The Problem with Leaders

Following a leader is one basic instinct we all have. It's not bad especially if the leader is effecting change (e.g. for the better). I say it's an instinctual thing because we are a species that draw strength from numbers. From a metaphysical point of view, following a leader is a natural course because we tend to favor order over chaos.

Say throw 20 people in an island, naturally one will become a leader regardless of style. Someone's leadership abilities will surface and will be noticed by the group and before they know it he had been elected to become the de facto leader. Probably someone will think he can do a better job but that's besides the point for now. We are just talking about the instinct of humans to rally behind a leader. 

As I have said having a good and effective leader is not bad as that is the model that countries and organizations everywhere adopt now. We have presidents, kings, prime ministers, CEOs and whatever title we give to a figure head, but still more or less we fall under to an authority of some sort in most human endeavor we encounter. 

What I see though that might be detrimental to this kind of thinking is that the leaders can abuse this mandate and that they forgot that instead of being an instrument of order, they become an instrument of chaos. Becoming an instrument of chaos normally arise when selfishness becomes the primary motive of the leader and using their positions for personal gains and not the greatest good of his/her constituency. Remove any personal motive, a leader can only work towards the greatest good. 

This is true wherever you go, go and talk to the common people and engage a conversation with them without being political, say, just ask them, "What do you think is needed to improve the country?" More or less, even the poorest lot can give the obvious answers and we wonder why how come the government has not thought of it or acted on it. That could only mean one thing, there is some personal thing at some point in the hierarchy of leadership that is being worked out and it is not in the same direction of the obvious thing needed doing, and so that's why the obvious thing is not being acted upon. 

Giving an example of what I'm pointing out is, say, a town is in need of a bridge to connect to the town across the river and that currently to get there is by the long way of driving 50 miles on the traditional road. Let's say if a bridge was going to be constructed between the two towns, the distance will only be half a mile. Let's say Town A is mostly farms and to ship their goods they have to pay truckers and haulers a fortune to get their commodities to Town B that can only be accessed via a 50-mile road route and nothing else. Town A Mayor has been flooded with requests to construct a bridge but has been deaf to those requests and has been making excuses not to build the bridge. Little did the farmers knew that the commercial trucks were owned by the Mayor's family. If the bridge was going to be built, the cost of bringing the goods from Town A to Town B will be relatively low. But Mister Mayor has a vested interest and so he won't allow the bridge even though it was in the best interest of his constituents. 

The above example is just to prove a point, really, and that point is that something so obvious was not happening because there was a vested interest by the local leader not to make the bridge. A true leader will always find a way to make his fellowmen's lives better always. 

ALWAYS! 

If things are at a standstill it can only mean that the leader is not interested in delivering the maximum good due to the people he/she is leading. A leader after personal gains is only leading himself/herself and his family, family extension and friends. Sorry to say this but there is no other reason why a leader can't act on something that is a necessary thing to do. 

A leader can only have one agenda, and that is to lead his group that will be beneficial to all. Other than that agenda, everything else is personal. Something can only not be done if the leader has a vested interest, being forced not to pursue it (this includes blackmail and other forms of coercion) or maybe circumstances like lack of funds or manpower, but governments though should not have these problems. 

I know I am sounding cliche but why are there wars, scandals, delays, and compromises? The obvious answer, of course, is that leaders are forgetting their mandate. Any leader at the start of their term/office, you see them really enthusiastic about changes they want to happen. They are aware at first. But as they progress on the change they said they would like to happen is not happening. 

Why? Two things actually. 

One is the leader is human and is therefore susceptible to the dictates of the ego and most likely can get overwhelmed by the power they wield. Yes, power can change people and every leader face this temptation on how to grasp the power they have at their disposal. It's been the downfall of most leaders. Even Bill Clinton, who was brilliant at first but his position gave him added charms that some types of women can't resist to fall for. So he gave in to this extra presidential charms and sadly for him was made public.  

Second thing is that the followers are also to blame because we also forget why we elected a certain leader in the first place. We believed the leader's words during the campaign but now they're at the helm, we don't really care anymore if they did what was promised as long as they don't become dictators and we're okay with bearing with them for the rest of their tenure in power.

Of course, the United States has the most advanced system of checks and balances but the rest of the world are not like the United States. I'm talking mostly of governments because smaller organizations like companies are usually driven by one goal, to make money, so a lot of factors can be overlooked as long as the CEO is making money for the shareholders then his leadership is good. The only question I have with the American system is it's divisive from the start. They have a two-party system and so if the other one wins, the other party members are immediately on the opposition side ready to pounce on the incumbent's mistakes. 

With the help of metaphysics, following a leader can be a truly worthwhile experience for everyone but it has to start with the selection process of candidates of people for office. If we start right with choosing the right candidate, then more or less any leader elected/appointed has been through several layers of filters and most likely will carry out the mandate accorded to them. 

For every organization, there has to be a committee that will check on future candidates' records and even if an iota of doubt surfaces it should be enough to disqualify anyone from running for office. For me, this is doable rather than when on the campaign trail people start digging up records, and that only gives researchers a few months to look into a person's records. This method of leader selection will do away with the influence of popularity and give researchers a lot of time to look on every facet of the candidate's life. If a leader-to-be is going to be scrutinized well by a committee, those with ambitions to be top-honcho will most likely lead clean lives and have to be champions of causes of some sort. This committee also removes any political flavors because their job is just to forward candidates and doesn't have to make public anything they dig up unlike what's happening now during campaign periods where opposing candidates resort to mudslinging. 

I can't delve into the particulars of how the committee should be set up, how to select the members and all that stuff, I am just merely giving an idea how we should select future leaders. 

If you think my idea is sensible, send me an email at metaphysicsworks@gmail.com and let's discuss some more or you can write on the comment box below and let me know your thoughts. 

Big thank you for the photos: Photo by Ronda Darby on Unsplash, 
Photo by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen on Unsplash