August 19, 2016

Judging: keep it simple

In the fields of history and political science, scholars and analysts use various tools and methods to assess the strengths and shortcomings of a particular leadership. But even when they use the latest theories or quote their most esteemed supporters, academics sometimes get it wrong.
The general public is never slow to make judgements on leadership. What’s curious is that the general public makes fewer mistakes than its more scholarly peers. They assess a leadership by answering a few simple questions, such as whether the leader helped them to reach their goals in life or if undesirable things occurred. For example, if the public desire democracy, peace and prosperity, their leadership is responsible for doing all it can to make it a reality. Governments that incite hatred, whether it be racial, religious or otherwise – or worse still, war and poverty – is guilty of misleading the people regardless of how much it waxes lyrical about democracy. The line between leading and misleading is completely clear to the public. The general public simply judge a leadership or an era based on what they went through at the time because they are not armed with scholarly tools or academic methods. What is surprising is that they tend to judge a leadership with more acumen than scholars.


Related posts

Translate »