RE LEADERSHIP

It is a common fact of life that there presently exist great disparities between the demands of most positions of political leadership and the character and abilities of the leaders who occupy them.  In most Western and other, more "advanced" nation-states, key political positions are generally held by individuals who belong to the right "group" or clique," or "party."  These are all similar terms expressing the accurate, though actually inappropriate, parameter that thus exists today in most, if not all, parts of our world.

In 1915, in a work entitled Political Parties, political scientist Roberto Michels identified the tendency, within groups organized in democratic ways for democratic aims, to develop into groups run by a few men, mostly for their own goals.  Michels was correcting commenting about the history of mankind since the beginnings of the democratic process.  Moreover, it appears that the facts expressed in his assessment have not changed much between the publication of his book and the present day.

"Ceremonial and rhetorical skills, soldierliness, and organizing ability" have been identified as common traits "among political officeholders and office seekers within societies everywhere."  (Alfred DeGrazia, Political Behavior)  And although military aptitude may assist aspiring office-holders to succeed, the abilities of military men to make "the most important decisions" has been assessed as "questionable."  (ibid.) 

                                                                  * * * * *



Government by Force

Probably the worst form of government that can exist is government by compulsion.  And yet, ironically, it continues to arise and flourish in too many places to this very day.  In 1976, historian J.M. Roberts declared that during the last thirty seven years, the world had come to be burdened by more dictators and more authoritarian political regimes than had existed in the 1939 Fascist era.  (J.M. Roberts, History of the World)  This indicates an unfavorable as well as dangerous potential for all of us; and a particularly painful situation for the millions who must actually live under such rule.

Government by force, also known as dictatorship, has led to much suffering and many deaths in many places.  In Russia, under the yoke of Josef Stalin, some twenty million human beings died between 1927 and 1953, as a result of executions, famines, and the regime's infamous labor camps; while another twenty million were arrested or uprooted during the same period.

During the 1930s, ruthless dictators, such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, were able to use their peoples' nationalism, combined with economic troubles caused by the first Great War and the Great Depression, to seize power and lead the entire world into World War Two,

When that War ended, the 1950s witnessed a number of new or newly restored nations grow out of the ashes and peace talks.  Many of these fledgling countries were internally weak; which caused a number of one-party authoritarian, and/or military, governments to spring up and take control, in efforts to establish strong central authority in such places.

Later, during the mid-sixties, China's Mao imposed a "Cultural Revolution" upon his people, which resulted in three million being arrested and sent to labor camps--at thich some 700,000 perished.  To quote Chairman Mao:  "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun...our principle is that the Party commands the gun...."

This sad state of affairs persisted in many places afterwarde as well.  Such places include Central and South America, where business interests, old wealth, and the Church have been known to favor governments founded upon coups and resultant military dictatorships as a more stable alternative over reform-seeking civilian politicians.  During the nineteen sixties and seventies, we saw travesties arise, such as the administration of Francois Duvalier in Haiti, with his own private army of tantons macoutes; Generals Torrigos and Noriega in Panama (the latter of whom allegedly divided his time between drug dealing and running a nation); Idi Amin, who massacred entire ethnic groups in Uganda; and Colonel Alberto Natusch, who in 1979 proclaimed himself President following that nation's two hundredth coup d'etat in Bolivia.

We should probably pity the poor peasants of Vietnam, who were divided into two groups by authoritarian leaders on both sides, conscripted into rival armies, and compelled (with much outside help) to slaughter one another over a period of years.

And we should probably shudder to realize that the abuses of authoritarian rule continue.  A moving example is Somalia--where independence brought about dictatorship, corruption, and much murder and mayhem; accompanied by the most foolish expenditures of what little resources the nation possessed upon milirtary armaments; and a "government" that, until recently, controlled but a few square blocks within the capital.

                                                                   * * * * *