LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRACY
What is the menu for dinner? If
this question is asked in a group the menu can never be finalized as there
would be as many suggestions as there are taste buds. Same thing happens with
much more confusion if opinion is sought in a group for taking a decision on
contentious issues. It is easy to talk democracy which can be best used to
select who has to lead, but how to lead is not to be decided democratically.
A leader by virtue of his very
designation and assignment has discretion and accountability vested with him.
People who expect democratic functioning want to snatch the discretion and
leave the accountability. The demands of leadership are such that decisions are
often sought with low inputs. Quick analysis and judgment (like a batsman in
cricket facing a fast bowler) are the need of the hour and there would be
hardly any sense in democratic decisions here.
No doubt on matters concerning the
majority where visionary goals have to be set and reached through proper
planning and performance modules it cannot be a solo judgment affair, but still
need not necessarily be democratic. Democracy is only for the decision of
choice of an individual by the majority ruling. Mostly political leaderships
are decided by democracy but there are many more done through appointments. All
leaders have responsibility and accountability and function based on their
style of leadership.
What is important is delivery and
not style. Leadership style is best learnt from sports where a winning captain
especially in games like cricket where decisions are taken almost when every
ball is bowled or a wicket falls while batting. Once the captain wins more than
loses people do not talk of captaincy or democracy. The same logic applies in
all leadership positions be it a CEO, District Collector or Police. A leader
has the grasp and understanding of the larger picture in which he operates and
the nuances of decisions affecting that picture are unknown and inscrutable to
the common man.
When they lack inputs their
suggestions would be empty. The leader too lacks inputs on many issues yet a
successful leader keeps good Samaritans for advice, view point, opinion and
estimation before deciding and such counsels do feel the sense of
accountability too. Where decisions are immediate a successful leader always has
the courage to believe his intuition.
Autocratic, dictatorial,
oppressive and high handed are some of the epithets used against people who are
perceived as undemocratic. All these attacking statements would get diluted if
the leader is benevolent by being kind and compassionate to the needy and have
high percentage of right decisions. He might have been elected democratically
but need not act so. He can remain a autocrat but benevolent in his actions and
successful in his role.
**************************************************************************
Comments