In the words of Plato, “The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior.” When a wise, competent leader steps away from a leadership position, an unstable political vacuum emerges which is filled by over ambitious but less competent individuals. This is where the questions arise, – Is political leadership a duty rather than a privilege? Why do competent people step away and the void gets filled with less competent, power-hungry individuals? Is this a system failure that individuals easily get assigned positions and offices they aren’t competent for? This essay argues that incompetent leadership is not purely due to individual failure, but is often due to a systemic failure, systemic incentives reward ambition, persuasion over genuine competence, often discouraging competent leaders from taking up leadership positions.
The oxford dictionary defines leadership as the act of leading a group or organization but this definition oversimplifies the concept. Leadership is incomplete without legitimacy, that is the approval of the people one is leading, shared goals and ambitions, commitment to one’s organization and alignment towards a collective direction. These are the domains which make the meaning complete.
Having established the full meaning of leadership, it is now necessary to ask whether leadership itself is optional. The lack of any kind of central authority has been termed as anarchy by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French philosopher and politician. Though often used in a positive sense, in many cases, prolonged anarchy or statelessness has produced instability and fragmentation. This is evident in the Spanish civil war, – where Anarchy caused chaos, led to divided leadership, disjointed military efforts and economic disruption. Therefore, a leader is the solution of certain critical needs in a group. Groups do not act because they have leaders but they secure leaders to help them act (Albert J. Murphy,1941). Hence leadership is an inevitable social function, formal or informal.
However, the need for leadership, grants space not only to the competent, but also to the ambitious. High self-regard for effectiveness may not always align with one’s actual performance creating the ambition-competence gap. While ambition as a virtue stems from excitement and curiosity, the negative aspect of it is a result of fear, insecurity or a single-minded dedication towards wealth and status over mastery of core skills which makes one a competent leader. Competence however, is not to be confused with formal education. As previously established that leadership is a process and is a function rather than an inherent quality of an individual, the leadership skills of problem solving, decision making etc, stems from knowledge in one’s particular field rather than fancy degrees. Individuals with greater field work experience tend to become better leaders than individuals with fancy bookish knowledge but educated individuals despite their zero experience and skills often are more confident about their abilities than actual competent leaders. This argument is rooted in the Dunning-Kruger effect, a principle in psychology which states a cognitive bias where people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific domain. Incompetent leaders could be very good at interpersonal skills and know how to sell themselves to other people to get to the top. The system is often faulty as people are often drawn to charismatic personalities and cannot differentiate between real capabilities and bravado.
The problem here therefore is not just individual ambition but the mechanisms in which leaders are selected. The system rewards those who focus on getting ahead than those who focus on skill mastery. However, the domination of the less competent in leadership cannot be explained through ambition alone. Perception plays a very important role. Ambitious leaders are usually people who focus on making sure that their reputation is spotless than doing their actual job. A similar point is made by Deborah Rhode (2010) in her book, “the beauty bias”, that good looking politicians get more votes. This means that a person’s looks could have an effect on our perceptions of them regardless their skills and competency since we often attribute all kinds of positive characteristics to attractive people. Studies in psychology shows that people will narcissistic disorders often exhibit over confidence and often get mistaken for people with genuine capabilities.
While the issues exist in leadership generally, its consequences are more profound in the political sphere. When we question the system for producing incompetent leaders, an ancient philosopher who comes into mind, – Socrates. In Plato’s book 7 of republic, Socrates talks about “philosopher kings” though an ancient concept, it is no less applicable in present times. He talks about the education of youngsters who have potential, undergoing a certain type of education which “turns the soul around”. After completing all the initial stages of education namely early education (poetry, music etc), mathematics (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy etc.), dialectics (Form of good), they must complete fifteen years of practical political experience to prepare them for ruling. We clearly notice an all-round development of skills in an individual as he or she gets ready to be the leader. It is not just academic but moral and intellectual development. These are the individuals who make the wisest and most competent leaders.
Now, having discussed the ideal leader, Socrates picks up the argument of “unjust regimes” in the book 8 of Plato’s republic. A common question students get while studying history is how authoritarianism or tyrannical political systems emerged out of no-where? Well, this ancient philosopher who died approximately 2,400 years back explains this perfectly. He demonstrates through a cycle that systemic values in a society determine leadership. When honour, wealth, and ambition is the norm, incompetent leadership emerges naturally. He begins with the regime closest to the just city, proceeding towards the most corrupt city. To begin with, he talks about Timocracy- the rule of honour. The system under this regime values honour, power and military success instead of wisdom and justice as discussed in the “philosopher kings” part of essay. A timocratic leader arises when he or she functions in accordance to the spirited part of the soul which harbours reputation, strength and victory.
The next regime that Socrates explains in Oligarchy- The rule of the rich. The system here values wealth over anything else, – the ruling class are the group of elites who function with the sole motive of hoarding wealth which leads to the enormous gap between the rich and the poor class, crime increases and the rich minority fears the poor majority.
The third regime that Socrates addresses could seem surprising to many. It is Democracy- rule of “freedom”. Here, the poor class formed during oligarchy becomes too desperate and the rich, too wealthy. Everyone holds equal power even though their abilities differ, the leadership positions are chosen by how well they persuade the people rather than their real knowledge. Joseph Schumpter (1942) in his theory of competitive leadership, explores a modern version of the same idea. According to him, democracy is a competition among elites for the votes of the common people. He says that the famous idea of the “will of the people” is a myth because voters are common people who are usually irrational and are easily manipulated. Hence to reach a leadership positions, one must convince the people that he or she should be elected, in other words, elites who are leaders, don’t follow the public opinion but create it. While in history, democracy has elected very competent and great leaders, the percentage of incompetent leaders elected still is more than that of competent leaders.
After discussing democracy, the most common modern regime, Socrates moves on to the next, and the most corrupt regime, – tyranny- Rule of one despot. He famously says that the “freedom” caused by democracy becomes excessive and too much freedom leads to slavery causing utter disturbance in the once peaceful system. Out of this chaos, a leader emerges who claims to protect the poor common people from the rich. To understand this regime better one could take a look at the book 9 of Plato’s republic in which Socrates talks about the tyrannical individual. A leader like so emerges when a democratic leader’s desires consume him or her. In this book, Socrates talks about necessary and unnecessary desires and defines balanced person as someone who is ruled by reason and cam control unnecessary desires, preventing it from taking over. A political tyrant is someone who is exactly the opposite, – ruled by passion and not reason and hence they surround themselves with worthless people who flatter him instead of taking the risk of being surrounded by wise people who might overthrow him, leading to the inevitable destruction of the city. Injustice might seem powerful on the outside but it destroys the system from within and where the leader is incompetent, injustice becomes the rule.
This raises the core question of this essay, – why do competent individuals step back and let the tyrants rule? The philosopher kings, or the knowledgeable individuals who are able to rule justly often step back due to interpersonal risks, such as personal relationship issues or image risks, – the fear of being misunderstood by people closest to them which is unnatural in a society because good leaders are meant to be supported, respected and admired, they shouldn’t be fearing misunderstanding. So, is our system faulty which chooses faulty political leaders? Are the common people designed to elect their representatives in a way that has no room for the competent and the wise? Good people often step back from politics because it is corrupted, holding a political office forces them to compromise with their virtues. They decide they would rather sit back and follow than be a corrupted leader.
To conclude, leadership is an essential social function because groups need coordination to function effectively without which the system often falls into anarchy, which may theoretically mean freedom but leads to collapse of systems if practiced for a long time without a leader. Leadership positions are not purely filled according to competence as ambitious individuals often rise rapidly than wise competent ones due to system failure and clear personal and psychological biases. Drawing on Joseph Schumpter, this essay argues that democracy is not the will of people but a mere competitive struggle for votes where persuasion always wins which re-enforces the fact that it is indeed a system issue. This essay discusses the “philosopher kings” concept of Plato and also talks about the four stages of corrupt regimes by Socrates to explain the “broken” system more efficiently. The system usually favors the more persuasive and charismatic over individuals with real abilities creating a never-ending cycle of tyranny over common people who are either persuaded or too scared to break the cycle. Incompetent leadership is usually not an anomaly but an expected result of the present system.
By: Riddhima Chatterjee
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
