It is often said the electorate gets exactly the leaders they deserve. And there is a certain truth to that. People vote based on their allegiance to a particular party, on religious or cultural values and personal education or experiences, on the amount of research they have done – or not done – on the candidates, on what family and friends tell them or what they hear from presenters of their favorite news programs or feeds, on what their pocketbooks tell them about the state of the economy and what prospects exist for living a better life, or through a calculation of what self-selected candidate will in their opinion do less harm. Or people chose not to vote at all for other reasons, believing the candidates are unworthy, the society is unjust, the system is rigged, they are generally disinterested, or they simply don’t have time. Taken collectively such factors – whether rational or irrational – determine outcomes and thus people do, in a very real sense, get what they deserve.
But in many respects that is a cop out, because, by placing the blame for outcomes on the electorate, on men and women who are doing or trying their best to do their civic duty while caring for their family, it absolves leaders of the one responsibility they owe the electorate by definition – to lead. This means leaders must not by definition be followers, willing to set agendas by sticking their finger in the air to see which way current political winds are blowing. Instead, they should be informed and principled individuals who not only have the capacity for empathizing with their constituency but also the ability of seeing and articulating a way forward when facts or alternative arguments counter the prevailing narrative. Is this not why we admire Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln, King, and others? Their leadership was not formed by class or wealth but because they possessed a common sense that used rhetoric to build upon their understanding of empathy, intellect, and faith to serve a common purpose that promoted inclusion rather than division.
William Paul Wanker, Ph.d.
37