Positive Examples:
In order to demonstrate these principles effectively, and as aspects of this world that are beyond our manipulation, I will talk about positive examples of leadership, and the impacts and effects it had on the world, and more specifically, the leadership itself.
Franklin Roosevelt:
While the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt may be questioned, the ethic by which he governed the country cannot. The gargantuan New Deal was not what saved the country from the depression. As far as policy is concerned, its overall effectiveness was nill in comparison to the effects of World War II, and the increased demand for military hardware that the United States still hasn't weened itself off of now going into the twenty-first century.xiii In hindsight, it would have been a massive investment into business with stipulations as far as workers' compensation and asset management that would have done the trick more effectively than Roosevelt's alphabet soup of government programs. But what made Roosevelt's policies different than others, was the ethic by which government functioned; that it was there to serve the wider population that it's apart of, that made the difference, and what ultimately lead to him being elected for four terms in a row.
Luckily, for American democracy, that legacy of more than two terms was ended shortly after his death in 1945. But it demonstrates exactly the principles that I described earlier, which leads to the leadership's success and to the society's success. Because Roosevelt made the government and its members work for the people, and not for themselves or other interests, he was able to remain in office for as long as he was physically able to do. He invested in the people. And while his investments may have been executed in a wiser and more effective fashion, it nevertheless yielded results for the Democrats throughout the twentieth century. Cold War ignorance and paranoia inspired arguably by private interests, led to the Republicans holding office in the Presidency more often than the Democrats during the end of the twentieth century (and indeed, further complications for the American government and people going in to the twenty-first century). But try as the modern Republican party might to assert Ronald Reagan over Franklin Roosevelt's legacy, and try as they might to undo the ethic of government that is Roosevelt's legacy and, indeed, the American legacy for their own interests, they still haven't been able to blemish Roosevelt in comparison to Reagan, and they're likely to be surprised by the resiliency of social legacy in the face of objective social realities.
Wukan, China:
The small coastal village of Wukan in Southern China was set by disorder and chaos this past year. People had been petitioning the government for years over issues concerning land seizures, corruption by national officials and negative treatment of the population had sparked bitter feelings towards the regime.xiv In September of 2011, protests were held against the government, which exploded in December of 2011 with Communist Party officials being thrown out of the village. Five representatives of the protestors were rounded up by police which inflamed the issues the people had with the government. In the end, one of the representatives, Xue Jinbo, died in police custody under suspicious circumstances, which again, enraged the demonstrators. The People's Liberation Army surrounded the city, and protestors began arming themselves with whatever they could get their hands on.
Rather than move in to massacre the population, as the Chinese government had done in 1988 at Tienanmen Square, the Communist Party chose, instead, to give generous concessions to the population. The leader of the protestors, Lin Zulian, was named the Communist Party secretary for the village, and elections were granted to allow the people to chose their own village leadership. According to outside journalists, the election was free of meddling from the Communist Party.
This was probably the most clever thing that the Chinese government could have done, given the current situation in the village, and given the state of things in the country as a whole. China has had been having thousands of protests throughout the country for several years at this point. People have been agitated by the apparent inequality of wealth distribution and the suppressive tactics of the Communist Party of China.xvi The village of Wukan, once a display of peace and harmony between all elements of Chinese society, exploded in defiance against the regime in a highly public manner. In order to save face with the international community, and indeed, with their own citizenry, the Communist Party of China could not resort to violence against their own people. Instead, they gave concessions, and were able to peaceably maintain order and stability for themselves. The auspices of the authoritarian regime may, in time, fade away as other villages, towns and cities follow Wukan's example. But the Communist Party can, at the very least, walk away as a viable power in a new regime of China.
Seasons come and seasons go. Regimes come, regimes go. And it's a deeper part of Chinese cultural history than it is Western. A civil war in China would be a globally devastating event. And the Communist Party probably remembers, from their own history, as to how nasty and futile a civil war would be with their peasantry.xvii The People's Liberation Army, with all of its tenacity and all of its strength of arms, could not keep down a 1.2 billion person revolt. And the current Chinese elites can literally not afford a civil war in the auspices of the current economic and political climate of the era.
Power has very clear and obvious limits sometimes. From democracies to autocracies, it simply is the way of the cosmos beyond what our brains think or hope or do to make be otherwise. And the Chinese government demonstrated their understanding of this in their handling of the Han Chinese village of Wukan. They may be able to get away with violence and repression against the Tibetans and the Uighers. But they've at least demonstrated that they know better than to overly irritate the rest of the Chinese population. As a result, they get to remain in power for some time longer, and secure a possible position in government even if they fall out of power at a later date. A well calculated move, worthy of the perspective of an ancient civilization. Notice the benefits that they reap from it for their own selves and their own sakes. And notice too how it also benefits Chinese society and the global society as a whole.
Bhutan:
Nestled in the Himalaya Mountains is the tiny kingdom of Bhutan. However, the country has since undergone a radical change in government, and without a single shot being fired or reputation being lost. The King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, formally stepped down from power, and opened the country up for general elections. The constitution was changed, such that administrative power moved to the Council of Cabinet of Ministers, and that the King could be impeached from office by two-thirds majority of the National Assembly. In 2007, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck formally abdicated from the throne to his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, and the country's first parliamentary elections were held in December 2007 and March 2008. This was not utopia at work. This was politics that happened. And now the Bhutanese people have representation in government, a government that is accountable to them and their needs, and the King is honored and celebrated, and remains an influential, if not politically “powerful” figure in Bhutanese society.
Bhutan is an unusual case, to be sure. But it's not one that's all that different from our own. It exists on the same plane of existence as we do, and it has the same potential for problems like the rest of us. It's not utopia. But it is apart of our own world and our own universe, and not another. The difference between the two is something I'll get in to more in the next section of this paper. But suffice it to say that political change can happen peaceably, and for the benefit of everyone that's involved, including and not limited to the people who are giving up the most in the process of doing so. The king's legacy will live on after he's finished with political power. And his people will be all the more grateful to his legacy because of his actions and deeds that he did effectively and for their benefit as his subjects.
In order to demonstrate these principles effectively, and as aspects of this world that are beyond our manipulation, I will talk about positive examples of leadership, and the impacts and effects it had on the world, and more specifically, the leadership itself.
Franklin Roosevelt:
While the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt may be questioned, the ethic by which he governed the country cannot. The gargantuan New Deal was not what saved the country from the depression. As far as policy is concerned, its overall effectiveness was nill in comparison to the effects of World War II, and the increased demand for military hardware that the United States still hasn't weened itself off of now going into the twenty-first century.xiii In hindsight, it would have been a massive investment into business with stipulations as far as workers' compensation and asset management that would have done the trick more effectively than Roosevelt's alphabet soup of government programs. But what made Roosevelt's policies different than others, was the ethic by which government functioned; that it was there to serve the wider population that it's apart of, that made the difference, and what ultimately lead to him being elected for four terms in a row.
Luckily, for American democracy, that legacy of more than two terms was ended shortly after his death in 1945. But it demonstrates exactly the principles that I described earlier, which leads to the leadership's success and to the society's success. Because Roosevelt made the government and its members work for the people, and not for themselves or other interests, he was able to remain in office for as long as he was physically able to do. He invested in the people. And while his investments may have been executed in a wiser and more effective fashion, it nevertheless yielded results for the Democrats throughout the twentieth century. Cold War ignorance and paranoia inspired arguably by private interests, led to the Republicans holding office in the Presidency more often than the Democrats during the end of the twentieth century (and indeed, further complications for the American government and people going in to the twenty-first century). But try as the modern Republican party might to assert Ronald Reagan over Franklin Roosevelt's legacy, and try as they might to undo the ethic of government that is Roosevelt's legacy and, indeed, the American legacy for their own interests, they still haven't been able to blemish Roosevelt in comparison to Reagan, and they're likely to be surprised by the resiliency of social legacy in the face of objective social realities.
Wukan, China:
The small coastal village of Wukan in Southern China was set by disorder and chaos this past year. People had been petitioning the government for years over issues concerning land seizures, corruption by national officials and negative treatment of the population had sparked bitter feelings towards the regime.xiv In September of 2011, protests were held against the government, which exploded in December of 2011 with Communist Party officials being thrown out of the village. Five representatives of the protestors were rounded up by police which inflamed the issues the people had with the government. In the end, one of the representatives, Xue Jinbo, died in police custody under suspicious circumstances, which again, enraged the demonstrators. The People's Liberation Army surrounded the city, and protestors began arming themselves with whatever they could get their hands on.
Rather than move in to massacre the population, as the Chinese government had done in 1988 at Tienanmen Square, the Communist Party chose, instead, to give generous concessions to the population. The leader of the protestors, Lin Zulian, was named the Communist Party secretary for the village, and elections were granted to allow the people to chose their own village leadership. According to outside journalists, the election was free of meddling from the Communist Party.
This was probably the most clever thing that the Chinese government could have done, given the current situation in the village, and given the state of things in the country as a whole. China has had been having thousands of protests throughout the country for several years at this point. People have been agitated by the apparent inequality of wealth distribution and the suppressive tactics of the Communist Party of China.xvi The village of Wukan, once a display of peace and harmony between all elements of Chinese society, exploded in defiance against the regime in a highly public manner. In order to save face with the international community, and indeed, with their own citizenry, the Communist Party of China could not resort to violence against their own people. Instead, they gave concessions, and were able to peaceably maintain order and stability for themselves. The auspices of the authoritarian regime may, in time, fade away as other villages, towns and cities follow Wukan's example. But the Communist Party can, at the very least, walk away as a viable power in a new regime of China.
Seasons come and seasons go. Regimes come, regimes go. And it's a deeper part of Chinese cultural history than it is Western. A civil war in China would be a globally devastating event. And the Communist Party probably remembers, from their own history, as to how nasty and futile a civil war would be with their peasantry.xvii The People's Liberation Army, with all of its tenacity and all of its strength of arms, could not keep down a 1.2 billion person revolt. And the current Chinese elites can literally not afford a civil war in the auspices of the current economic and political climate of the era.
Power has very clear and obvious limits sometimes. From democracies to autocracies, it simply is the way of the cosmos beyond what our brains think or hope or do to make be otherwise. And the Chinese government demonstrated their understanding of this in their handling of the Han Chinese village of Wukan. They may be able to get away with violence and repression against the Tibetans and the Uighers. But they've at least demonstrated that they know better than to overly irritate the rest of the Chinese population. As a result, they get to remain in power for some time longer, and secure a possible position in government even if they fall out of power at a later date. A well calculated move, worthy of the perspective of an ancient civilization. Notice the benefits that they reap from it for their own selves and their own sakes. And notice too how it also benefits Chinese society and the global society as a whole.
Bhutan:
Nestled in the Himalaya Mountains is the tiny kingdom of Bhutan. However, the country has since undergone a radical change in government, and without a single shot being fired or reputation being lost. The King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, formally stepped down from power, and opened the country up for general elections. The constitution was changed, such that administrative power moved to the Council of Cabinet of Ministers, and that the King could be impeached from office by two-thirds majority of the National Assembly. In 2007, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck formally abdicated from the throne to his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, and the country's first parliamentary elections were held in December 2007 and March 2008. This was not utopia at work. This was politics that happened. And now the Bhutanese people have representation in government, a government that is accountable to them and their needs, and the King is honored and celebrated, and remains an influential, if not politically “powerful” figure in Bhutanese society.
Bhutan is an unusual case, to be sure. But it's not one that's all that different from our own. It exists on the same plane of existence as we do, and it has the same potential for problems like the rest of us. It's not utopia. But it is apart of our own world and our own universe, and not another. The difference between the two is something I'll get in to more in the next section of this paper. But suffice it to say that political change can happen peaceably, and for the benefit of everyone that's involved, including and not limited to the people who are giving up the most in the process of doing so. The king's legacy will live on after he's finished with political power. And his people will be all the more grateful to his legacy because of his actions and deeds that he did effectively and for their benefit as his subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment