Leadership

Article by Melanie Sisson. Edited by Liam Geoghegan. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard. 

Good leadership as a concept proves to be intangible, in that it defies one description including all its component parts. Aristotle suggested that the good leader must have three qualities: ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos is moral character, the source of one’s ability to persuade; pathos is the ability to touch feelings, to move people emotionally; and logos is the ability to give solid reasons for an action, to move people intellectually. It is under these descriptions that the most obvious examples of leaders would fall, for example Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Both of these men formed coherent, non-violent policies towards the ultimate goal of racial equality in America and South Africa respectively. Their continual moral high ground in the face of huge opposition by the authorities earned them deep respect and incredible numbers of followers. 

In defining the concept of good leadership, the distinction between good and bad leaders is crucial. It could be suggested that greatness has nothing to do with morality, and that a leader is simply someone who gets people to follow them. Under this approach, certain historical figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and even Pol Pot could be classed asgood leaders. Upon Napoleon’s return to France after escaping from exile, he managed to gain support for an army that he led to defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. Although he led the French to catastrophe, people still followed him almost until the end. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party engaged in the organised murder of 17 million civilians during World War Two, at least 6 million of who were Jews, targeted in the genocide known as the Holocaust. Hitler directed all of the state’s resources, including those of the military, into achieving his ultimate goal of a Nazi hegemony in Europe. His expansionist policies culminated in the 1939 invasion of Poland and subsequently World War Two. However narrow minded, obtuse and openly xenophobic Hitler’s policies proved to be, the Nazi Party had accumulated a membership of 8.5 million by 1945. Hitler, as head of this party, must have had some of the qualities required for good leadership. Pol Pot was the de facto leader of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, and his policies towards a goal of “restarting civilisation”, which fostered slave labour, malnutrition, and executions, led to the deaths of between 1.7 to 2.5 million people, or around 21% of the Cambodian population. 

Another debateable example of a good leader is Douglas MacArthur, General of the US Army who led the UN forces defending South Korea against North Korean invasion from 1950 to 1951. MacArthur was once described as the ‘greatest fighting man’ in the army, and was one of only five ever to rise to the rank of General of the Army. During the Korean War, MacArthur’s overwhelming military ambition led to his downfall and dismissal. After successfully defeating North Korean forces, he ignored crucial evidence that the Chinese had entered North Korea. China had already warned that any advance would lead to a declaration of war, and pushed UN forces into a retreat. MacArthur requested authorisation to strike in China, but President Truman was all too aware that this could potentially draw the Soviet Union into the conflict and risk nuclear war. Nevertheless, MacArthur disagreed with Truman’s policy of limiting the Korean War to avoid a larger war with China. He sent an ultimatum to the Chinese Army, which destroyed Truman’s ceasefire efforts. Hundreds of American soldiers were killed, or went missing in action, under MacArthur’s aggressive policies. This was a leader whose power resulted in his downfall. In the words of his successor, General Ridgway, it was ‘…the headstrong quality…that sometimes led him to persist in a cause in defiance of all logic, [and] a faith in his own judgement that created an aura of infallibility and that finally led him close to insubordination’. 

Is a good leader categorised by their impact on world history, or more by their qualities that we can best identify with in the present day? Should they be uncommon, but still not beyond emulation by the common man? Should a good leader be one who achieves their objectives, or simply one who aims to gets them recognised? Should they aim to incorporate cultural and spiritual values, as with Mao Tse-tung’s Little Red Book, as well as holding political and economic power? Does a good leader create a situation, or rise to prominence from a situation? 

The ideas of good leaders can be viewed as wonderful or dreadful, depending upon the qualities that we choose to assign to this definition.

← Back to Volume 1

← Back to Issue 4