In the grand scheme of things, before the eventual evaluation by an individual to acquire power comes the desire, the craving and the spur to do whatever it takes in terms of sacrifice, denial, deprivation and crook, as the case may be. Anyone occupying an incumbent position of power once in their lifetime pictured it, had a desire for it, and this fondness carved their every step to the ladder top.
It’s not enough to desire, neither is it enough to long. While longing, there are expected magnanimous inputs, something out of the ordinary, awe-inspiring, expected of such persons. Perhaps not everyone craves power, maybe because they don’t have the courage, or maybe they are incapable of these expected extraordinary work inputs. Whatever the case of their apathetic disapproval is and whatever it is that sprinkles fear on their faces, the opposite makes worthy the desirers of power which is of importance at an eventual clutch at their goal(s).
The desire for power in some comes in benign ambition and absolute altruism, while others are in the form of loathsomeness and ubiquitously selfish human nature. Even though followers might just see the display of authority by their leaders, many of these showcases are progenies of the nature of their initial purported desires. We might tag a leader as a “born-leader” from how they adroitly dispense power. However, while not everyone is divinely doused with the dexter of power dispensation, many can only try to harness needed qualities to make themselves nobles.
Leaders with pure intent for the positions of power are not only the types devoid of egocentrism but with actions inclined at the wellness of their underdogs being the super dog. Being ambitious about power in this way is destroying the selfish nature, which happens to be a natural tendency of most humans and brewing a heart of compassion, and love for the orderliness of the society combating fierceness forms of chaos just for the love of its residents. This would be a definite plus to any community if its leaders, at their best, first of all, develop in their hearts the love of the people and not the post(s) of which they are elected for by these same ones. In fact, this is the first step aloft for any society.
On the other hand, when one’s love for power outsources the purposes of the occupied position, the burdens become a compulsory bear for the underlings. The saying “Power could be blinding at times”, even though it is true, has nothing to do with the overwhelmingness of responsibilities. As established earlier, the outcome of a leader’s reign is a tell on their intentions from inception. This outrightly still is a valid reason a horrible rule can be attributed to the leader’s intentions. Not neglecting the possibilities of some unusual cases and scenarios in the nature of an office may be based on the shortcomings of predecessors having a sour effect on a term of reign, the difference lies in the ways the leader addresses these challenges, and this is agreeably the function of personality and nothing else. Talking blindness in this sense is a choice, and the responsibility is the “choser’s”, which happens to be the leader.
We should see leadership as a form of public service with its essence being the people. We remove the flock, and the shepherd is no shepherd at all. Although this might come as a cliche discussion, it’s of vitality we have these constant talks to remind power-holders the prerequisite for the certification of tenure as excellent against the common trend of misappropriation of power, leaving the commoners at the detrimental ends. Moreover, even though not everyone wishes to wield the mantle, a leader must be sure to replicate the trusts of these masses to whom they are sworn to serve without defiance but grace and great compassion.
Leave a Reply