Tweet
Who is leading whom?
Henley Morgan
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Being a somewhat public figure and working in a high-profile inner-city community, I am inevitably the target of suggestions that I should consider entering representational politics. One day as I had a curb-side conversation with a man having a well-earned reputation as a "shotta", he expressed a desire to see me "step forward an' run di place".
After I had moved out of his hearing range, the elderly church sister occupying the front passenger seat opined, "Nuh listen to 'im. A manipulate him t'ink 'im cyan manipulate yu."
If only to be provocative, from time to time, I ask the grass-roots people to whom I relate what they think of the idea of me testing the water politically. Of the many responses this is the one that gives me the greatest pause. "Dat a nuh fi yu. Politics gwine change yu."
Both pieces of advice confirm an observation I have made over the years. With few exceptions, political leaders are vulnerable to being led astray by their followers. Contrary to the very definition of leadership, the followers play the music to which the leaders dance. If you don't believe me, just start exercising your power of observation in this season when politicians are in heat for voter approval.
One common spectacle is that of the politician dancing up a storm (featuring the latest in outdated moves) with some rather unattractive and oversized subjects, and pretending to enjoy it. When it comes time for speech-making, the buffoonery reaches another level. Invariably, the leader lapses into imbecilic utterances as if pandering to the juvenile urges of the hearer. But the most nauseating scene is that of hordes of people aboard buses, bodies protruding and animal behaviour on display in support of "the leader" who foots the bill and feigns satisfaction with conduct that demeans the whole process.
If this is where it ended, one could allow oneself to be entertained for the duration of the campaign. Regrettably, it carries over in to office where politicians display a tendency to glorify the debased culture of the day by associating with, and referencing the lowest social common denominator.
That's why political victimisation is entrenched. That's why government contracts go to community dons and assorted undesirables. That's why politicians have been seen to take seats in the front pew at funerals of underground figures.
That's why some politicians are most vocal in their defence of poor people's rights when police operations are conducted in their constituencies in response to blatant lawlessness. And that's why some find it convenient to be silent when their supporters block roads and destroy public property in protest against government's failure to provide the very same things adequately.
I used to feel sorry for the followers. Now I am getting a different perspective. Maybe the leaders are the ones to be pitied. The followers (or sub-sets thereof) have made a science of getting their leaders to do what they want, even to act the fool.
There are at least five methods I see them (followers) using with great effectiveness to influence those who purport to lead them. (1) They laugh up in the leader's face even though in their heart they know they are laughing at him and not with him. (2) They ingratiate themselves with the leader; fooling him with flattery and making him think that they are loyalists, and that they idolise him. (3) They intimidate the leader; skilfully using "badmanism" and pressure tactics to imply that they are capable of doing the extreme but without giving any real evidence of it to incriminate themselves. (4) They play the fool in order to confound the wise; see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, yet at the same time being at the centre of evil. (5) They isolate the leader from those with contrary opinions who will tell him the truth.
Politicians and politics are the topical issues of the day, but the problem of followers unduly and unethically influencing leaders is not their sole preserve. It is becoming a national problem. All around I see leaders standing behind (instead of in front of) followers of whom they are afraid. There are, for instance, business places where it is the workers - not managers and supervisors - who set the tone and pace of production. By default, leadership has passed to those with the power to lock down the place, or worse, burn it down.
In the field of psychotherapy, Freud made an important discovery, which he called transference. The principle of transference is important in leading people. Freud was never interested in business or politics, so unfortunately he never researched the application of the principle in these fields.
One is left to surmise that a leader transfers his vision, goals and values to followers; in the process taking on an almost god-like image. My fear is that in Jamaica we are seeing transference in reverse.
Douglas MacArthur once said, "A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him".
Knowing this, it is the role of the leader to transform those in his charge and not to acquiesce to the sub-culture which is degrading and unproductive. It may mean that in Jamaica, leaders have to work towards creating a counter-culture nationally and in their individual sphere. If only our politicians would use the occasion of the impending general election and the campaign that precedes it as an opportunity to set an example for others to follow.
hmorgan@cwjamaica.com
Henley Morgan
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Being a somewhat public figure and working in a high-profile inner-city community, I am inevitably the target of suggestions that I should consider entering representational politics. One day as I had a curb-side conversation with a man having a well-earned reputation as a "shotta", he expressed a desire to see me "step forward an' run di place".
After I had moved out of his hearing range, the elderly church sister occupying the front passenger seat opined, "Nuh listen to 'im. A manipulate him t'ink 'im cyan manipulate yu."
If only to be provocative, from time to time, I ask the grass-roots people to whom I relate what they think of the idea of me testing the water politically. Of the many responses this is the one that gives me the greatest pause. "Dat a nuh fi yu. Politics gwine change yu."
Both pieces of advice confirm an observation I have made over the years. With few exceptions, political leaders are vulnerable to being led astray by their followers. Contrary to the very definition of leadership, the followers play the music to which the leaders dance. If you don't believe me, just start exercising your power of observation in this season when politicians are in heat for voter approval.
One common spectacle is that of the politician dancing up a storm (featuring the latest in outdated moves) with some rather unattractive and oversized subjects, and pretending to enjoy it. When it comes time for speech-making, the buffoonery reaches another level. Invariably, the leader lapses into imbecilic utterances as if pandering to the juvenile urges of the hearer. But the most nauseating scene is that of hordes of people aboard buses, bodies protruding and animal behaviour on display in support of "the leader" who foots the bill and feigns satisfaction with conduct that demeans the whole process.
If this is where it ended, one could allow oneself to be entertained for the duration of the campaign. Regrettably, it carries over in to office where politicians display a tendency to glorify the debased culture of the day by associating with, and referencing the lowest social common denominator.
That's why political victimisation is entrenched. That's why government contracts go to community dons and assorted undesirables. That's why politicians have been seen to take seats in the front pew at funerals of underground figures.
That's why some politicians are most vocal in their defence of poor people's rights when police operations are conducted in their constituencies in response to blatant lawlessness. And that's why some find it convenient to be silent when their supporters block roads and destroy public property in protest against government's failure to provide the very same things adequately.
I used to feel sorry for the followers. Now I am getting a different perspective. Maybe the leaders are the ones to be pitied. The followers (or sub-sets thereof) have made a science of getting their leaders to do what they want, even to act the fool.
There are at least five methods I see them (followers) using with great effectiveness to influence those who purport to lead them. (1) They laugh up in the leader's face even though in their heart they know they are laughing at him and not with him. (2) They ingratiate themselves with the leader; fooling him with flattery and making him think that they are loyalists, and that they idolise him. (3) They intimidate the leader; skilfully using "badmanism" and pressure tactics to imply that they are capable of doing the extreme but without giving any real evidence of it to incriminate themselves. (4) They play the fool in order to confound the wise; see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, yet at the same time being at the centre of evil. (5) They isolate the leader from those with contrary opinions who will tell him the truth.
Politicians and politics are the topical issues of the day, but the problem of followers unduly and unethically influencing leaders is not their sole preserve. It is becoming a national problem. All around I see leaders standing behind (instead of in front of) followers of whom they are afraid. There are, for instance, business places where it is the workers - not managers and supervisors - who set the tone and pace of production. By default, leadership has passed to those with the power to lock down the place, or worse, burn it down.
In the field of psychotherapy, Freud made an important discovery, which he called transference. The principle of transference is important in leading people. Freud was never interested in business or politics, so unfortunately he never researched the application of the principle in these fields.
One is left to surmise that a leader transfers his vision, goals and values to followers; in the process taking on an almost god-like image. My fear is that in Jamaica we are seeing transference in reverse.
Douglas MacArthur once said, "A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him".
Knowing this, it is the role of the leader to transform those in his charge and not to acquiesce to the sub-culture which is degrading and unproductive. It may mean that in Jamaica, leaders have to work towards creating a counter-culture nationally and in their individual sphere. If only our politicians would use the occasion of the impending general election and the campaign that precedes it as an opportunity to set an example for others to follow.
hmorgan@cwjamaica.com