June 3rd, 2008
Do we overrestimate, or, rather, overcompensate
the abilities of our leaders simply due to the nature of their position?
For the longest time throughout human
history we've placed some unwritten, almost ethereal, trust in those
in power; like some sort of confounded bond that automatically makes
authority an infallable entity.
Yet once we disect this institution
further we find that it holds greater wealths of corruption, deceit
and manipulation than the non-authoritative role.
Perhaps its our own inferiority complex
that makes us feel obligated to put our own lives into the mistakenly-capable
hands of those in power; those who lead have "always had a greater
sense of vision and direction".
But is this actually true? Initially,
leaders who push forward do hold this virtue but as they continue to
get used to its lush position, perks and privileges does the leader
begin to taint.
They hold information from the general
public, afraid that any slippage of knowledge that would actually benefit
humankind would imply attrition to their length in power. Information
slips out, someone new slips in.
These figures manipulate the public
into thinking that whatever they might be thinking is, in fact, somehow
going against what others are thinking. They quickly turn a soft society
into a hard, conformist society where-in individual thought is strongly
suppressed.
All their efforts are then put forward
into making the population so numbed-down towards their efforts; whenever
an individual attempts to question the virtue of the leader and their
actions, that "rebellious" soul is silenced and/or ostracized
with the label of "anti" attached. How dare someone challenge
the leader!
Thus the creation of a herd-state and
single mentality.
So then, with a long history of deceit
and mistrust, why do we continue to hold glory and idolize those in
power? Are we, as humans, so destitute that we cannot simply afford
to take matters into our own hands and progress forward without some
ill-fated soul telling us fabrications or hindering our growth for political
reasons?
Examples like George W. Bush, CEOs
of large corporations, and even the junta in Myanmar are all examples
of leaders taking advantage of their positions for their own personal
gain, usually at the unfortunate cost of those they "rule"
over.
True leaders withhold their egos and
pride in favour of making everyone - right down to the street sweeper
or vagabond who hides under the bridge - like they are a valuable member
to this community. They actively put their own sentiments aside in favour
of those around them.
Winston Churchill, J. F. Kennedy, Pierre
Trudeau...all these members attempted to put aside their prides and
lead with a charisma (an essential tool if someone is to maintain a
strong leader persona) that truly did push a path forward for the betterment
of their "subjects," in this case, the public.
When was the last time we saw a leader
like that? Is it the point in time where leaders are irrelevant? Has
our dependency for these charismatic leaders faded, signalling the dawn
of a new era of self-sufficiency and independent thinking?
Home
| About | Return
to Anecdote-A-Day Main Page | Revive
the Human Factor with HR 3.0
