DOES THE WORLD NEED A LEADER?

Our earlier entry (namely, Leader Principle, published on this blog on November 26^th, 2011) raised the subject of America’s belief in the Leader Principle, and it goes without saying that one must indeed believe in this principle, in order to declare oneself the leader of the world. Honestly, it seems almost inevitable that, should there be a vote among the nations as to which of them is to be declared the leader, America will garner more votes than anybody else on the rather questionable but understandable assumption that the leader is the one who pays for the party, and the richest man at the table must therefore get the wallet vote. I am sure however that this question of leadership will never be taken to the vote, and there is a good question which must be raised in this connection: does the world need a leader-nation at all?

My judgment is that even to suggest that the world can have a leader is utterly delusional. Most nations are too proud to accept the role of a follower, especially after the stabilizing principle of bipolarity has been so rudely undermined. I also suggest that any nation, without exception, claiming for herself the mantle of the leader will immediately antagonize the rest of the world, regardless of her objective merits.

Thus it is ridiculous to discuss whether the world needs a leader, as clearly the world just cannot have one, that is, one recognized by all, which is the only meaningful way to have a world leader.

A much better and infinitely more practical solution would be to energize the existing international organizations, particularly the United Nations, where the strong powers will naturally play stronger roles than the weak ones, but where the presence of their strong competitors will provide the necessary balance and thus become acceptable to those who will never be able to pass the leadership test by themselves.

Long live the United Nations, and may her detractors be hoisted with their own petards!