I believe in every country, leadership’s perception of its role in society is predicated on either of two distinct philosophies that are inspired by society itself. In one instance leadership believes it wields absolute dominion and has been divinely ordained to determine the fate of society. In the other instance leadership sees itself as the contractor charged with creating a conducive atmosphere in which the individual feels free and empowered to pursue the destiny that he desires for himself. Not only do these perceptions extensively influence leadership’s approach to and style of governance but also they do affirm the pervasive doctrine that informs the ordinary individual’s perception of his place in society. In a society that deems it ethical for the will of leadership to be imposed on the citizenry – much in the same manner in which one would expect parents in such a society to impose their will on their children, taking it upon themselves to erratically snatch and lord over every situation that presents the child with an unobstructed opportunity to make an independent decision – regardless of what political ideals and longings the society may claim to harbor or aspire to, its people remain insignificant specks subjugated by the whims and tantrums of leadership. Not only does such leadership endeavor to suppress and inhibit initiative but it proceeds to impose and dictate people’s choices and ultimately the consequences society is beset with. A society like this at best offers its people a vague and rather savagely distorted idea of individuality. It would seem the dignity of the ordinary man is trampled upon in vicious pursuit of an elusive cause that is intermittently altered to suit the evolving interests of leadership, which at any given moment, may be exceedingly noble or hideously perverse. In the absence of a definite and concise development agenda, such leadership may constitute the single greatest impediment to the advancement of its own people. It may happen that such leadership might pride itself in the enactment of an elegant and elaborately composed constitution, but in a society such as this, the law does not serve to sustain order or to administer justice, rather it simply affirms the supremacy of the authority of leadership. The prevailing political atmosphere may be far removed from the brute ferocity of a dictatorship. The structures of governance and the order of the administrative proceedings may suggest a democracy, yet when the implications of justice prove unpopular amongst privileged company, invoking the constitution will recurrently prove to be an exercise in futility because leadership fiercely wields the prerogative to define right and wrong; and the time-honoured creed is that leadership can never be wrong. The law only exists to facilitate total and utter submission and it is enforced not to preserve sanity but to affirm the subjugation of society; not to deter the citizen from wrongdoing but to coerce him into an asphyxiating conformity as leadership deems fit. The aim is to lay siege to the subconscious and ultimately subdue it; contain the compulsions of the ordinary man with restraints and thereby keep him on ‘the straight and narrow’. The law is interpreted in accordance with the biases of leadership. Habouring nothing but suppressed contempt for reason and concise definitions of equality and justice, the law is no refuge, but rather rigorous intimidation of the kind that enables a father to arrange to have his son thrown in jail for no legally legitimate reason other than to teach the insolent bastard a bitter lesson. Without the indignant hostility to restore dignity to the constitution, the only real law there is, is the one that forbids the citizen from incurring the displeasure of the leader. Brandishing the constant threat of psychological brutality, such leadership commands and wields the submission of its people. Following the dissolution of any particularly formidable regime, the society fumbles to instate a new regime that commands the degree of submission the old regime did. The costly demerit of leadership that abides by this philosophy is the grave antagonism with which it strangles all prospects for the cultivation of a keen sense of responsibility in society. People gradually grow accustomed to being denied the freedom to choose and define their own fortunes. Reined in by the vehement wrath of authority, the once-rebellious spirit is consumed with regret for his past crusades that were met with rigorous aggression; he intently dwells on the unpleasantness of their repercussions. The natural desire for independence and adventure is gradually worn down and essentially replaced with a ravenous appetite for the tranquility of idleness and the staid life devoid of incident. Subliminally the subconscious is coaxed to persuade the individual to believe that he is only a passive partaker in whatever devices he perpetrates and the culprit musters the idiocy to claim that the crime he perpetrated was the work of the devil. From the onset, the mind of the young is infused with the notion that he needs no plan because government has a plan for him. There is a delectable appeal about the life relieved of the pangs of consequence that compels one to suppress the surge of spontaneity and the impulse for initiative. A boisterous intolerance for creativity is nurtured. A vehement hostility is vented on reason. The fear of the fierce wrath of leadership gradually intensifies into the incisive fear of repercussions. And with the fear of repercussions comes the pathological tendency to shift blame. The crippling fear of failure has such an intense hold that it would even seem that prior to the execution of any task the mandated citizen endeavours with devout diligence to quickly determine to whom the blame would be accorded in case of an unfavourable outcome. Indefinitely entangled in the dread of being accorded blame, the citizen trudges through a life of alarm, perpetually immobilized. At the nonnegotiable price of his unconditional submission, he unequivocally gives up the reins by which his fate is steered and falls back into the marshes to revel in the satiating routine of according leadership the blame for the miserable conditions of his existence. But there is a fascinating observation in societies in which leadership sees its function as being to facilitate the pursuit of individual aspirations; instituting the mechanisms and the facilities that enable and empower people to embark on a personal journey characterized by a unique definition of progress. The leadership of the state acts foremost to serve people with alternatives. The mind is empowered to derive the most from its surrounding environment. Here law enforcement acts to mold the individual not by demanding conformity but by enforcing consequences. The law does not lend itself to be used to selfish ends. Leadership survives in perpetual awareness of its responsibility to society. Society itself is founded on the tenets of sound law; on the principles of justice and equality. The citizen repeatedly learns that he is the product not just of his immediate environment but more importantly, of his actions. With the conviction that he has utmost power to determine the course of his life, the citizen comes by the impulse that inspires achievement. Rather than wallowing in the drabness of his prevailing circumstances, the citizen is spurred on by the power he wields to change his circumstances. Anticipation of the future is characterized by optimism and courage. Because initiative is fostered, people feel less inclined to attribute the events of their existence to the bad decisions of leadership or the action of supernatural forces. Given how comfortable the citizen is with achievement, he is less given to the fear of failure. The citizen revels in constant awareness of the power he has to change society and will not accept any misconduct on the part of leadership without question. Prosperity unfurls as leadership and the citizenry alike enjoy the exceptional opportunity to subject each other to thorough scrutiny and rectify one another’s shortcomings. In a society like this it is often observed that leadership has less of a challenge replenishing its competence seeing as initiative and individual progress is encouraged. Collectively considering the trajectory of the development of the world’s stagnated economies, rising nations and emerging superpowers, there is at least the slightest possibility that the perception leadership in any given state has of its role in society does to some discernible degree determine the level of political composure and global dominance the society ultimately assumes at any particular point in history.
Posted on: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:05:40 +0000