The topic of leadership is extremely controversial largely due to the fact that it is a necessary component for the function of any given society but it is rarely openly discussed as an issue. In other words, everyone has an opinion about leadership but few people actually realize or clearly defined their opinions about leadership. The first question that must be addressed getting clarity on this topic is: what is leadership? What is the nature of leadership? What is the purpose of leadership and what tasks are required for the accomplishment of that purpose? I would suggest that leadership is: the intelligent, intentional, and rightful use of power for the establishment and preservation of an orderly and harmonious society. In other words, a leader can be an individual person or group of persons who has been given authority on the basis of his/her/their ability and moral apprehension of reality. A leader works toward a clearly defined purpose: to establish and preserve order in a given society. Another way to say this is that a leader seeks to establish peace.
Now, "peace" can be defined negatively or positively. Negatively peace can be defined as the absence of war, conflict, or hostility. Positively it can be defined as a state of tranquility.
A leader should be clear on the extent of peace that he is assigned to achieve. Some leaders are merely put in place to restrain conflict or hostility in a given circumstance. An example of this kind of leadership could be the presence of a police officer or perhaps when a city has been declared a state of martial law. Who would ever argue that martial law is put in place in order to bring about a tranquil condition for society? Many leaders are often put into a position of power not just to restrain conflict but to exemplify, encourage, and (insert circumstances) demand unity. In other words, some leaders are put in place to bring about the right conditions for a tranquil or free society.
So what do we mean by tranquil condition? Let's put this thought experiment into context. The president of the United States is a specific kind of leader. He is a leader put in place to exercise force of the law. His primary task is not to write new law, although he is able to do this (and theoretically any American citizen is able to draft up proposals for law). So the question pertinent for the office of president is: what kind of peace is he to bring about? Certainly no one would argue that the president had the authority to restrain evil or disorder, but what is his positive leadership goal? Is the president somebody who is merely put in place to ensure the conditions for tranquility or is he someone that is supposed to bring about tranquility itself? In other words, is the president responsible for not only sustaining the conditions for proper living or welfare but is he also responsible for sustaining life itself? The way one answers the question demonstrates how one understands the administration of justice as it should be practiced from the White House.
This is important to understand when it comes to choosing a presidential candidate. If one chooses a presidential candidate on the basis that he believed that candidate will provide for the continued welfare of his life, then in a sense one has a larger expectation of what a leader can and should be able to do for the order of the society in which one lives. Furthermore, one also believes that it is the president who is responsible for the continued preservation of life and not the subject. This I believe is a dehumanizing and disempowering view of leadership and justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment