Do Leaders Lead or Poll?
April 27th, 2007I’ve always viewed myself as a proponent of participatory democracy. I’m in favor of representative democracy, of course; but the ideal from back in my Greek philosophy days was a city state in which participatory democracy flourished.
However, when I see it play out based on current economics, it appears to be a whole lot more interesting in theory than it is in practice. A participatory contribution to issues and issue resolution is not all that dissimilar to a poll. And I know in so many ways, submitting issues to polls, especially if it burdens today in favor of a benefit tomorrow, will rarely win out.
Representative democracy is fairly similar. I see politicians who are leaders. But I also see so many politicians whose primary mandate is to either achieve or remain in elective office. Their job, therefore, isn’t to lead as much as it is to measure the public’s appetite and to direct based on that. The problem, of course, is that taking polls does not leadership make. Taking polls simply represents understanding current views. Polls represent current thinking. Leadership represents future pacing.
A true leader espouses a vision of the future which may not necessarily look the way this day looks. A leader does not pander to the lowest common denominator, nor is a leader a demagogue fomenting dissension, conflict, confusion, disinformation, or unrest. A leader unifies disparate views, and a leader provokes visions of a better way of life, a life worth creating or a community experience worth sharing.
I am not resurrecting a de Tocqueville view of centuries gone by, but I am observing limitations both participatory democracy and modern political realities provide. Democracy—participatory or representative—is as good as governing human beings will allow. But God help us if leadership within a democratic state shirks its responsibility to lead.
History has always called out a need for leaders. That’s true now more than ever.
Original writing date: March 1, 2007