Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Democracy and the Election of Leaders.


The troubles in the Muslim countries today seems to spring from a lack of consensus on what a good and desirable leadership should be.In simple terms, people are not sure what type of people they want to govern the country. Is an effective and a desirable leader a person who can keep everything in order in the country while the people enjoy a steady pace of development and progress although he (or she) has to exercise a strong and firm hand, or should he be one who has no strong conviction himself and just listens to his friends and advisers (including those from outside the country) to determine what action must be taken in any situation? the strong and weak hands

Modern political theories and philosophy of management tell us that a leader must be democratic, listen to and be guided by the advise of leaders at lower levels, and be responsive to the feedbacks that he or she gets from the public in regard to the effectiveness of his policies and programs. He/she should be able to get the best from those working under him/her, be it in terms of ideas or work productivity. He or she doesn't have to be super intelligent but is able to tap the minds of others under him/her. He or she should be very friendly with the people working under him or her and the people that the government serves. He/she should be popular with all and must be easily approachable.undefined desirable qualities

But a very popular leader following the above prescriptions can be easily persuaded by his close friends and powerful allies both within and outside the country. He or she can easily loose touch with the common men-in-the-street for he depends on his friends and the leaders below him to report and interpret what is happening. His "advisers", official or otherwise, can easily convinced him that everything is okay and arranged for him to be given a rousing welcome wherever and whenever he goes out to see the people. He can be effectively 'shielded' from the reality of things on the ground.
the popular outlaw
In contrast is the leader who wants things to be run in his way, finds out the truth himself (or herself), and holds a firm hand on everything that happens in the country.He/she doesn't allow anything to go out of control and nips all problems in the bud. He or she might even appear a little despotic but everything remains under firm control leaving people to live and work in peace. The welfare on the many is given more consideration than the interests of the few who are already rich and prosperous, or the views and advice of his close friends who are thriving under his aegis. He or she will not allow outside interests to disturb the peace and welfare of the people, even if the country has to undergo a somewhat strained relationship with some other countries. He or she rules with a rather firm hand, even if he or she is not quite popular but well respected.

The muslims in the trouble-ridden countries seemed to ba uncertain on what type of leadership they want. Many strong but a somewhat undemocratic kind of leadership had fallen, with the help of outside forces, leaving the country in a worse shape than before. Many are now tottering and on the brink of falling, leaving the country in a state of self-destruction. The people seemed to want a new leader with certain qualities but failed to define those qualities or agreed among themselves on those qualities so that they can agree on the best candidate available. It is a disagreement on those undetermined qualities of a desirable leader (or leaders) that led to conflicting choices and a bitter and blooding bickering among themselves. The disagreement is often exploited by outside forces with a special interest of their own.

Thus the sooner the people decide on what type of leadership they want, and agree on the qualities that are required to meet the need of the day, the faster they will be able to agree on the leader most suitable for the country. Their indecision on who will make the most effective leader to pull the country and people together, will continue to cause havoc and turmoil in the country.

6 comments:

abdulhalimshah said...

Akhi,
It is not a simple choice of what kind of leaders the people want, a lot depends on the political landscape and the hidden hands that exert powerful forces in the country. Take for example in Egypt. The majority voice had chosen Morsi to be their leader, a man who is closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. He was bent on bringing reforms to a nation who had been overdependent on foreign aid to survive and the powerful military who actually exerted influence in a country who had been used to dictatorship. He fell because of the lack of support from this unseen hand who controls power in Egypt.

kaykuala said...

Akhi Norzah,
Well and good and agreed whole heartedly. Western countries that faced political or economic crises in recent times like Iceland, Greece,Spain and Italy and the Latin American states before that had all managed to struggle through. Why? Because there was political will internally and external assistance. Their main concern was the economic crises.
In the case of the Arab countries,they had wealth and strong leaders before. But one can never be sure of unseen hands. We can't be sure how the Arab Spring was instigated where the opposition were supplied from external sources with sophisticated weapons and their leaders propped up with financing.
It was no more a choice of good leadership by the people but the hidden agenda of these so called opposition leaders with motives of their own. That's what happened in Libya and Egypt (Iraq before that) The idea was to reduce these countries into shambles which meant success for these hidden hands. Now Syria and Iran are targetted.
The people can decide for themselves if they don't have oil. Oil puts the whole equation out of sync that made the countries juicy and vulnerable.

Hank

Anonymous said...

There's no doubt Akhi Halim and Kaykuala that the Arab Spring bloodshed is the result of interference by a foregn power under the guise of democratic liberization. But the fact remains that the people (Muslims) in the countries involved are divided on the qualities of leadership that they want and thus become easily influenced by those elememts who wanted to grab power and had the support of a foreign superpower. If the people are set on the type ang qualities of leadership they want, like the Iranians when they chose Ayatollah Khomeni to be their leader, the superpower could not do much to stop them. Even a monarch could be removed.

Anonymous said...

Testing to respon....from tun

norzah said...

Testing again

norzah said...

Testing again....sorry..from tun