During any election cycle leadership comes up often. My new concept of leadership as discussed earlier (where leaders are powerless without followers and therefore followers have power) could best be described as "followship" rather than leadership. Such a concept of leadership forms the core of our democratic values, where leaders "derive their power from the consent of the governed" to paraphrase Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
What to make of this concept when leadership is expressed in the traditional sense in a political campaign? There is a direct contradiction between leadership in the traditional sense, and the concept of "followship." The traditional idea of leadership is a (usually) man pointing boldly to the horizon, calling out to the rest of us "follow me, and I will take you there." Such notions are antithetical to the principles of self-determination enshrined in our founding documents and principles. It could be argued that an election is a contest between two different points on the horizon, by two candidates with different destinations in mind.
If I may further the horizon analogy, with 360 degrees of horizon around us, we are choosing from only two points. As voters we are boxed in to these two choices, leaving 358 degrees of the horizon unimagined or unrealized. Even then, only one candidate will win, leaving us without 359 degrees of options. It seems the traditional view of leadership provides the illusion of choice, rather than the reality.
How to give voters more options under the concept of followship? It would almost require a rethinking of the relationship of voters to candidates, and public responsibility for our political institutions.
Perhaps instead of a choice between two points of view, a consensus could be established by "followers" on the preferred destination, and an election would be a decision on which candidate had the best ideas on how to get there. Such a system would require a good deal of inputs from the public and a level of familiarity (education) about different possible destinations on a scale that most are unwilling or unable to achieve. It would, however, be closer to a direct democracy than the republic we have now.
It could also be argued that it was the political system our founders had in mind. Or at least Thomas Jefferson, since he wrote about the necessity of an informed electorate in the successful function of democracy. Such a system cannot come about through the traditional concept of leadership, but rather through followship, and even then only if followers will lead.
