It can hardly have gone unnoticed for the majority of us that, in the last few months, there has been a change of leadership – and thereby the policy direction – of countries which have a not insignificant influence on the course of the world. From small island states to a large island and to a (more or less) half continent on the the other side of the Atlantic, and some European States.
The reasons for the change in the political heads of the respective societies are highly diverse in the individual cases, ranging from a regular ending of an official period in office to old age and also to the most important – a failure in the eyes of the sovereign. Often, the stated reason was not the true one but rather a more or less transparent pretext in order to escape the consequences of individual errors. But the sovereign, the people, know this – and, honestly: how should the pinnacle of the society created by the people be any different from their daily life?!
Wherever one enjoys (although it appears that a decreasing number do so and work, consciously or not, towards its abolition) a democracy (understood in the modern, “western” sense), the question of who in fact deserves what leadership is very complex, dependent on percentages, coalitions and quite general mechanisms which appear to lead the principle of majority voting ad absurdum. However, the complex systemics shall be the topic for another day.
In the second half of the twentieth century this orientation was, at least in our part of the world and in global regions with a similar culture, not so popular. Perhaps the memories of the repercussions of the great wars and the role which various (mentally and physically not so great) leaders played in the bloodiest dramas of world history were still too fresh.
Be that as it may, it is over.
There are a plethora of reasons for this but the bottom line can be easily summarized: if “the people” can no longer – or no longer want to – deal with the demands of their environment in a democratic dialogue, simple (spurious) solutions have to be provided which can be easily implemented without a hindering conscience. And the authoritarian leadership personality suits this perfectly.
Because this is now the case – and we will hardly be prepared to hand over political leadership positions to AI (artificial intelligence) in the near future (although, since AI has been wiping the floor with us primates in the games of “Poker” and “GO” it may be worth a thought…), one could ask:
How should an “optimized” leadership personality in the 21st century be constituted in order to effectively and responsibly communicate the will of the people, and act accordingly?
Although these aspects of course heavily depend on the individual case.
They are to be helped lovingly in an appropriate environment. Incidentally, also those of fundamentally religious conviction and fundamental convictions of any kind are also included here.
On the contrary, individuals who, because of their own situation or that of their family, are familiar with suffering, can in most cases better empathize with the suffering of others. Nobleness of the heart is an absolute prerequisite for the leaders of the future. In order to ascertain this, it is advisable to carefully consider the milieu of the person but also how they express themselves, their gestures and facial expressions but also, of course, the contents of their words.
Material independence. Modesty. This has nothing to do with wealth and possessions per se but rather with an inner attitude, with an understanding of values which are not relative but rather absolute. Social values. If someone cannot fully separate the service for and the work with the people from any material benefits before, during and after his/her period in office, they are not worthy of the honour of the office.
Because it is an honour, a task and naturally also a burden to be allowed to participate in the political fate of the world, above all in a leadership position. For this reason, those who feel a calling to this ought to be constituted such that they may be honoured and appreciated by the people who understand who it is putting in this position as its voice, the symbolic and real consolidation of its will.
Such a situation we ought to realize until we have found another, better way to deal with the politics that shape all our lives. Utopian thought? No, necessity.
Translation into English: Anna Stockenhuber
|Time To Heal||Sharon Sinclair||CC BY 2.0|