by Sohom Das
The past decade has seen a rise in cults of personality and strongman leaders, as seen by the growing prominence and popularity of figures like Erdogan, Modi, and Yoon. They often attract support by presenting themselves as symbols of power. They have displayed authoritarian tendencies several times, making it important to understand and be wary of decisive leadership’s subtleties. Strong leaders can change the tides of history with nothing but a wave of their hand, for better or worse. Should the power and influence of such leaders be reason for admiration or doubt? Does their ability to manipulate political intrigue warrant respect or fear?
We must first take a slight detour through the past to answer this question. Strongman leadership is no new phenomenon, with the two most famous examples having lived in only the past century. Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union undoubtedly demonstrated strong leadership. Both these heads of state-led their nations through the force of their cults of personality, using propaganda and state repression to depict themselves as unfailing sources of wisdom and truth at one with the state. They were the state, just as much as the state was them, with any form of criticism being treated as treason. Stalin’s excessive policing and censorship made victims of more than 3 million people. At the same time, Hitler’s ideological beliefs of racial superiority and lebensraum led to World War II, the genocide of millions. They split Germany in two for more than forty years.
Though such figures are easily dismissed as the epitome of evil whose reigns yielded the most horrific consequences, we must recognise that the people once relied on these leaders and put their faith in them. Stalin, for his many shortcomings, saw the USSR successfully beat back the Nazi invasion. Hitler transformed Germany from a poor country with a failing currency and high unemployment rates to an economic powerhouse competing with the United States as one of the most powerful military machines in the world. Their displays of strength and charisma in a time of weakness drew citizens’ support, unaware of the consequences to come. Thus, strong leadership is not synonymous with good leadership. Strength simply determines the magnitude of their influence, but not its direction. Stalin and Hitler may have etched their names into the halls of history, but they are engravings of blood, not gold.
Yet that is not to say that strong leaders are to be avoided. Many leaders we look up to today as great heroes and role models of history were strong leaders, too — like Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Gandhi, through strict adherence to his principles of non-violence, led one of the largest nations on Earth to independence. In a rare show of defiance, he achieved independence for India not through violent revolution but through acts of civil disobedience. Even today, Gandhi is respected not only by Indians but people everywhere, with his portrait imprinted on the Indian currency and his statues erected worldwide to commemorate his ideals of peace and non-violence. Another example of strong leadership leading to positive change can be seen in Franklin D. Roosevelt. He led the U.S. out of the Great
Depression and the Second World War were significant changes and hardships for the nation. His actions not only saw the Allies win the war but also laid the foundations for the United States to become the global superpower it is today. Nelson Mandela suffered nearly thirty years in prison, fighting for the rights and freedom of his people from discriminatory policies and institutionalised racism in South Africa. His resolute determination led to the dismantling of decades-long apartheid in the country, with his legacy inspiring the youth to this day. These monoliths of history show that strength in leadership is about intensity, not virtue. It is a necessary quality of good leadership but not a sufficient one. In this regard, the elected autocrats of today hold a significant advantage over the not-so-elected dictators of the past. Their democratic methods of seizing power create an illusion of legitimacy for their authoritarian tendencies in the eyes of the public, turning the ideals they espouse so loudly abroad into hushed tones at home. As citizens of the world and an increasingly global and tolerant society, we must not marvel at grand gestures of strength but learn to imagine the direction in which we wish to lead our societies and entrust power to those best suited to lead us there. Instead of asking, ‘Is this person a strong leader?’, we must ask, ‘Does their strength come from adding to the power of the people or taking it away from them?’
Feature image courtesy of Blake Cale on Dribbble
