Leaders Place in the Institutional Framework - Research Paper Example

Leader’s Place Institutional Framework Leader is born when mass transformation and mass awakening is essential. A leader is the one who stimulates the others to follow the thoughts which are out of the common framework. He is the person who has an ability to change the mindset of the people. A political leader plays a very crucial role in the institutional framework of the country. There are certain and established rules in the society. Some leaders by cherishing these rules try to show their skill while some leaders break those established rules by creating their own rules and they influence the people to follow those rules and thus the entire system gets changed. These political leaders have the capacity to make a history. As far as politics is concerned the charismatic leaders in politics from all over the world include Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Muhammad Ali Jinah, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Indira Gandhi, Ronald Regan, Barack Obama and many more. Here our question is very clear and that is “How do we define the leader’s place in the institutional framework?” The question is straightforward and we are not going to argue about the negative impact or positive impact because basically the question is related to the influence of leaders in the institutional framework. After the Second World War the entire world was divided into three major groups. They were known as first world nations, second world nations and third world nations. While describing the leaders from different worlds we have taken into consideration the countries which will represent each category of world. For describing the leadership in first world we have taken into consideration the leadership in America, and Germany. For describing the leadership in second world we have taken the example of Russia, while for describing the term the leadership in the third world we are taking into account the example of India and Pakistan. Leader’s place in institutional framework: Before describing what the role of the leaders is in the institutional framework, it is important know what is mean by institutional framework? Institutional framework can broadly be defined as the “system of formal laws regulations, and procedures, and informal conventions, customs, and norms, that broaden, mold, and restrain socio-economic activity and behaviour.” [1] The institutional framework of every nation in the world is different and the most of the political leaders tend to work in that particular framework. America is the capitalist nation with individualism. It is a liberal country and the individual is given prominence. It is the only superpower of the world. So while leading such a powerful nation it is the great responsibility of the leaders to keep the image of their nation in the world. The most of the leaders try to keep themselves in that decided framework. These leaders don’t go beyond the framework of the nation. In case of Russia the entire nation is under the influence of communism and till 1991 Russia was totally a communist country. But after 1991 the situation changed and it became somewhat democratic and the people now are happy under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. After the dissolution of Soviet Union Russia has no fix policy. In such circumstance Putin has an opportunity to set the new policies and establish new framework in Russia. Today’s one of the most influential leaders Vladimir has not disclosed himself totally before the world. His leadership is yet ambiguous. “Putin talks of market democracy and capitalist western values. But his early life was spent in the former Soviet Union, and he looks back fondly on this time of state control. Political pundits wonder when the real Putin will reveal himself.” [2] The major country from third world nation i.e. India is totally a democratic nation with the influence of the teaching of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a secular nation with no particular religion as its official religion. The people staying in this vast country belong to different castes religions and different cultures. It is a diverse country from Geographical as well as cultural point of view. So the leadership in such a country needs to be very balanced. The provocative and aggressive relationship is of no use in India. If the leader wants to gain hold over the entire politics of this country he has to be secular. On the other hand the institutional framework of Pakistan is designed on the basis of religion and hate towards India. It is the fact that here no leader can be pro Indian. If he wants to survive in his political career he has to have the hatred in his mind towards India. This existing system is there on which the edifice of Pakistan has been built because this nation is emerged from the partition of India and so hatred must be cherished in the minds of the people about India. Under the institutional framework of the country two types of leaders can emerge one is that leader who performs his leadership by being the part of the existing system while the other type of leadership is that leadership which changes the entire system totally and creates a new system. It is very difficult to lead the nation in the critical situation or crises. This difficult task was performed by Woodrow Wilson who led the nation during the First World War. His attempt to establish the peace in the nation was really appreciable. He helped to create peace by his contribution in establishing the League of Nations. Comparatively it is easier for the political leaders to establish their influence in the minds of the people because they have the power in their hands but as far as the social leaders are concerned they have to have tremendous capacity to influence the people because they have no power or political authority in their hands, till they influence the people by their strong principles and ideologies. Here we are not just considering the political leader but some social reformists also were there who led the society and who established totally innovative principles and thus influenced the people and set their ideology in the society. Among them is Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King was the social reformist and fought against the injustice done with the black people. But for fighting for the injustice he used a very uncommon weapon to fight and that is the weapon of non-violence. The concept of non violence of course was first created by the great Indian freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were the influential civil rights leaders of 20th century. Martin Luther was greatly influenced by the ideology of M.K. Gandhi and became the strong supporter of non violence. He was particularly struck by Gandhi's words: "Through our pain we will make them see their injustice". [3] The influence of this social leader was so much that during the election campaign John Kennedy argued for a new civil act. It means that Kennedy had to use the contemporary and existing need of the society and had to prepare his agenda accordingly. The leaders who influence the people with their uncommon and new ideology have also two types. In the first type the leaders are dictators and they force the people to adopt their ideology. Take the example of Russian leaders Lenin and Stalin. Lenin led the Bolsheviks which were later known as communists. This idea not only changed the history of Russia but it shook the entire Europe also. The emergence of communism happened to overthrow the regime of autocratic tsar in Russia. The idea of communism though new was first introduced by Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels.Thus the history of communism starts with Vladimir Lenin who found and established the idea of communism in Russia. This idea of communism proved to be so effective in Russia that started moving on the right track of development. But actually when Lenin started implementing communism he had to face many problems. Stalin also was another leader who put forward the idea of communism but his approach was very different. His idea about communism was inclined towards the dictatorship. Rather he was supposed to be one of the shrewdest dictators in the history of the world. Thus he spread his influence in propounding the existing system but in a very shrewd and rude manner. He first proclaimed himself as “the man of the people.” This was to acquire the trust of the people and became the supreme power. Even if people wanted to oppose him they couldn’t. [4] If we compare the two another leaders who prefer to establish the new system by intersecting the existing system in a very manipulative way the major names suddenly hit the mind and those are Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and Bismarck. Bismarck is regarded as a mastermind of German Unification. It is Bismarck who persuaded the idea of German unification which resulted into the rise of a powerful empire like Germany. Under his strong leadership the political framework of Germany was totally changed. He changed the political system in Germany by transforming Germany from a loose net of 39 different states into a single strongest industrial nation of Europe. Thus unification of Germany was a totally new ideology which was inculcated by Bismarck into the minds of the people. That is why Bismarck was the most influential leader at that time. Both Bismarck and Hitler were similar in many ways. It is the important question to be discussed why Hitler could become the ultimate power in Germany. It is the manipulative strategy of the leader to take the advantage of the existing circumstance. When people are really yearning for the change they get attracted towards those leader who assures them the change. Some years after the First World War Germany was going through a very crucial situation. Tremendous unemployment problem was there and around 650,000 people were unemployed in 1928 in Germany and the number went to 3,000,000 in 1930. The country was going under the great trouble of bankruptcy. [5] The poverty in the country was significantly increasing. In such situation Germany was in need of a strong leadership to face all these problems. Hitler took advantage of this situation and assured Germans a better life and thus spread his ideology. People no more wanted to live in such a situation and everybody wanted a change. This is the reason why the charisma of Hitler spread in Germany. At that time the communist party in Germany gained a very less support because the people didn’t want communism in their country. Hitler and the fascist were campaigning against communism. Thus the people who had got swamped with the illusion of communism started supporting Hitler. After occupying the office in Germany, within a very short time span Hitler showed drastic change in Germany. The farmers began being prosperous, industrial production started increasing, and the people started feeling secure. Some used to say that they had saved from starvation because of the leadership of Hitler. The Germans were started feeling grateful to Hitler and his leadership. When Hitler was doing for the welfare of the people he was very popular but later on this cunning ruthless leader started spreading totalitarian dictatorship and tortured the people. He became the leader with dark shade, rather a villain than a hero. Both Hitler and Bismarck thus were the charismatic leaders with strong ideology and the capability to influence the people through their new concepts. Both of them were very brilliant in manipulating the mass interest in order to accomplish their objectives. Both of these leaders had the ambition to conquer but as far as Bismarck is concerned, his ambition of war is limited and after reasonable gains he ceased conquer and concentrated in strengthening Germany. “Bismarck ‘utilized every opportunity and had through a diplomatic art as long as it promised success; he threw the sword into the scales if force alone was in a position to bring about a decision.” [6] On the other hand Hitler’s ambition was more than this. He wanted to won the world and spread his influence all over the world. While imposing the leadership on the entire mass it is necessary to eliminate the political enemies. Both Bismarck and Hitler were ruthless in vanquishing their enemies. Whenever Bismarck finds any party rising against him, proving dangerous to him, he would pass the laws to suppress it. Hitler also used to do the same thing. He would always eliminate his enemies in a very systematic way. But in eliminating the enemies Bismarck was more moderate than Hitler who used to do it in an unneeded violence and in a very brutal way. While talking about Kennedy’s leadership we can say that Kennedy no doubt was a very influential leader in America in those days. “John Kennedy remains still a shining symbol of energy, idealism, hope and purpose, a reminder of all that we often feel we have lost in our public life, in our national self-image. His youth, his attractiveness, his wealthy and appealing family, his eloquence, his slight touch of shyness and reserve, his image as an intellectual and a writer, his wit, his undoubted charisma, these and other qualities have combined to create one powerful myth of John Kennedy, a leader different from, greater than, other men.”[7] Kennedy’s role in building the institutional framework of America is very significant. He was emerged as a leader when the world was just coming out of the aftermath of the Second World War. Getting so much fed up of the war and violence people were in need of peace that is why Kennedy spread his influence by assuring the peace to the people. “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success." [8] The world has experienced the dreadful Great War and now everybody was yearning for peace Kennedy’s effective speeches were assuring the peace to the people and that is the reason why the people were attracted towards him. "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." [9] John Kennedy basically appeal the new generation of America and gave them vigor and energy. John Kennedy was one of the shortest term presidents of America but his administration became one of the most documented and remembered one. Kennedy was a very media centered person and very conscious about keeping his image before the people. Thus he has created his image as an ideal leader who is traditional with ethics but he was supposed to be the transformational leader who through his effective oratory skill motivated specifically the young generation of America. He was the leader who can take visionary position to inspire the people. The third world political leaders: Before discussing about the political leaders of third world it is important to understand the concept of third world politics. While defining the term “third world Christopher S. Clapham in his book “Third World Politics,” states, “the term itself seems to owe its origins to one of the less useful categorizations of the world’s 170-odd states: non membership either of the western bloc of capitalist, industrial and on the whole liberal democratic states led by the United States, or of the eastern bloc of Maxist-Leninist states led by the Soviet Union. “ (Pg2) [10] The post World War II world was divided into two categories the capitalist nations and the communist nations. The third category is the category of the nations which were neither interested in adopting the capitalist policy of America nor were they interested in following the communism of Russia. It was a great risk and a daring for such a backward country like India, to adopt the totally new policy called neutralism in the global political scenario. Most of the nations were either adopting communism led by Russia, or capitalism led by America. In such circumstances the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru showed a great courage to adopt the concept of neutralism, third world or non-alignment. “It would not be creditable for our dignity and new freedom if we were camp followers of America or Russia or any other country of Europe,’ proclaimed Jawaharlal Nehru, independent India’s first Prime Minister and instigator of a conference of Afro-Asian non aligned nations at Bandung in 1956.” [11] Nehru didn’t adopt either policy blindly just because they belonged to the two superpowers of the world. Thus Nehru showed his leadership by implementing totally new idea of secularism which seemed to be effective in such a vast and varied country like India. During the freedom struggle in India one and only influential personality was Mahatma Gandhi, the most successful leader who guided their followers in a quite proper way by the effective means of non – violence. Before Gandhi the entire Indian politics was very aggressive and the aggressive leaders like Lokmanya Tilak was the dominating figure in Indian freedom struggle but after the death of Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi took up the reins of Indian freedom struggle. He totally broke the existing system of the aggressiveness and adopted a policy of non violence. "My mission," the Mahatma said, "is to convert…the world to non-violence for regulating mutual relations, whether political, economic, social, or religious.” [12] Thus Gandhi by born was a very moderate kind of person and he used the weapon of non violence which later became very popular among the Indian people and they fought against British by following the path of non violence. Some leaders become successful in imposing authoritarian rule and they become the ultimate power in the nation but apart from being the most influential and charismatic leader it would not be possible for the leader to impose his dictatorship and rule the country every time. The example of this was the previous Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi. She was groomed in the political family. She was one of the most influential leaders of India. When she became the Prime Minister of India once she tried to be the dictator by imposing emergency and lessen the privileges of the press and tried to rule the country by repression but at that moment she lost the confidence of the people and she was removed by the people from the office of the prime minister. This indicates that the leader has to follow if the framework is very strong. In India democracy has been rooted in the soil and no leader can oust the democracy with his dictatorship. The leadership can affect the political and economic scenario of the country. The best example of this is America under the leadership of George Bush. During the period of his rule America had to suffer the great financial crises and the aftermaths of war. He failed to establish peace in his nation and he pushed the entire nation in the trouble of recession. Now it is a great challenge to the leadership of Barack Obama to recuperate America from the great economic disaster. Conclusion: The leader’s place in institutional framework of the country is very important because he has the capacity to cherish the institutional framework and carry the nation towards achieving its goal. Some leaders have the capability to change the existing framework and modify it to fit in the modern scenario. Change is inevitable and the leader should have the capability to adapt him for the new change which would lead the nation to prosperity and a bright future. Leader always imprints his name when he successfully handles the situation of crises and takes strong initiative to overcome the situation and leads the society towards prosperity. In the troublesome period the leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Harry Truman managed to protect the country from political crises and took strenuous efforts to improve the economy of the nation and led America in expanding the opportunities for the next generation. The contemporary strong leadership is seen through the charismatic leadership of Barack Obama. He is the strong and decisive leader and has the quality of being a transformational leader of America. According to the American people Obama has the qualities in him like honesty, value, issues, management abilities, and compassion. At the moment of the political and economic crises some leaders showed a great courage and perfect planning to face these crises. And being their leaders Americans are expecting the change, stability and financial reconstruction of the nation. Sources: 1. Institutional Framework is such a vast and comprehensive concept which includes both formal and informal laws and rules of the particular nation. It is based on the cultural aspects of the state. When leading the nation every leader does his work within this framework. Some leaders have the capacity both to break and modify the existing framework. I use the two words “break” and “modify” to explain the good leadership and bad leadership. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/institutional_framework 2. Vladimir Putin: “The Mysterious President – Profile, Sunday 4 July 2004 BBC Home,” The article is an overall review about the childhood and the political career of Vladimir Putin. His childhood was totally power-stricken. Later on he was selected as the successor of Boris Yeltsin. His political agenda according to the writer of this article is very ambiguous because he is the supporter of democracy and capitalism but at the same time he tries to hold his full contro. It is yet not clear what type of leader he is. Whether he wants to spread democracy in Russia or he wants to follow the same traditional values of Soviet Union. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/putin.shtml 3. This is the dialogue said by Gandhi in the movie “Gandhi.” The movie was released in 1982 based on the life and the political career of Mahatma Gandhi. In the movie The movie is the fine picture of the principles of the great soul who fought against the British rule with the uncommon weapon to democracy. Martin Luther King, the social reformist was greatly influenced by the doctrines of Mahatma Gandhi and he too followed the path of non violence while fighting for the privilege of the black people in America. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkingML.htm 4. Stalin and His Role In Bringing Communism to Russia by Richard Monk, This article basically focuses on the idea of Stalin’s communism. His communism tended towards the dictatorship rather than spreading the equality in the society. This article also tells us about how Stalin manipulated things and succeeded in becoming the supreme power of Russia. He forced the people to accept his leadership rather than influencing them. .http://ezinearticles.com/?Stalin-and-His-Role-In-Bringing-Communism-to- Russia&id=314558 5. [the article, “Hitler takes Power” Macro History and World Report, The article reveals the life and career of Adolf Hitler. Germany was totally collapsed from all sides after the First World War. Poverty, unemployment had spread all over the nation and the people was eagerly waiting for such strong leadership who would bring them out of this disastrous predicament. People were at that situation were greatly impressed by Hitler and agreed him as their leader because he seemed to be very devoted to Germany and he seemed to be the man who wanted radical change that would be different from the other option offered by the Socialist and the Communists. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm 6. Article “Similarities and Differences in Hitler’s and Bismarck’s View on Nationalism.” Bismarck and Hitler were the leaders of Germany who were similar to each other in many factors. Of course Hitler was more rude and more ambitious than Bismarck. Here the author says that the nationalism of Hitler and Bismarck was same and both were strong patriotics. http://www.articlesbase.com/art-and-entertainment-articles/similarities-and-differences-in-hitlers-and-bismarcks-views-on-nationalism-224151.html page133, “Bismarck Myth” Robert Gerwarth, published by Oxford University Press 2005 The book is about the analysis of Bismarck’s myth and its impact on contemporary Germany’s political culture, having special reference with the authoritarian Bismarckin Charismatic leader Adolf Hitler. To explain the difference between these both leaders Robert Gerwarth in his book the “Bismarck Myth” He uses the above quoting to describe the methodology of Bismarck as a shrewd statesman. 7. Pg 7, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, Sunday, October 19, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. Alan Brinkley, Lizabeth Cohen (moderator), Randall Kennedy, Michael Kazin, Arthur. Kennedy was popular for his oratory skill and He was successful in expressing his values, his beliefs and commitment. Kennedy was one of the shortest term President of America still he gained immense popularity among the people because of his charisma especially on the America Young generation. Schlesingerhttp://www.jfklibrary.org/NR/rdonlyres/EB97DD74-1BE1-4B2E-938B-87BF4782B596/30052/PresidencyofJFK101904.pdf 8. THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, Sunday, October 19, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.Alan Brinkley, Lizabeth Cohen (moderator), Randall Kennedy, Michael Kazin, Arthur Schlesinger http://www.jfklibrary.org/NR/rdonlyres/EB97DD74-1BE1-4B2E-938B-87BF4782B596/30052/PresidencyofJFK101904.pdf 9. John F. Kennedy, Inaugural address, January 20, 1961 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963) In his inaugural speech he addressed to the new generation of America who had just tasted the bitterness of the Second Workd War. He also explained the importance of being united. He also promised not only to the Americans but to the people of the whole world that he would do his best and take maximum efforts to eliminate the poverty from the world. He in the above quote wants to urge the Americans to do their best to bring their country to the prosperity. They should not expect what their nation has given them because if the people try to do their best for their country then only their prosperity take place. So he pleaded to think of the nation and not of the individual gains. 10. Christopher S. Clapham “Third World Politics,” Published by Univ of Wisconsin Press 1985.The book is very useful for those who wants to study about the emergence of the third world nations after the Second World War. Clapham also discusses about the governance, economic management, external relations and military leadership. 11. (Pg232, Ideology and international relations in the modern world  By Alan Cassels) After India got freedom the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru made a policy on non alignment and secularism. He showed his desire to be secular and not to come under the influence of either the two ideologies i.e. capitalism or communism. 12. The quote is taken from the article called “ Mahatma Gandhi Center for Global Non Violence” Written by Dr. Sushil Mittal. The Gandhi centre is led by Sushil Mittal and it aims at popularizing the concept of non violence which is set by Mahatma Gandhi. Here in this centre different activities are conducted through which everybody becomes acquainted with the teaching of Mahatma Gandhi. This center offers Gandhi Award to those who has done his best in spreading the principles of Gandhi. Read More