22 - LEADERSHIP, AUTHORITY and GOVERNMENT
The concept of leadership is not unique to humans; it is quite common in nature. Migrating geese follow leaders. Wolf packs obediently submit to the authority of a leader, once it has been tested and accepted, as a vital part of their instinctive pattern of survival. Humans similarly submit to authoritative leadership, originally also for survival but no longer necessarily so because humanity is now subject to many conflicting motives, in very confusing, competitive circumstances.
It is likely that amongst the apefolk the most important of individuals would be the best male hunters, and probable that hunting skill was the qualification for leadership of the early humans in their struggles to survive catastrophes. These leaders would be given power of authority in order that, in the face of threat, they would carry out the vital function of directing and co-ordinating effort. But when such threats passed their authority and power remained, for they would not be willing to give it up. That they were not willing to relinquish power was not only for egoistic reasons but also because their function, though no longer necessary, was already firmly established as an integral part of the emerging Machine. The then existing order had become so dependent on governing leadership that without this leadership it would collapse, as experience has shown. Being a competitive order, the power of authority of leaders was needed to control its conflicts, which meant keeping humans harnessed to the automaton, including leaders, contrary to their true interests and intelligence.
Yet, knowing no better, humans became automatically, emotionally attached to this the competitive order, accepting its reasons why they should submit to authority and remain separated into nations, and why their survival success should depend upon the competitive success of their nation, represented by its leader. So from the moment that the Machine was founded human life became an artificial game. It was never our habit to seek and follow the true guidance of our minds, but simply to conform to governing events, or react to them with emotion supported by incomplete reason. This is why true reasoning, which must overcome this contrary emotion, is now so hard and unpopular a practice. Given this sort of reality, in which true reason has no place, it can be seen as logical that our society requires, and has always required, the dominance of one body of opinion over many conflicting opinions, one governing authority to cut through a confused lack of consensus and make decisions.
Fundamentally, human individuals share more or less the same inner sense of true morality. As I have said already, human life is a battle between this and automatic reality. It is a battle which never ends within us but which, we outwardly but mistakenly concede, humanity cannot win. It is our outer shell which is attached to existing reality and accepts that leading authority is appropriate to it. But neither our reality nor its government truly represents us, nor do we represent our true selves. Our reality is ludicrous and becoming ever more obnoxious. The born-again, fundamentalist Christian revival in the USA is equally ludicrous, but understandable, for it is an extremely simple emotional reaction against the horrors of modern society (but not against the basic values of the Machine). It champions the Christian religion as the only institution of the Machine which pretends to simple good morality. It is an extreme social reaction which does not seek change of the social framework, the basic cause of chaos, but attacks the opposite of its own morality, the extremes of immorality which it identifies as drug and alcohol abuse, atheism, homosexuality, socialism, radical opinion, and the like. It uses television to spread its hysteria and appeal for money. With that money and the voting-power of millions it is putting pressure on government to identify with its extreme views. Were it to succeed, the resultant repressive, totalitarian regime would oppose the advancement of liberated awareness, which, slow and relatively ineffective as it has been, is nevertheless the only genuine hope of realising a morally good, i.e. humantrue, society.
In Chapter 10, Potential, I described leaders as unnecessary dominators of humanity. Seen in another light they appear as submissive servants of dominant institutions. A leader was once one whose learning and skill brought him, or her, the responsibility of leadership. Then he acquired authority which not only entitled him to lead but also to command others to follow. Now leaders are executives of commanding institutions, the foremost among followers of these institutions. Institutions are the self-supporting and often conflicting units of our highly complex society, the basic makers of decisions. A single institution would be preferable, but could not possibly represent the many contrary aims and competitive policies of a Machine-society. Supreme leaders such as presidents are arbitrators between the conflicting purposes of dimineering automatic forces vested in institutions. Authoritative government is necessary only as long as the unnecessary Machine continues to exist. The supraconscious concept is quite different - that we should follow the humantruth which is reflected in the pure reasoning of every inner mind.
The present fact is that the Machine does powerfully exist. The majority of us take our cue from leaders in authority. We listen to people who are in the public eye, at the top of the automatic hierarchy. But individuals in the public eye are not likely to be persons who understand humantruth, or, if they do, they are unlikely to express it.
By submitting to authority we not only submit to the Machine as well, for the reason that authority is bound to support the Machine; we also agree to regard as misfits, or enemies, those who oppose authority or break its laws. We can be persuaded to go to great lengths to uphold authority - e.g. by putting its values before human values, which we do when we wear military uniforms - particularly when not to do so would render us liable to punishment as criminals in the eyes of the law These things are made so by the generally automated state and attitude of existing society. The issues appear differently to supraconscious eyes.
It is sometimes suggested that the answer to world conflict is to have one supreme world leader. This is an impractical suggestion, either for our existing automatic reality or in an ideal state. As already argued, the existing worldwide competitive money economy requires many divided nations, and the powerful authority of one leader in each nation is necessary to control, or attempt to control its conflicting institutions. Since each nation clings to its own particular and different culture, it would be very difficult to find one leader whom all people felt to be representative of all. Even if this difficulty were overcome, imagine how obviously insane the competitive system would appear in a world supposedly united under one leader which nevertheless retained the existing money economy. For the system to continue to work (insofar as it can be said to work) the supreme leader would have to arrange, deliberately, for some nations to be rich and privileged and others deprived. Clearly the concept of a world united under one leader would not be served by such disunity. Equally clearly, that concept cannot be realised by a competitive system, for such a system cannot tolerate human unity. A united, peaceful, co-operative world - the ideal state - can only be achieved and sustained by a united, peaceable, co-operative humanity, who would not then require leadership, authority, or government.
As is the case with every feature of existing reality, we are ruled, through thousands of years of conditioning, by a conventional attitude towards leaders. It is their hard outer shells, not their inner humanity or fulfilment of their intellects, which has brought them to the top of the hierarchy. We really know this, yet we follow them nevertheless because we, like it or not, are integrated into the same reality. It is our outer shells also which follow-the-leaders and by virtue of their authority can then do no wrong in terms of this reality.
It is only when our leaders go to extremes that they, and we, are called to account. For example, in the Germany of 50-60 years ago, members of the SS and warders of concentration camps did unspeakable things which, backed or impelled by authority in their reality of the time, they hardly recognised as such. It was only when they were faced with their deeds against the background of another, more humanly enlightened reality that they recognised the enormity of what they had done. Even so, if they were under orders they were exonerated - only those who gave the orders were condemned. Those were horrific acts, but if the whole human race could be brought to judgment in the light of humantruth, today, all would be found guilty of inhumanity. But all could be exonerated, including leaders, for all are under orders from the Machine.
Consider the personal situation of leaders. They have won the competitive struggle to reach the top by reinforcing their hard outer shells. Power is assigned to the tough external character of the leader, whose inner humanity is mostly submerged, under control. Leaders are expected to fulfil this traditional, realistic role. Those who attempt to take on a humanistic role usually fail, though they appeal to public inner thought and feeling, because the only way for them, or anyone, to succeed in the Machine is by taking a tough, realistic, automatic role. But leaders remain individuals, with a personal reality subject to hidden emotions, prejudices or ambitions. This private entity is isolated from others by the leader's position, and may grow independently. It is fallible, yet may wield enormous power. As a result it is possible that enlightened leaders might arise who turn us from the automaton and towards humantruth, which the Machine would not like. There are signs of this, and I believe that it must inevitably happen eventually and hopefully not too late. For the present it's more likely that most leaders remain, unwittingly, locked into the Machine, while others go to extremes of violent oppression, as in the past, to the horror of suffering humanity. If automatic reality persists, I can imagine legislatures proposing, and the Machine allowing, that governing authority be handed over to the most advanced ultra-intelligent computer on the grounds that it would be infallible and unemotional, and, having been most thoroughly programmed with all the facts and concepts of automatic reality, would be able to reach automatic decisions or forcible compromises much more quickly and dependably than any human leader, brooking no argument. This could close the door for ever on any possibility of our true humanity prevailing against the Machine.
Strong authority is thought to be necessary for the control of the irresponsible. The theory is that the majority decide what is to be done and all are obliged to conform. In fact, human affairs are so continually changing because of autoprogression that public influence can have only a loose and limited effect, whilst authority takes day-to-day decisions. And in any case these decisions are really choices between alternative options of the Machine. The irresponsible are presently seen as those who in various ways do not conform to the automatic norm, including those who try to prefer humantrue interests. Authorities are appointed by the Machine to maintain its interests, keep the conformists in harness, and discredit the non-conformists.
The hugely extensive paraphernalia of government can be considered necessary to direct and control the great and advancing complexity of automatic affairs (as long as they continue). Human beings are constantly entangled in these affairs, engaged in the struggles of a competitive consumer society, preoccupied with the complicated matter of survival in the Machine. People spend much of their time just trying to keep abreast of this automatic tide, and the rest trying to escape from it. Consequently most of us never find time to settle, to understand how these practical matters could be mastered and simplified, giving us space for true fulfilment.
Whether we accept or reject the concept of leadership, authority and government depends on whether we accept, firstly the Machine, and secondly existing human reality. If we believe that our present automatic nature is inevitable, then we can believe and accept that it is we who have made the Machine what it is. If we believe our potential nature is to be better than we are, but that the Machine is our logical and inescapable social framework, so that our lives have to be a struggle between our true and automatic selves, then we must accept that the institutions of government are necessary. But if we believe in our true, supraconscious, morally aware potential, then we must realise that we can change to a humantrue reality, ridding ourselves of the Machine and with it the concept and practice of leadership, authority and government which shall then be unnecessary. My own picture of humantrue society is put forward in Part VII.
It is necessary here to remind you, and myself, that all this cannot reflect all the intricate cross-currents of my own reason, nor can it be directly implanted in any other mind. What prompts this remark is the recurring realisation that I am not translating the whole content of my mind into the written word - additional concepts keep occurring to me and I become anxious that I shall not do full justice to each and every subject. But although the whole content of my mind has not been and of course could not be written down, it is the background (of reason) to all my writing, and if it is broadly true, as I believe, the words will ring true. These words can only act as stimulants to your own intellation, which, as it develops truly, shall, if my findings are true, reach similar conclusions. If my intellation is incomplete, you might go further and bring it to completion. Where my reasoning is wrong, you may well put it right. I have tried to open myself to true reason but must not claim a monopoly in truth. The aim of each individual should be to discover truth and help all to discover and realise it.
Pt.IV REVELATION
AUTOMATIC CONTROLS
Previous Chapters
20 Institution
21 Nations
Current Chapter
22 Leadership, Authority and Government
Next Chapters
23 Politics and Law
24 Military Force - International Armed Conflict
25 Upbringing and Education
For overview, return to Home PageINDEX HTML