We hear a lot about "leaders" and "leadership". What are they? Is a dictator a leader? Does a leader have to be to be selected or elected? A lot depends upon what the leader is leading.
A military leader is sometimes also the political leader. Sometimes the military leader is appointed by the political leader. To my knowledge,a military leader who is only the military leader has never been elected.
A political leader is different. Dictators are the "leaders" of their countries but they don't need permission from the led to do whatever they want to do. In a political system where the people choose whom they want to lead them, it is understood that he must do only what the people will allow him/her to do. He needs permission. In our system, it is the peoples' representatives who grant this permission who in turn are advised by their constituents.
Some leaders, even in a system like ours, believe that sometimes they know better what is right for the people than they themselves know. This is all right. If they can inform and convince the people that they are right, the people will allow it. On the other hand if they can't convince the people and they proceed anyhow, because they believe leaders should lead, they really should look over their shoulders to see if anyone is following. If no one is there, that is a clue that should not be ignored.
We do not elect representatives on any level to legislate their beliefs. They represent us.
We also hear much about "government service", "public service" and "political careers". The first two are ambivalent at best but could actually be something virtuous. Politics was never intended to be a career. Those who have turned it into a career should be suspect. Their motives, good or bad, imply that they believe no one can or should replace them. Because of the dangers for us by long time careers by politicians, there should definitely be term limits. Those who argue that "experience" is important forget that experience may be the thing that gets them into trouble.
A military leader is sometimes also the political leader. Sometimes the military leader is appointed by the political leader. To my knowledge,a military leader who is only the military leader has never been elected.
A political leader is different. Dictators are the "leaders" of their countries but they don't need permission from the led to do whatever they want to do. In a political system where the people choose whom they want to lead them, it is understood that he must do only what the people will allow him/her to do. He needs permission. In our system, it is the peoples' representatives who grant this permission who in turn are advised by their constituents.
Some leaders, even in a system like ours, believe that sometimes they know better what is right for the people than they themselves know. This is all right. If they can inform and convince the people that they are right, the people will allow it. On the other hand if they can't convince the people and they proceed anyhow, because they believe leaders should lead, they really should look over their shoulders to see if anyone is following. If no one is there, that is a clue that should not be ignored.
We do not elect representatives on any level to legislate their beliefs. They represent us.
We also hear much about "government service", "public service" and "political careers". The first two are ambivalent at best but could actually be something virtuous. Politics was never intended to be a career. Those who have turned it into a career should be suspect. Their motives, good or bad, imply that they believe no one can or should replace them. Because of the dangers for us by long time careers by politicians, there should definitely be term limits. Those who argue that "experience" is important forget that experience may be the thing that gets them into trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment