forget to make your visit to the orphanage and have your pictures taken by the press, then you find yourself in the state of anxiety that Julia Roberts must feel when she discovers her face is not on latest magazine covers.

Leadership by moral authority is much more influential and enduring by comparison. Leadership is about the ability to guide, direct or influence people, and for that he or she has to “lead”, to march in front of the crowd on the way to somewhere better - or worse.

For that, a leader often has to get ahead of the people, public opinion and accepted social trends.

Perhaps for this reason, democratic societies are ambivalent towards their political leaders. Yes, we will follow, but political leaders need to explain their agendas and whether the new direction is for the good of the country. And if we disagree, we will express our disapproval or unhappiness in the opinion poll and the ballot boxes.

Given these constraints, political leaders in a democratic society must strive to be “popular”. And to achieve this there is a whole machinery in place: the public relations hack; media advisers; image makers; and campaign managers - seemingly neutral, professionals whose work is to convince the public that the leader in question is on their side, tirelessly working for their interests and prosperity.

When you think about it, however, a leader eager for public acceptance, who explains every new initiative, may not necessarily be popular. He or she may come across as being “democratic”, but also, just as easily, as being weak, lacking resolve and pandering to public opinion. Some might say he or she lacks “leadership qualities”.

Advertisement

Consider the ex-British Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher: whether you agree with her politics and the Falklands war or not, you would have to concede that she had tons of leadership quality.

The resolute “Iron Lady” galvanised the nation after years of feeble Labour rule, a recession and high unemployment. The Falklands was a “nice little war” - a low impact, short endurance conflict - in military-speak - that recalled the good old days of Empire and naval glory.

She was no ditherer. The domineering, agenda-setting leadership won her huge popularity and three consecutive terms as prime minister between 1979 and 1990.

However, with the coming of the 90s, the European Union and currency reform, her homey nationalism had become dogmatism; her colleagues in the Conservative Party had to reject her for being an electoral liability.

If the fate of Margaret Thatcher is any guide, leadership in a democratic society is a contingent, transactional one. The future of the leader is to an extent dependent on those he or she leads. The onus is on the leader to show that he or she is doing good, is in tune with the times and with public opinions but is just slightly ahead of the game without alienating the people.

The ability to “lead” sits on a knife-edge, subjected to the vagrancies of history and electoral favour.

Leadership in a democratic society calls for a special kind of political skill. It is a skill that ensures the leader’s political vision must gel with public opinion, yet still keeps their ability to lead.

This “two steps forward and one step back” type of politics is hard for those with a messianic bent and for those who are self-assured. They are likely to be impatient with the clumsiness of the democratic system with its check and counter-checking of governmental power

In Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s prosaic terms, people cannot be allowed to “blackmail” the government at the ballot-box when its harsh, unpopular policies are doing good work and bring prosperity to all.

History is full of leaders who led without eagerly courting the approval of the masses. These were unique individuals, ushered to prominence as much by the times and circumstances in which they lived, as by their personality and Machiavellian skills.

For example, there were Caesar and the Gallic wars; Hitler and the Nazis; Lenin and the Russian Revolution; Mao Tse-tung and the Long March. In the morally more positive realm: Ghandi and the India Independence Movement; and Nelson Mandela and the anti-Apartheid struggle. Women too were history’s chosen: Jeanne D’Arc (Joan of Arc) and the French victory at Orléans; and Mother Theresa in the Calcutta slums.

Historical conditions gave these leaders a strong sense of destiny and their missions a social and political urgency.

Given this urgency, some would also assume for themselves the licence for ruthless repression, cutting down those who stood in the way of the “Great Cause”. In all events, great leaders are not merely figureheads. They guide, influence, cajole, inspire, discipline and punish. And people often follow with a fierce and desperate passion.

Great leaders evoke people’s deep-seated need to follow, sometimes making them abandon their will and submit to the fervour and, one may say, joy of submission.

But how do we account for great leaders’ power to make us do so this?

Great leaders were made by the conditions in which they lived: Hitler rose to power in the political vacuum left during the twilight of the German Weimer Republic, Mao Tse-tung in the chaos in China after the brutal Japanese occupation and rule by the corrupt Nationalist regime. History was crucial, as was their political skil, in seizing the opportunity and galvanising the suffering populace.

There must, however, be “externalities”. These leaders’ driving personalities, talent for clandestine organisations, near messianic visions and brilliant oratory skill that move and fire the crowd often ignore the “individual factor”. The crucial question is: if millions are born into the same world, why do only a handful of exceptional individuals emerge to change it, and light up the dreary gloom of the quotidian?

Confucianism has some fruitful things to say on this issue. Confucius spoke of the importance of people to act and behave ethically according to the prescribed rites and etiquette known as Li.

Li with its stricture of ritual form binds people to tradition, but that is not all. Confucius great insight is that ethical behaviours are at best things of daily practices; they do not come from contemplation of the abstract, or constant existential anxiety (“Am I doing right? Am I being kind?”) Li is praxis, you might say, welding ethical ideas with practices.

When Confucius addressed his disciples, he began to ask important questions about the State and the power of those who ran it.

You get an indelible sense from reading the Analects that those with political power had failed the people and his own ideals of political rule, and his students must be made vanguards of his ideas and vision.

For Confucius the highest calling of men of virtue was service in the government. To instil virtue (jen) in state officials and administrators is the formula for an orderly and a prosperous society. “To be Excellent when engaged in administration is to be like the Northern Star. As it remains in its one position, all the other stars surround it.” (Book II, verse 2). Men of jen should be the guardians of the State - “the leaders of men” - because they exercise power responsibly and morally.

And to exercise morals and power responsibly is to be inspiring. To Confucius, jen or virtue is the mark of a great leader because he - or she - embodies these very qualities, and by their actions and examples moves people to act with the same ethical ideals.

There is almost a modern feel to this point: that some “distinguished individuals” seem to hold enormous, magical appeal to their followers. Confucius praised the serene dignity of moral conduct and was confident of its power to persuade and influence (“Excellence does not remain alone, it is sure to attract neighbours” (Book IV, Verse 25)).

In the West social philosophers like Max Weber preferred a less sedate affair. For Weber, some leaders are endowed with exceptional, even superhuman qualities; and these qualities attract following and form the basis of a social, religious or political movement.

Leaders have the special gift of charisma. Charisma is bestowed on unique individuals almost by the divine. Charismatic leaders exercise authority not by tradition and law, but by their special personal qualities that inspire excessive passion and an enthusiastic following.

Great leaders thus have a special advantage when it comes to getting things done and getting people to go along with them. Charisma, or the extraordinary moral goodness that Confucius called jen, compels people to rally to the call, perhaps out of their own needs and inner promptings. Some rare individuals embody both jen and charisma.

This explains the universal appeal of Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama far beyond the original national and cultural significance that first brought them to prominence. Most importantly, the combination of charisma and moral goodness surely distinguishes them from other “Great Leaders” of evil - like of Hitler and Stalin.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Yao Souchou teaches anthropology at The University of Sydney with a focus on the Chinese Diaspora in South East Asia.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Souchou Yao
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy