RE LEADERSHIP

Government by Heredity

Political scientists distinguish three forms of "legitimacy" that determine the basis of sovereignty:  charismatic, rational, and traditional.

Where sovereignty springs from "charismatic legitimacy," the ruler usually proclaims himself to be, and is often consequently considered to be in possession of, uniquely superior powers, and/or embarked upon some divinely appointed mission.  "Rational legitimacy" constitutes a grounds for the yielding of obedience and respect by the governed to a set of defined rules and laws that are laid down by the leader or his deputies; for the most part logical and clearly set out; and followed by the governed out of fear and/or respect for him or her, or for the concept of obedience to legal mandates in general.

Where "traditional legitimacy" is the rationale supporting someone's power, his claims, acts, and rulings are accepted and followed simply because this is the way it has always been; and thus, for the sake of uniformity and security, should always be.  This last sort of legitimacy is the common form upon which kings, emperors, and other such monarchs, were given, or founded, their claims to power down through history.

In years gone by, monarchs became tyrants, taxing at will, regarding their nation's resources as their personal property, living luxuriously while subjects starved, and occasionally--resorting to "charismatic legitimacy"--declaring themselves to be deities--or descended therefrom.  For example, in seventeenth century France, the Divine Right concept and Cardinal Richelieu combined to insist that kings be regarded and respected as "most glorious instruments of divine providence," recipients of authority directly from God, and accountable to God alone.  Laboring under such misapprehensions, it is no wonder that the French Kings of that period behaved as they did.

England's royalty believed and behaved little differently.  They considered the nation to comprise the monarch's estate; and the rest of the populace to be but tenants or occupants thereof.

Russian royalty exhibited a like attitude prior to the revolution.  Czars, supported by the Russian Church, felt no compunction in considering and treating the country and its people as but an extension of their persons.

More recently, a former army sergeant rose to seize power in the Central African Republic, one of that continent's most poverty-stricken countries.  He bestowed the title of "emperor upon himself, at a 1977 coronation ceremony that cost his "subjects" over twenty million dollars.

When, in 1971, England's Queen Elizabeth II asked Parliament to increase her annual grant to $1.4 Million (in U.S. Dollar equivalent), Richard Crossman, a former Labor Minister and current editor of the New Statesman, commented that one of the world's richest women ought think twice about burdening [poor ordinary] taxpayers further.

It is simply not logical to entrust the regulation and guidance of a people or place to a particular person or group who simply claimed or snatched power at one time or another in the past.  And there is even less logic in the supposition that the descendants of a person or persons who were relied upon for personal and material protection, by a relatively small group of people many years ago, are today the most effective individuals to direct and guide the sizeable segment of society that comprises a "nation."  Ancient demonstrations of strength, bravery, domination, or ability to assemble and direct hordes of combatants, though perhaps admirable at the time, ought not be the basis for trust and powers that can affect the lives and fates of millions in today's society.

A remnant of the age of widespread monarchy consists of the two-chamber legislative system that exists in a number of countries, including Canada, England, and the United States.  The upper house represents, in a symbolic fashion, what was formerly known as the "aristocracy."  As such, it is still meant to be a check against the possible hasty acts of the lower chamber (or "common people").  In some countries, including Canada, members of the upper chamber are appointed--rather than elected; and in England, membership in the House of Lords is still principally hereditary.  In various other countries, possession of a certain amount of wealth, membership in a profession, or a title of nobility, are prerequisite to service in the upper section of the legislature.  This rationale betrays pure and simple resistance to change, and hopeful preservation of an obsolete status quo. 

Application of common sense ought produce a realization that neither a quantity of wealth, a professional degree, nor a noble title, will cause the possessor to be the most efficient or effective in the guidance and direction of society.  On the other hand, come to think of it, neither does the fact that a member of the lower house--or of any other branch of government--was "elected by a landslide."  Only the most capable and competent in the actual pursuits involved in any field--including those concerning the administration and operation of our world--should be in positions of leadership and guidance within governments anywhere.

                                                           * * * * *



Government by Politicians

"Democracy" sounds like a good thing.  It conjures up ideas of a mass of people voicing and effectuating their desires, approvals, and disapprovals.  But in actuality, this is not what happens.  Instead, the decisions and determinations, policies, and actions that determine our lives, expend our money, and take our sons, are made by officeholders who are beholden to their party superiors, and to the dream of re-election.

It is simple common knowledge that the policy-making branches within the governments of our democracies are usually controlled, to a great extent, by the political party which happens to be in the ascendency at the moment.  These parties, like most organizational entities, are directed by a hierarchy of leadership.  Here, the leadership looks to party and personal aspirations, as well as to future electoral victories, in its decision making and policy-crafting processes.   In addition, it would be naive to suppose that seniority, nepotism, and party affiliation  never enter into the determinations and choices that are arrived at.

As has been stated earlier--and demonstrated numerous times through the ages--popularity is not necessarily accompanied by administrative or managerial skill.  Further, government decisions have been said to often be devised as a palliative until the next election; as well as frequently directed more toward the maintenance of approval by certain key people, interests, or groups, than toward actual objective benefit to the totality of the decision-makers' constituencies.

It has been suggested that certain elective offices (such as the U.S. House of Representatives) have a longer tenure--in order to avoid the present circumstance wherein officeholders are absorbed in campaigning for the next election shortly after their terms have begun.

Such preoccupation with such campaigning has even at times "spilled over" into the thinking of "unrelated" parties--such as, in October, 1956, when England, France, and Israel formulated an attack upon Egypt over the Suez Canal crisis, believing U.S. President Eisenhower would be too busy with his bid for re-election in November to interfere with the plan.

Campaigns for political office (along with football, or soccer, or rugby, depending upon where you are) has itself become a form of mass diversion.  Television appearances, declarations, and debates by and among candidates have become commonplace and more or less necessary in this era.  They are, of course, timed and staged, by media professionals, so as to command maximum impact upon the usual countless viewers.

In a debate, we check and evaluate the candidates' appearance, dress, stage presence, speaking ability and debating skills.  All but the last are completely irrelevant--and the last bears but little relation--regarding competence and efficiency in the operation of the mechanisms that affect the lives and fates of all of us.

Perhaps our late President Reagan summed this up when he said, during his presidential campaign:  "the things I've done so far are far away from this [the presidency of the U.S.]....[But] a substantial part of the political thing is acting and role-playing, and I know how to do that."  (Downey, Green, et. ors., eds., The Twentieth Century)

It's poxssible, in fact, that all of this media exposure has become a factor contributing to the circumstance that, in the United States at least, the presidency seems to have increasingly taken on traits of "personal rule" or "presidential monarchy."  Personal initiatives, possibly fueled by semi-conscious, though understandable, aspirations to "go down in history" as a "great" President, have resulted in decisions and actions that have had effect upon millions worldwide--sometimes unfavorably, sometimes tragically.  Meanwhile, the masses who elected him accept such determinations, and their results, with nothing more than apathy and fatalism.

                                                           * * * * *