Democratic Leadership

Before we can understand and evaluate different aspects of democratic leadership, it is necessary to explain the roots and intention of democratic thinking. People are social entities, interacting in groups and societies. Evolution selected communities as the favorable environment because more advantages existed for members of communities than for isolated individuals. The strongest communities have been the ones that are able to maximize benefits for their people (or at least some of them) and are capable of defending themselves against the claims of others. However, communities face inherent problems, because although individuals have common goals (such as security), they also have different needs, motives, interests, and values, and these differences can provoke conflicts. The probability of conflicts increases if scarce resources (whether tangible or intangible) cannot be divided in such a way that all claims can be fulfilled.

Given the situation described above, it makes much sense to establish regulations that protect each individual from unjustified attacks by others and to guarantee a fair procedure for resolving conflicts. Different answers have been formulated during human history to satisfy this need for regulation. More than two thousand years ago the idea of handling one's own affairs as an individual responsibility arose: “From ancient times some people have conceived of a political system in which the members regard one another as political equals, are collectively sovereign, and possess all the capacities, resources, and institutions they need in order to govern themselves” (Dahl 1989, p. 1). This idea, the transformation of rule by the few to rule by the many, was put into action in the first half of the fifth century BCE among the Greek city-states (polis). This political order has been called democracy, although this type of democracy differs quite a bit from current understanding and practice. The word is derived from the Greek words for “people, nation” (demos) and for [Page 332]“power, control, authority” (kratein). So, the political term democracy means nothing less than the power of the people, or the dominion of the many, whereby the people may participate in power directly or representatively. One necessary requirement for the idea of representation is that transferred power has to be used for the well-being of the people.

Democracy has not always carried the positive connotations it does today. The majority of philosophers and political scientists viewed democracy with suspicion for a long time, in large part because of their view that the mindless masses were capable only of creating riots and following false prophets. Democracy therefore appeared to be an unstable social system that would degenerate into tyranny. Even the great philosopher Plato (c. 428–c. 347 BCE), living next to the cradle of the origin of democracy, was critical of democracy, which he felt lacked order and responsibility. Later thinkers raised similar arguments. The French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931), for example, observed that in groups or masses, individual differences vanish and make it possible for strong leaders impose their will on others. For him and other thinkers, a leader's legitimacy came from wisdom, birth, property, or God. These sources have lost much but by no means all their power to grant legitimacy, and their influence waned only gradually.

...