Do Strong leaders create weak societies?

Whenever we talk about leadership, we hear arguments that a leader needs to be strong, charismatic and so on and so forth. The leader is supposed to be on the front leading his troops, talk fearlessly and take tough decisions during difficult situations. Let’s take a step back and ask these questions - What outcomes do we want through a leader? In the case of a country, the expected outcomes are a peaceful, prosperous and just society that has good relations with neighboring countries & the world at large.

Lets begin with a simple quiz - Can you tell the name of the Prime Ministers/Presidents of any of the following countries? Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Canada, Switzerland, Ireland ….. How many of you scored more than 1? I know Justin Trudeau of Canada. I live in Switzerland and I don’t even know who the President of Switzerland is because they change their President every 1.5 years.Why did I choose these countries? These are the countries that are on the top of the list in the Global Peace Index 2017 and these are the countries where people are peaceful and prosperous.

Going back to our original question, Why do we need leaders? To create prosperity for the people and also, to create peaceful societies so that the people can live enriching lives with their prosperity. It is hard to find the leaders of these countries, forget strong leaders. We also don’t know any leaders historically from these countries. This list debunks the myth that strong leaders drive their country to great success.

Do we really need a strong leader? If I ask you to give me examples of strong leaders, I am sure I would get the following answers in majority — Putin of Russia, Trump of USA, Modi of India, Xi of China, Duterte of Philippines to name a few. Let’s take a look at the rankings of the countries which are led by the ‘so called’ strong leaders. USA is ranked 114, China is at 116, India is at 137, Philippines is at 138, Turkey is at 146 and Russia is at 151. All these countries have strong leaders but why are these countries ranked so low consistently in this index?

One easy way to dismiss this argument is to say that these are big countries and so they have big problems. If that is the case, all the small countries should be wealthy and peaceful. But smaller countries like Philippines, Honduras, Guatemela, Guinnea Bissau are all ranked very low which debunks that argument. Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of size and Philippines is a very small country. Also, peace has no direct correlation with prosperity as we can see from the example of a poor Bhutan at №13 and a rich USA at №114.

So, How did these countries achieve the desired outcomes without strong leaders?

Strong investments in education and equality:

These countries make significant investments in their public education system. Also, they have various community development programs (for example, community cleaning) that helps people to understand their responsibilities.In addition, they have strong cultural integration programs to facilitate people from different cultures to co-exist peacefully. Kids are taught from a young age on the importance of civic sense, being responsible and maintaining privacy to enjoy the benefits of a true democracy. The Swiss national flag is used for polythene trash bags in dustbins, napkins etc to remind citizens to keep their country clean. In some countries, they protect the flag so diligently but fail to keep the country clean. Strong leaders usually drive people towards symbolism in the name of uniting people but the peace index rankings suggest where their countries stand in that ranking.

Inequality is the root cause of corruption. Inclusivity and equality are the foundations of creating a peaceful society. Many of these countries have strong social security programs and even ‘socialistic’ in some aspects. My neighbour pays less rent than me for the same sized apartment because their family income is lesser than mine. It is the leader’s duty to work towards creating equal societies by making strong investments in education and equality.

People take on more responsibility:

Strong leaders project an image that they can solve every problem in their country. A cult of followers will form around them and they talk highly of how that leader will bring radical change. But none of these people will come together to fix a simple pothole in the road. The inherent assumption of ‘strong’ in these arguments is - ‘People cannot do things on their own and they need someone who can drive them’. Swiss citizens vote regularly to decide everything for their country right from building a new bridge in Geneva to deciding on immigration policy. My colleague got a parking ticket from the traffic police recently because a ‘responsible’ citizen had called the police on seeing the car parked in the wrong area.

In India, the Prime Minister launched a Clean India campaign. The intention is noble but the outcomes have been below par because people cleaned in order to get a re-tweet from the PM and not with the intention of actually keeping the place clean. It comes with education on civic sense which is clearly missing in our education. The ‘civics illiterate’ citizens have to play so many roles including father, office worker, husband and the vicious cycle will continue.

Relentless focus on processes:

Individual heroism is undervalued as it is not sustainable and collective efforts are valued. Process has to take care of repetitive activities and people have to constantly manage existing processes or design new processes so that the system as a whole is constantly evolving. India’s external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj is praised for her tireless work through Twitter. While Mrs.Swaraj definitely needs to be commended, I think this approach is not sustainable. If I go to Indian embassy and if I don’t get a proper response, I have to tweet to the minister and then, the embassy will work. Can a Minister respond to the queries of each and every citizen via twitter? Is it scalable and sustainable? Once the minister moves out of office and if the next Minister is averse to social media, we’ll be back to square one and we will be in a worser state than before. The only way to provide sustainable service to citizens is through rigorous systems and processes that can scale across contexts and circumstances while engaging the citizens in the decision making and administration.

A country is successful when the people have a quality life where their kids and women can walk in the streets safely, where essentials like air, water and education are free, where the leaders will have the same level of security like the common person, where the leaders travel in the public transport as another citizen and where citizens engage with the government to develop their country.

We don’t need strong leaders. Alternatively, we need strong leadership. Strong leadership doesn’t come from individuals taking action on behalf of everyone but rather, everyone taking action responsibly to achieve a common goal. Individuals in responsible positions need to facilitate and catalyze the creation of processes that help to elevate the people to take more responsibilities to run their country. The new age problems confronting the world in the form of climate change, pollution, sexual harassment cannot be solved by old age leadership models built around individuals.

Writer, எழுத்தாளன்

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade