Throughout the history of the world, the course was always charted by charismatic visionaries and leaders. These leaders exude different characteristics and had their own individual styles of leadership. However these leaders actually shared a common trait that is not widely acknowledged. They are either a righteous or diplomatic leader. How do we see whether a leader is righteous or diplomatic and what is the difference between these two traits one may ask.
A righteous leader always stands at a higher moral ground. In his eyes there is only right or wrong and grey areas do not exist in his dictionary. He will never hesitate for a second to crush any actions that are deemed evil or of unmoral standards. No matter who committed these acts, even by someone close, he will always uphold his principle and will not falter. A diplomatic leader on the other hand stands by the principle that everyone has the same rights of argument and always takes the middle ground in resolving any disagreements and conflicts. By such analysis alone we actually can come to a conclusion that righteous leaders advocate rule of law while diplomatic leaders advocate human rights. Let’s do some further analysis to justify that concept.
As said, a righteous leader will definitely crush any injustice and no matter who committed such injustice should be crucified in their eyes. This clearly follows the doctrine rule of law since most injustice contravenes some law, either legally or morally. For a diplomatic leader, he follows the principle that every person involve in a conflict must be given equal chance to present their case and a solution should appease all parties without putting any emphasis on a morally-inclined solution. This clearly follows the doctrine of human rights whereby every human should be accorded with freedom to act according to their wishes. An aspiring leader should therefore choose which type of leader he would like to be. No doubt it would be ideal if he can be of both pedigrees but it is actually quite impossible to pull that off. Let’s do a simple experiment to justify that fact.
Scenario, a corrupted businessman amassing humongous wealth using unscrupulous methods but in the meantime donating huge sums to charity to help the needy. As a leader how should one act towards this businessman? To put things into perspective, let’s complicate the matter by saying one of the needy person helped by the corrupted businessman is the leader’s own mother, life and death situation. Now how the leader’s next action will clearly define the type of leader he is. If he is a righteous leader, he will proceed to crucify the businessman without hesitating to consider that his actions might put his mother’s life in danger. To him, injustice must be corrected and the life of his mother is a price to pay for it, so be it. Whereas, for a diplomatic leader, he will gauge the seriousness of the situation to come out with an acceptable solution. To him, a life of a person is important and this is his own mother’s life in fact. So his mother’s rights to live must be respected. The businessman’s rights to accumulate wealth no matter how unscrupulous his methods are must also be respected since it is his freedom to do so. Besides he is helping the needy and their rights for aids to survive must be respected. However, he must also respect the rights of the prosecutor and police to indict the businessman if the chance arises. A diplomatic leader might be less effective than a righteous one in this sense but there are always two sides of a coin. What if the good done by the corrupted businessman outweighs the bad? He is actually a true advocate of human rights since he strives to protect every individuals rights, good or bad.
Both types of leaders have their own strengths and weaknesses and definitely there is not one better than the other. However, the worse kinds of leaders are those that try to be both at the same time. These leaders are hypocrites since based on the scenario given above, it is quite impossible to be two types at the same time. These two-faced so called “leaders” lack the principles and clout to preach. They will never be given due respect ever. It is also much easier to preach with a “holier than thou” mentality when one is not in power but when in power and involves someone close, it is a whole different ball game altogether. For those aspiring leaders from the younger generation, make up your mind, either be a righteous leader that crushes injustice or a diplomatic leader that protects human rights, but never a hypocrite two-headed one.
Happy Independence Day. God bless Malaysia.
A righteous leader always stands at a higher moral ground. In his eyes there is only right or wrong and grey areas do not exist in his dictionary. He will never hesitate for a second to crush any actions that are deemed evil or of unmoral standards. No matter who committed these acts, even by someone close, he will always uphold his principle and will not falter. A diplomatic leader on the other hand stands by the principle that everyone has the same rights of argument and always takes the middle ground in resolving any disagreements and conflicts. By such analysis alone we actually can come to a conclusion that righteous leaders advocate rule of law while diplomatic leaders advocate human rights. Let’s do some further analysis to justify that concept.
As said, a righteous leader will definitely crush any injustice and no matter who committed such injustice should be crucified in their eyes. This clearly follows the doctrine rule of law since most injustice contravenes some law, either legally or morally. For a diplomatic leader, he follows the principle that every person involve in a conflict must be given equal chance to present their case and a solution should appease all parties without putting any emphasis on a morally-inclined solution. This clearly follows the doctrine of human rights whereby every human should be accorded with freedom to act according to their wishes. An aspiring leader should therefore choose which type of leader he would like to be. No doubt it would be ideal if he can be of both pedigrees but it is actually quite impossible to pull that off. Let’s do a simple experiment to justify that fact.
Scenario, a corrupted businessman amassing humongous wealth using unscrupulous methods but in the meantime donating huge sums to charity to help the needy. As a leader how should one act towards this businessman? To put things into perspective, let’s complicate the matter by saying one of the needy person helped by the corrupted businessman is the leader’s own mother, life and death situation. Now how the leader’s next action will clearly define the type of leader he is. If he is a righteous leader, he will proceed to crucify the businessman without hesitating to consider that his actions might put his mother’s life in danger. To him, injustice must be corrected and the life of his mother is a price to pay for it, so be it. Whereas, for a diplomatic leader, he will gauge the seriousness of the situation to come out with an acceptable solution. To him, a life of a person is important and this is his own mother’s life in fact. So his mother’s rights to live must be respected. The businessman’s rights to accumulate wealth no matter how unscrupulous his methods are must also be respected since it is his freedom to do so. Besides he is helping the needy and their rights for aids to survive must be respected. However, he must also respect the rights of the prosecutor and police to indict the businessman if the chance arises. A diplomatic leader might be less effective than a righteous one in this sense but there are always two sides of a coin. What if the good done by the corrupted businessman outweighs the bad? He is actually a true advocate of human rights since he strives to protect every individuals rights, good or bad.
Both types of leaders have their own strengths and weaknesses and definitely there is not one better than the other. However, the worse kinds of leaders are those that try to be both at the same time. These leaders are hypocrites since based on the scenario given above, it is quite impossible to be two types at the same time. These two-faced so called “leaders” lack the principles and clout to preach. They will never be given due respect ever. It is also much easier to preach with a “holier than thou” mentality when one is not in power but when in power and involves someone close, it is a whole different ball game altogether. For those aspiring leaders from the younger generation, make up your mind, either be a righteous leader that crushes injustice or a diplomatic leader that protects human rights, but never a hypocrite two-headed one.
Happy Independence Day. God bless Malaysia.
