The Good Shepherd (Pt I)

"I am quite aware that it is necessary for the success of any complex undertaking that one man should do the thinking and directing and in general bear the responsibility. But the led must not be compelled, they must be able to choose their leader."

What I wish political elections reminded me of... "He who takes the greatest danger, he who bears the heaviest burden, that man is King."

What political elections actually remind me of... "All history is only one long story to this effect: Men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others, and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others."

People are reasonably smart about choosing a leader. In small groups. In real-world settings. In situations where they have seen the options in action.

They will follow the person who is the smartest. Who has the best information and/or can use it the most effectively. Who can communicate to the group what the group needs to know. Who acts for the good of the group.

They do respect the person who takes on the dirty or difficult jobs that no one else wants to do. Who will bear the responsibility of a bad outcome without trying to shift the blame. Who does not have unreasonable expectations of them. Who is not afraid to consult them about what they know.

So why does the process of choosing leaders for much larger groups (e.g., states or nations) deviate so much from these simple yet effective criteria and observations?

That's largely a rhetorical question. I have no intention of trying to summarize the psychology of political elections. I am merely baffled by the discrepancy in how people behave in elections and how they decide to follow/nominate a 'leader' in their immediate circumstances/environment. And since I have a blog wherein I can rant about such things, here are just a few thoughts on leaders and leadership...

• A leader should fill a recognized need of the group. A group may need direction in completing a task, or they may need a representative voice, but they should have a clearly defined need before seeking a leader to fill that need. A leader should also be clear about the needs that s/he has been called to fill, and how s/he will go about filling those needs. The absence of a need should mean the absence of a leader.
• A potential leader should be assessed on his/her merits alone, not in comparison to 'the other guy'. Nothing is so dispiriting to the group psyche as feeling like you have only chosen 'the lesser of two evils'. Nothing (to me) embodies the antithesis of leadership so much as a potential leader who will encourage any perception of 'I'm not as bad as...'.
• Leadership is a burden that should be borne gracefully, not a title that should be sought desperately. Leadership should be a situation-specific response, not a coveted status. Nothing makes a leader so useless to his/her group as his/her own self-interest in preserving the status of 'leader'.

I've cast my votes in this election already, but not without thinking a great many thoughts in line with those stated above...