Details

Written by Super User

Category: Shruthi Raghuraman

Published: 21 April 2020

Hits: 3289

The ultimate purpose of good governmental leadership is the partial or complete eradication of issues pertaining but not limited to public, economic, and environmental challenges that we face every day. Though many perceive governance and leadership to be interchangeable, a significant difference is present in the context in which the terms are used. Governance is the act of management and the hold of power. The enactment of law to face an issue at hand is an act of governance. Leadership, on the other hand, is the social influence which one party has over the people. It furthers the process of governance by not only enacting the law but also eliciting a response from the public. Leadership (whether good or bad) is only present when it is reciprocated with ‘followership’ in the community whereas governance is independent of public response. The course of good governance is to establish positive institutions to regulate the actions of the public by enforcing order wherever needed. However, the application, influence and the impact of such governance can only come about through good leadership. The first goal of superior leadership is essentially to do whatever it takes to improve the quality of living for the public. In such a government power must be used minimally and must be given up when the reign comes to an end because the purpose of good leadership is not the betterment of the leader but rather the betterment of the follower or in this case the public.

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, conveys the major requirement for any form of leadership to possess. Machiavelli, whose governmental philosophies are considered highly controversial, supplies a rational approach towards the perfect governmental leadership. Though Machiavelli focuses on the characteristics of a monarchy, the fundamental essence of his book can be applied towards leadership in any form of government. The main tenet of The Prince is that to remain in power, the leading party must avoid the hatred of the people. Such an assertion is ironic considering Machiavelli’s support of the utility of cruelty to enforce policies, but the use of cruelty or any technique for that matter should be used only so far that it does not compromise the long-term good will of the people and instigate aggression in the followers. The primary Machiavellian principle is that the leader must use all means necessary to accomplish his goal whether it requires the use of cruelty or merely kindness. However, never must the leader engender hatred amongst his people. 

The major flaw in Machiavelli’s ideology is the thinking that obtaining the goodwill of the people does not depend on the overall happiness of the populace which is essentially the very antithesis of good leadership. Public goodwill is a political instrument to ensure the stability of the prince’s reign. In my opinion, a leader must learn to prioritize morality and public satisfaction before self indulging in his power. Here is a logical way to approach good leadership that coalesces ideas of both Machiavelli’s and mine:

1.In order for there to be a leadership there must be a reciprocating followership. 

2.Good leadership always aims to better public life and to eradicate poverty, lack of education, environmental problems, economic issues etc.

3.The stability of the good leadership rests on the goodwill of the people.

4.The goodwill of the people is essentially the overall happiness of the populace.

5.Therefore, the ultimate goal in any form of good leadership whether it be a democracy or a monarchy is to ensure the overall happiness of the populace.

This approach to leadership focuses on the elimination of corruption at all levels. When the goodwill of the populace is secure in all areas, the public satisfaction is ensured meaning that there is less need for corrupt acts such as bribery, stealing, polluting etc.

Good leadership is often best analyzed through an example of a single leader considering the word leadership itself connotates individuality. A paradigm of good leadership, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a Roman consul and a farmer who essentially became the sole dictator of Rome twice, in 458 BC and 439 BC. Cincinnatus exhibited good leadership because he understood the workings of power when it was entrusted upon him. He knew when to utilize it and more importantly how to give up the power once his duty was fulfilled. Cincinnatus’s first term as a dictator began when Rome was menaced by the Aequi tribe from the east and the Voslcians from the South. Ravaged with panic, the Roman Senate pleaded with Cincinnatus to become sole dictator and lead the city to safety. He assented to the request and within sixteen days defeated the Aequi and the Voslcians. After he had fulfilled his duty Cincinnatus immediately resigned his absolute authority and went back to being a farmer noting in the process that the republic of Rome would be destroyed if he assumed sole dictatorship. This instantaneous resignation of absolute authority once the public welfare is ensured is a ideal example of good leadership.

Another way to look at leadership is to observe the microcosmic efforts made in the everyday community. Any individual who initiates a campaign to better everyday life of others demonstrates the characteristic traits of a leader. It is to be noted that the individual must work towards public welfare of others rather than personal gain. Leadership in a way must be considered a sacrifice; in the process of representing and catering to the wellbeing of the people, the leader must often give up his individual desires and essentially become selfless. A good example of such a trait being demonstrated is by Narayanan Krishnan who was originally an award-winning chef with a five-star hotel, short-listed for an elite job in Switzerland. However, during a quick family visit home before heading to Europe in 2002, Krishnan went to a temple in Madurai and saw an old man eating his own human waste for food. Deeply moved, Krishnan quit his job within the week and returned home for good, convinced of his new calling. Soon after, Krishnan founded his nonprofit organization, the Akshaya Trust in 2003. Now at age 29, he has served more than 1.2 million meals to India's homeless and destitute, mostly elderly people often abused and abandoned by their families. To financially support his endeavors, Krishnan uses the monthly rent he receives from a home his grandfather had given him and sleeps in Akshaya's modest kitchen with his few co-workers. By giving up his individualistic goals and assuming the responsibility of feeding the homeless, Krishnan exhibited good leadership traits. When he found something wrong with his surroundings, he had the initiative to make a difference which, when it comes down to it, is the biggest power of leadership. Through his actions, Krishnan has not only progressed towards the betterment of the people, but he has also set an example. He has paved a pathway in which others can follow.

Good leadership can be seen on diverse levels in a community therefore leadership is an acquired rather than an innate trait. The ultimate leadership involves three things:

1.Use of designated power efficiently

2.Emphasis and progress on the welfare of the people

3.The resignation of power when the leader’s duty is done

The explanations I have given thus far essentially outline a solid approach to good leadership and good leadership will lead to good governance. Whether in an individual level or a governmental level the fundamental goal of good leadership is to benefit the people. 

Details

Written by Super User

Category: Shruthi Raghuraman

Published: 21 April 2020

Hits: 1775

It is not every day that an eleventh grader such as myself has the opportunity to read such thought provoking ideas as those exhibited by the participants of the Siv-G Online Essay Contest of 2011. The submitted essays, responding to the topics of human integrity and corruption, are a reality check to the current state of India. They not only efficiently point out the gravity of current problems, but also give possible solutions.

The awareness spread by Siv-G Essay Contest is a progressive step in the long, winding journey to end corruption. The ideas of the participants have drawn a schematic of the future well being of India. A reoccurring theme in the essays is the fact that in order to eliminate corruption “in public life, the private life has to be sanitized” (Sathyaprakash Rao). The only way to have the desired anti-corruption ripple effect on society is to purify the individual. This form of self improvement, or integrity, is solely based on the “consistency of actions, values [and] methods” in an individual’s life journey (S. Hindushree). The submitted essays establish motivating and rousing ways to improve both an individual’s “intellectual integrity” and “financial integrity” which, when lacking, can lead to the “weakening of the system, loss of people’s faith in administrative machinery, extravagant spending of public money … with misuse of power” in a society. (Vaishnavi). Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest minds of the enlightenment, built his rags to riches story purely based off of individualistic improvement. In his autobiography, he establishes thirteen virtues based on reason and logic to build integrity in life. As a result he went from a mere newspaper printer to one of the founding fathers of the USA with accomplishments ranging from starting the first circulating library to becoming a US ambassador. Benjamin Franklin exhibited the difference one individual can make through simple everyday self improvement strategies. In conclusion, in order to build integrity and promote anti-corruption, each individual, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, must “resolve to perform what you ought; [and] perform without fail what you resolve” (Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin pg. 167).

There are endless ways to take self improvement and development of integrity and apply it to anti-corruption. The process is similar to building a pyramid in the sense that one must start at the bottom and lay a solid foundation for all the future anti-corruption work. It is important to keep in mind that age is not a limiting factor in the participation of any anti-corruption movement. All individuals have the freedom to voice their opinions where there is a need for reform. For example, in Britain’s Got Talent 2011, an internationally broadcasted event in which the winner performs in front of the Queen of England, 7 year old Olivia Binfield strutted onto the stage with a 9 foot Boa Constrictor around her neck and gave a speech to the judges on the importance of the conservation of endangered species. Her audition tape now has been seen by millions on YouTube making her an example where high individual integrity turned into action has made a difference.  Furthermore, it is imperative for the younger generations not to be intimidated by overbearing societal conventions. Youth is not a synonym for naiveté and immaturity. The younger generation is more capable of looking at present problems with a fresh, unsullied mind, without which the anti-corruption movement is not possible.

A great way for all ages to incorporate the ideas presented in this competition is to start a Free Thinkers club. Club members can consist of friends from school, relatives, neighbors, etc. Dedicate an hour every week for a club meeting and simply talk about changes that can be done to help the community or even society in general, thus creating a non judgmental zone in which all individuals have the freedom to voice their thoughts. Then organize events for the betterment of the neighborhood. Possibilities can range from a monthly cleanup of the street to cooking food for a few homeless people on the side of the road. Even if such efforts make only a small dent in the whole sea of corruption do not get overwhelmed and stop. The essays submitted in this competition give incredible insight to the dismal state of corruption in India, however they all emphasize the fact that the development of personal integrity can lead to a less corrupted society. My recommendation for this generation is to observe corruption and confront it. The resulting change may be small but it is still a progressive step in the anti-corruption movement. In the famous words of Mother Teresa, “If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one. We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.”