The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Great leaders - born or made? > Comments

Great leaders - born or made? : Comments

By Souchou Yao, published 3/1/2007

Morality and the peril of leadership - the Confucian perspective.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Yao Souchou raises a key factor regarding societal management - the deep seated need to follow.

I wonder whether this is an evolutionary effect of our tribal/herd/pack origins in which a leader either took, or was granted, control of an organisation.
If so, it could demonstrate the difference between the exercise of political, as opposed to moral, power.

Political power results from force, either the force of the ballot box following social coercion, or the force of arms, whereas moral power emerges from appraisal of the leader's ethical character followed by the personal or collective decision to accept and support him or her.
Active versus passive agreement.

In either case, the matter of trust comes into consideration.
Trust equates to credibility, and may be dependent on previous ability, an ongoing evaluation of current skills with resulting presumptions for the future.
All of these stages depend critically on society's access to fact and truth, which is why a widespread, free media is important.
It is an old cliche, but knowledge is power....a handy way to keep the bastards honest.
Posted by Ponder, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 9:02:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one ever has or ever will be as great a leader as the Lord Jesus Christ. He is our greatest Teacher and example of the only ever perfect leader.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 9:10:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great Article.

Ponder,

I agree with you to some extent, but I think it a little more complex. As primates we also need to 'belong'. Being part of a social group and accepted as part of that group is just as important. Hitler used this with the Nazi party, and Hitler Youth etc. We feel the need to be wanted, safe and protected and look to our 'alpha' leaders for these needs.

The "jen" described in the article is almost non-existant in our western democracy. Perhaps because the public is cynical of such things. Philanthropy is left to individuals and private organisations.

It is ironic though that such a priciple exists in a eastern societies where official corruption is so widespread.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 9:38:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought of the film currently at the cinemas called "Night at the Museum". In the film, Robin Williams plays the eccentric former US President: Theodore Roosevelt.

He kept repeating the line "some are born with greatness, some have it bestowed on them". We assume he puts himself in the latter as we know that Theodore was himself a sickly child with asthma. He was, in a sense, a great leader. Some of his antics of Empire building: obsessed with taking over Cuba--without horses, lol,--were not Li. Every egomaniac has his good side. At least old Teddy reserved the great national parks, including Yellowstone, in America for nature.

The balance that Confucius speaks of are pearls of wisdom. In Australia I can think of a few that were close to this. Prime Minister Curtin during WWII, whether you agree with the ALP or not, agonized over morality. Apparently he never slept during the war and paced up and down the corridors worrying about the troops: the diggers. Maybe this was folklore.

He also had to balance a political party on the verge of a great split. It was as if he was a good leader surrounded by egomaniacs.

This was in contrast to Menzies who only talked about "the greater good" in sacrificing boys for the Empire and how wonderful the Queen was.

Since then? We go into a blur of egos, self interests, shifty agendas dogmas or plain corruption.

Will our generation ever see the kind of leader that is balanced in the Confucian equation? That is yet to be seen.
Posted by saintfletcher, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 4:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article -- although I would note that Caesar put a lot of effort (and money) into courting the Roman masses. All "dictators" in some way appeal to masses. As for willingness to follow, Mussolini claimed that he was not a real dictator because his own will to command “coincided perfectly with the will of Italians to obey”; and Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Mao, Ataturk, Castro, Suharto etc could have made the same claim. There is more at:
http://www.jeffschubert.com/?s=bookchapters
And:
http://www.jeffschubert.com/
Jeff Schubert
Posted by Jeff Schubert, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 5:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article.

Looking back over the eons, Confucianism was, seemingly, the most appropriate and culturally accepted way for society to be seen and governed in China. In the modern era, Socialism with Confucianism dominates any debate in China today.

And the face of politics, mentioned in the article is not to be sneered at either; or at least in some places. We see today, as the world develops and states grow, a sort of federation of states. Paralleled to this, in some cases is the cult of the personality. It just simply was that along the way, some ‘great leaders’ were made not born. And yet the ‘yin & yang’ theory also allows that some are born, not made.

However, the expediency of state, the things that are at stake in the modern era, all too often cause the monied, the propertied and the empowered to build rather than nurture ‘leaders’. Perhaps this is a false economy, perhaps not. However, the complexities of the state today require more than simply manufacturing leaders and personality cults.

Perhaps the only advantage of a manufactured leadership, is that the leadership can be readily de-constructed. Unlike an organic, flowering leadership.
Posted by Gadget, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 5:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy