The actual formulation of the Leader Principle is attributed to the German political philosopher Graf Hermann Alexander Keyserling (1880-1946) who promoted the idea that, sticking by the canons of the so-called Social Darwinism, geniuses are born in various fields of human endeavor, which include social leadership. Such extraordinary individuals are born leaders, and it is natural to expect them to fulfill their vocational destiny. There should be little or no controversy if we just stop there. Indeed, some people are born with a talent for leadership, whereas others are more comfortable as followers, while still others, the bona fide individualists, are loath either to lead or to follow, and prefer to be left to their own individualistic pursuits.
A far more loaded, and admittedly, highly controversial, question is whether society ought to organize itself internally along those lines, that is, honoring its born leaders by providing them with permanent structurally codified positions of social leadership, which include the topmost position as leader of the given society.
There is a natural correlation here with the totalitarian principle, which I have already discussed at length in previous sections, and will, no doubt, be discussing again and again, as one of the most important topics of political-philosophical discussion in existence.
It is well known, however, that free societies utterly reject the totalitarian ideal, and the Leader Principle with it. No genius of political leadership, even had one descended from heaven, would be allowed to be entrenched in a permanent position as leader for life. Totalitarians would argue in this case that leaders must be allowed to serve in their specific position, including that of the effective or nominal Head of State for as long as they continue to be effective in this capacity, or nominally, when their name becomes a State symbol. But this is anathema to the champions of free society. The term of leadership for the Head of State must be fixed, and must expire after a certain maximum stretch in office, no matter what. Remarkably, Franklin D. Roosevelt stayed in office as President of the United States of America for just twelve years (1933-1945), which may look like an eternity to the later generations of Americans, but that was wartime, and after that, in 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States limited the President’s maximum stay in office to two terms plus half, in the case of a Vice President succeeding an incapacitated President in mid-office. (Which amounts to the absolute chronological maximum of ten years.
Thus it is the United States of America, where the internal safeguards against the totalitarian principle, and the Leader Principle associated with it, must be the strictest in the world, especially during the last sixty years. Paradoxically however, when projected from the internal state of affairs to the nation’s external outlook, the situation is turned on its head. It seems that the Leader Principle has been very much in play in the American geopolitical stance, and, as for who is destined to perform the glorious role of the leader of the world, every voice in Washington DC joins in a resounding chorus, chanting in unison: U-S-A!-U-S-A!!!
To be fair, until some twenty years ago, America had enjoyed a rightful role as the leader of the free world, during the cold-war superpower confrontation. (The phrase “leader of the free world” actually dates back to the early years of the cold war.) In a natural polarization of forces, where two camps emerge, especially in a mutually recognized state of war, call it cold war or what, there are indeed the acknowledged commanders and the commanded, leaders and followers, with a virtual equivalency between commander and leader. But this is not what Keyserling had in mind when he formulated the Leader Principle.
...The situation changed dramatically with the dissolution of the USSR and America’s assertion of a unipolar leadership in the post-Soviet world. It was only then that America’s claim of leadership had become devoid of legitimacy. Does the world need or want a leader nation? Not according to the level of utter disdain and undisguised contempt, which it has been showering upon its self-proclaimed leader lately!
Now, if the world wanted to elect itself a leader, what would be wrong with, say, the United Nations, where each nation has representation, and therefore none finds itself in the inferior position of a follower? Besides, there are dozens of international organizations today utilizing the principle of rotating presidency. This can be the only type of democratic leadership that the nations of the world will agree to accept in good faith in peacetime… I am sure that by this time my reader gets the picture…
I am rather cynically predisposed regarding the current international “war on terror,” declared by the United States a decade ago, which presumably serves today to legitimize the American leadership of the “civilized world” under the conditions of an artificially perpetuated state of war. (Perhaps this is exactly why America has been so vehemently insisting on a state of war: to justify a modern-day equivalency between leader and commander.) But, as I wrote almost a decade ago, terrorism as such is a perennial phenomenon, in national and international experience. And it has traditionally been treated not as a military, but as a criminal activity, requiring police action, rather than military force, to be mounted against it.
Claiming world leadership on the grounds of the ongoing “war on terror” is false and disingenuous. It would be far more honest to claim world leadership on the grounds of America’s Manifest Destiny, because this is what America really-really honestly and sincerely believes!
Which is, of course, a manifestation of America’s belief in the Leader Principle, amounting in practical terms to the belief that America has been called to lead the world.
A far more loaded, and admittedly, highly controversial, question is whether society ought to organize itself internally along those lines, that is, honoring its born leaders by providing them with permanent structurally codified positions of social leadership, which include the topmost position as leader of the given society.
There is a natural correlation here with the totalitarian principle, which I have already discussed at length in previous sections, and will, no doubt, be discussing again and again, as one of the most important topics of political-philosophical discussion in existence.
It is well known, however, that free societies utterly reject the totalitarian ideal, and the Leader Principle with it. No genius of political leadership, even had one descended from heaven, would be allowed to be entrenched in a permanent position as leader for life. Totalitarians would argue in this case that leaders must be allowed to serve in their specific position, including that of the effective or nominal Head of State for as long as they continue to be effective in this capacity, or nominally, when their name becomes a State symbol. But this is anathema to the champions of free society. The term of leadership for the Head of State must be fixed, and must expire after a certain maximum stretch in office, no matter what. Remarkably, Franklin D. Roosevelt stayed in office as President of the United States of America for just twelve years (1933-1945), which may look like an eternity to the later generations of Americans, but that was wartime, and after that, in 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States limited the President’s maximum stay in office to two terms plus half, in the case of a Vice President succeeding an incapacitated President in mid-office. (Which amounts to the absolute chronological maximum of ten years.
Thus it is the United States of America, where the internal safeguards against the totalitarian principle, and the Leader Principle associated with it, must be the strictest in the world, especially during the last sixty years. Paradoxically however, when projected from the internal state of affairs to the nation’s external outlook, the situation is turned on its head. It seems that the Leader Principle has been very much in play in the American geopolitical stance, and, as for who is destined to perform the glorious role of the leader of the world, every voice in Washington DC joins in a resounding chorus, chanting in unison: U-S-A!-U-S-A!!!
To be fair, until some twenty years ago, America had enjoyed a rightful role as the leader of the free world, during the cold-war superpower confrontation. (The phrase “leader of the free world” actually dates back to the early years of the cold war.) In a natural polarization of forces, where two camps emerge, especially in a mutually recognized state of war, call it cold war or what, there are indeed the acknowledged commanders and the commanded, leaders and followers, with a virtual equivalency between commander and leader. But this is not what Keyserling had in mind when he formulated the Leader Principle.
...The situation changed dramatically with the dissolution of the USSR and America’s assertion of a unipolar leadership in the post-Soviet world. It was only then that America’s claim of leadership had become devoid of legitimacy. Does the world need or want a leader nation? Not according to the level of utter disdain and undisguised contempt, which it has been showering upon its self-proclaimed leader lately!
Now, if the world wanted to elect itself a leader, what would be wrong with, say, the United Nations, where each nation has representation, and therefore none finds itself in the inferior position of a follower? Besides, there are dozens of international organizations today utilizing the principle of rotating presidency. This can be the only type of democratic leadership that the nations of the world will agree to accept in good faith in peacetime… I am sure that by this time my reader gets the picture…
I am rather cynically predisposed regarding the current international “war on terror,” declared by the United States a decade ago, which presumably serves today to legitimize the American leadership of the “civilized world” under the conditions of an artificially perpetuated state of war. (Perhaps this is exactly why America has been so vehemently insisting on a state of war: to justify a modern-day equivalency between leader and commander.) But, as I wrote almost a decade ago, terrorism as such is a perennial phenomenon, in national and international experience. And it has traditionally been treated not as a military, but as a criminal activity, requiring police action, rather than military force, to be mounted against it.
Claiming world leadership on the grounds of the ongoing “war on terror” is false and disingenuous. It would be far more honest to claim world leadership on the grounds of America’s Manifest Destiny, because this is what America really-really honestly and sincerely believes!
Which is, of course, a manifestation of America’s belief in the Leader Principle, amounting in practical terms to the belief that America has been called to lead the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment