- Valson Thampu
Power struggles are endemic in history. The core of such contestations was the face-off between different types of leadership. That pattern still holds. In the US, for instance, the contrast between Joe Biden and Donald Trump refuses to subside. They are not just two individual leaders, but representatives of two leadership models.
At home, we have the same pattern reflected in the Modi-Rahul antagonism. Even as Rahul emerged tentatively into political limelight two decades ago, he began to be caricatured and ridiculed as ‘Pappu.’ It was assumed that this pappu-fiction of Rahul would serve as a gainful foil to the Loh Purush (iron man) Modi. What went unregarded in the process was that the ridicule splashed publicly was occasioned, not Rahul’s proven incompetence, but by the typological incompatibility between him and Modi. That this ritualized public denigration of Rahul could boomerang was blithely overlooked. To non-partisan people, though, it carried the suggestion that Rahul was what Modi was not.
The logic at work here must be recognized. If Rahul was indeed a nobody, he didn’t have even to be noticed. If his potential was pathetic, there was no need to show him down so obsessively. And, if he was indeed what his adversaries insisted he was, he would have got dispirited and fled from the scene on his own. Instead, he grew steadily in strength, stature, and public appeal.
Now, if your adversary is gaining, not in spite of but because of your campaign aimed at reducing him to nonage, there is a strong probability that you read him wrong. But, those in the BJP camp are still fighting shy of this truth.
Even as Rahul emerged tentatively into political limelight two decades ago, he began to be caricatured and ridiculed as ‘Pappu.’ It was assumed that this pappu-fiction of Rahul would serve as a gainful foil to the Loh Purush (iron man) Modi. What went unregarded in the process was that the ridicule splashed publicly was occasioned, not Rahul’s proven incompetence, but by the typological incompatibility between him and Modi. That this ritualized public denigration of Rahul could boomerang was blithely overlooked. To non-partisan people, though, it carried the suggestion that Rahul was what Modi was not.
However, the youth of India recognize that Rahul represents a leadership model at stark contrast to Modi’s. So, the Modi-Rahul contrast attains an ironic twist. Rather than Modi gaining from being contrasted with Rahul, he is at risk of looking meretricious, even awkward. It is rarely that political twists of this scope happen in history, and in such a short span of time. What are we, then, to make of this burgeoning Modi-Rahul contrast?
When Plato, in the Republic, considered the essential strengths of the ideal Guardian of the State -in our context, and in Modi’s words, the chowkidar of India- the foremost attribute he identified was truthfulness. Ideal rulers, according to Plato, “…. will never intentionally receive into their mind falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth.” One who is given to untruth will not be trusted by the people. Such a person is more apt to be foolish than wise. “Is there,” Plato wonders, “anything more akin to wisdom than truth? Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood?”
Yet another quality that Plato deems essential in a wise leader as the Guardian of the State is love of learning. This is the exact opposite of wanting to show off one’s ignorance as some rare and inspired kind of wisdom. The proof that one has a genuine love for learning is that he finds a deep delight in learning. In a shallow society, though, in where appearance is valued above reality, those who covet public attention, will try to display their knowledge to the extent of betraying their ignorance. They claim to be wise without having to learn, which makes them assume supernatural airs.
Admittedly, the wisdom that Plato implies here is different from academic knowledge. The leader’s passion to learn is directed towards attaining a deeper understanding of human realities so as to serve the people better. Such wisdom requires the leader to be one with the people, marked by the humility to learn from them. He must be inspired by a spiritual sense of the beauty and greatness of life. A leader of the contrary kind will be as scornful of such wisdom as he will be keen that he be seen and heard with respect by everyone.
A third necessary quality is temperance. One who is given to excesses in desires or indulgence is weak and cowardly, no matter what façade of gravity and invincibility he sports. Temperance issues from self-mastery. This inner strength protects a person from becoming a control-freak. A control-freak cannot be a person of liberality in his dealings with others. True liberality is an offshoot of self-denial. It is only by limiting oneself that space can be created for others. If one’s voluntary self-denial does not amount to the affirmation and empowerment of others, then his liberality is merely ornamental.
A fourth essential leadership quality, according to Plato, is courage. A coward cannot be an inspiring leader. Heightening security arrangements around oneself against one’s own people, bespeaks fear, not trust or courage. Courage issues from upholding truth and justice, and from serving the best interests of the people.
How a society treats its true leader in relation to pretenders and demagogues proves the wisdom and sanity of its members. A people without discernment will fall for the mendacious propaganda unleashed by power-crazy megalomaniacs who play-act a love for them that they simply do not feel.
This is, roughly, the contrast between the ideal Guardian of the State and mere pretenders that Plato presents to the people, leaving it to them to choose what they would. Democracy affords that freedom. But democracy cannot protect the people from the ruinous consequences of the bad choices they make.
“Cities will not cease from evil,” writes Plato, “until philosophers rule in them.” Citizens need to be particularly vigilant when demagogues pretend to be philosophers.
