Great Leaders or Effective Institutions for Climate Change
Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Jon Adams occurred more than 200 years ago offers some advice
All countries are facing problems such as corruption, unrest, unemployment, climate change, poor health care, inequality, poverty, and the list goes on. People want to elect leaders who will addresses these problems as quickly and effectively as possible. Voters believe that a perfect leader must possesses a long list of desirable characteristics for becoming electable. However, the surveys indicate that instead of choosing the best alternative, people feel that they are settling for a least-worst option, which remained true for the most recent US election, even despite all love-hate ambivalent opinion for Donald Trump and the COVID crisis.
So, an obvious question is, why do people — from all democracies — continue to complain about how bad politicians are and fancy about finding ‘the one’ politician to solve all their problems? Is it that the good leaders no longer exist? Does the quality of leader even matter? Is it that leaders, irrespective of their leadership quality, have stopped making decisions with lasting impacts?
The purpose of this article is to explore whether voters need to elect leaders who promise to solve all their problems or demand dedicated institutions for solving problems. I try to interpret the correspondence between Jon Adams and Thomas Jefferson (happened between July-Dec 1813), the second and third US presidents, to gain some insights that might be relevant for politicians as well as electorates of modern politics.
Before proceeding, I would like to state that my expertise on US history or politics in general is elementary, so I extend my apologies for (unintentionally) misinterpreting any historical facts or events. The primary reason for taking an interest in this discourse was because it aligns (in a more abstract sense) with engineering systems thinking. Systems design principles emphasize that an elegant system must work independently without much active intervention or interference, no matter who is running it. I believe that our political systems are quite similar and should address people’s concerns organically (automatically) without having them to constantly worry about electing a candidate and waiting forever for him/her to solve their problems.
Who is a good leader?
MIT President Charles M. Vest, in an address to the Alumni Leadership Conference in 1995 at MIT, noted that a university president was expected to be a¹
“scholar, politician, fund-raiser, budget cutter, salary-raiser, father confessor, negotiator, diplomat, parental substitute, guarantor of safety, provider of wholesome and tasty dorm meals, dedicated researcher, conservator of age-old values, politically correct and hip leader, director of big-time athletics, witty spokesperson to the press, expert on all things, humble servant, charismatic leader, eloquent speaker, sophisticated host, example of physical fitness, well-read, scientist, historian, literary devotee, arbiter of musical taste, expert on waste disposal, investment guru, friend of the city council, towering public figure…”
In theory, talented and virtuous people can become strong politicians, who can ‘get things done’ for common people. However, the issue is defining what constitutes talent and virtue in the first place, let alone finding the people with these qualities.
In his letters to Jefferson dated July 9, 1813 and September 2, 1813, while referring to Jefferson’s idea of ‘aristocrats’ (I couldn’t locate when Jefferson originally introduced the concept of aristocracy in his correspondence with Adams), Adams described the five pillars of aristocracy: beauty, wealth, birth, genius and virtues. Adams argued that while aristocrats defined with talent and virtue would be good political leaders, historical examples suggested that anyone blessed with beauty, wealth, or birth (referring to reputed descent/heredity) was enough to dominate anyone with only genius and virtue. In fact, John Adams lamented that aristocracy was known only by how beautiful you were, how much wealthy you had, and what family you were born into. He even highlighted that no aristocrats with only talent and virtue, without at least one of the first three, were even acknowledged by people.
In response, Thomas Jefferson, the third US president, argued in his letter dated October 28 ,1813 that a system of governance should be administered by the people with virtues such as integrity, honesty, intelligence (and possibly many talent-based virtues sought in a university president). Jefferson considered these individual characteristics a part of “natural aristocracy” or “natural gift”. He was even fine with implementing selective breeding of these naturally talented people to improve human race, as is often done for animals, but he also acknowledged that ‘equal rights’ proponents would object to such a proposal. In the same letter, Jefferson considered attributes such as wealth, birth, beauty, etc., a part of an “artificial aristocracy” which was a “mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.”
Therefore, both presidents seems to have agreed that the talented people (aristocrats with natural gifts) would provide efficient governance irrespective of the structure (or branches) of the government. Both also disliked artificial aristocracy and suggested that it would introduce corruption in governance, therefore, should be kept out of public office.
Who to elect and how?
Despite the mutual agreement on the quality of leaders, both presidents differed on a mechanism to identify and elect natural aristocrat to (or keep artificial out of ) the offices of government in the first place.
Jefferson criticized Adam’s idea of separation of power² and feared that once elected to offices, bad and corrupt people would always find a way to collude and benefit no matter what branch of government they were in. Jefferson, instead, trusted the outcome of elections and assumed that voters would (almost) always choose individuals possessing natural rather than artificial aristocracy. Any kind of wealth and power would not significantly influence governance as long as election process is kept transparent and free of corruption. According to Jefferson,
I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the real good and wise. in some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.
Contrary to Jefferson’s distinction, John Adams was reluctant to classify aristocracy into artificial or natural. In the letter dated November 15, 1813 written to Jefferson, Adams considered any individual attribute that could influence people’s voting patterns a form of electoral aristocracy. According to Adams, the aristocracy included any virtues and vices such as beauty, eloquence, sense-of-humor, kind nature wealth, or family association, as any of these attributes would win an individual an additional vote. Therefore, elections would not always elect intellectually talented people. Moreover, Adams also feared that any individual leadership even based on natural talent risks turning into monarchy or despotism. It would be naive to believe that natural aristocracy would continue to remain honest and wise.
According to Adams, a well-designed system of institutions (e.g., separation of power) was a better alternative to manage government and keep artificial aristocracy in control. Adams advocated³ for a institution-based management of society i.e. system based on rules and formal procedures to run the society. Adams believed that it was impossible to ensure that only best people were elected. So, rather than focusing on who to elect and how, it would be better to structure the government in such a way that different branches would the power of others in check and limit the damages done by electing bad people in some branches.
Relevance for modern climate politics
It can be interpreted that Jefferson trusted people to select best leaders while Adams relied on creating autonomous institutional mechanisms to run the government.
Individual-driven reforms require consistent and enduring attention of the leaders in order to succeed, and usually fail as soon as leadership is changed. The illustration has been obvious in the last two decades. George Bush refused to continue Bill Clinton’s policies on climate change. Donald Trump reversed Obama’s reforms, some of which were restored by Biden Administration. Because many initiatives (Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement) never got formally embedded into the law and governance institutions, they were susceptible to election cycles. Such roller-coaster of solutions to an ever intensifying climate problem rarely work for people and will result in disastrous consequences for everyone.
On the other hand, institutionalizing climate reforms requires creating separate institutions to solve long-term problems, and once institutionalized, these reforms will continue to work irrespective of the type of the leadership running the government. Institutionalizing reforms does not always require only talented, popular, and honest leadership. Many significant environmental/climate institutions were formulated by politicians who were not widely popular, according to the modern standards.
For example Environmental Protection Agency was first established by Richard Nixon. Presidents of both political parties supported the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, even though it was created by Jimmy Carter. Both the reforms have had far more effective consequences for the environmental and clean energy that lasted for generations. Another small example I managed to find was a college recycling initiative. Many US colleges with active environmental activism created a separate, fully-staffed recycling department, while others (often smaller) colleges assigned the recycling duties to existing staff as an additional role. One can only imagine which implementation approach will likely result in better recycling rates.
Climate transition is gaining momentum worldwide, but the current US political system appears to be inadequate for sufficiently responding to climate threats. While Jefferson’s as well as Adams’ approach are complementary and cannot exist without the other, I personally, and many reputable politicians advocate rebuilding institutions to address societal problems, including climate change. For the purposes of clarity in this article, institutionalizing reform implies creating legal/regulatory institutions with (mostly) independent authority, equivalent to a separate branch of government with adequate resources and legal power to address the specific problem. Studies have indicated that institutions-based governance has had significant impact on rapid economic development of some countries (South Korea, West Germany) while the other counter parts (North Korea, East Germany) that lacked institutions lagged behind.
One such solution could be to start respecting science in public discourse. Currently, we do not have an empowered scientific branch of government (or simply an independent scientific body) whose scientific opinion would be considered (legally) supreme in the country for customizing all laws and policies accordingly and binding on everyone. While I respect scientific advisory councils that presidents/leaders have, they lack legal authority and are often toothless tigers. The body might also hold politicians/individuals/corporations legally accountable for lying or misguiding the public on climate issues. Unfortunately, our system continues to rely on elected officials (law-makers) who prioritize short-term re-election over long-term solutions.
Final thoughts
Great leaders matter even today, but empowering leadership is less important than what one does with that leadership once empowered. While an ideal democracy would have both — perfect mechanism to elect most talented leaders as well as diversified institutional structure, it is often not the case. We either have bad leaders in good systems, good leaders in bad systems, or the worst — bad leaders in bad systems (often dictators).
Though I also desire for great leaders to run the government, it may not always be possible, so I prefer electing any leader in a good system. A well designed system of governance with effective separation of powers will always be functional towards it goal, and it will not matter who is running the government. In the case of climate change, rather than hoping to elect green leaders, it may be more fruitful to for people to demand forming new independent government bodies or empowering the existing ones to ensure that emissions are reduced to zero in decades and environmental resources are conserved.
I would like to end by quoting Atal Bihari Vajpayee, former Indian prime minister and one of the most revered politicians, who said in one of his speeches that “governments come and go, but the democratic structure must remain intact”. For me as an engineer, that structure comprises numerous autonomous institutions, which should be designed so that a government works wonderfully for people despite electing inefficient/undesirable politicians.
References
¹ Please note that the list is still not comprehensive and true only for a university president.
² I could not locate (or probably missed) what specific correspondence Jefferson was referring to when he attributed Adams’ support for separation of power. It is possible that he was referring to the general belief of Adams in separation of power.
³ Jon Adams never explicitly advocated separation of power in his correspondence, but I interpreted based on his past support for institutional autonomy.
Just a fun exercise: the current political scenario will likely continue and we will elect pro-climate/anti-climate leaders alternatively for another 30 years. So, we will unlikely to see any bipartisan political momentum towards addressing climate change. However, imagine that one day you, as a citizen, have been granted a wish to make one change, including constitutional amendment, in the entire US political system that you think is essential to solving the climate problem. What would that be? Remember that whatever you do, politicians can reverse it. Nonetheless, a policy/program is easier to reverse than repealing laws or dismantling institutions. Write your answer in the comment section below.
