My Bad Leader May Not
Be Your Bad Leader

I write articles for numerous sources. A particular article I wrote for one of those sources last week, titled "When Bad Leaders Get Revered" generated a lot of comments, some that I believed went way off the scale from what I considered as basically an innocuous little missive. As I thought about it later, I realized that, indeed, my basic premise had been revealed to be true.

First, let me share the article:

I found it incredible today when four New Orleans police officers, who were turning themselves in to face murder charges, were met with a crowd of around 200 people cheering them and calling them heroes.

It reminded me of two events, one a long time ago, and one very recent. The hanging of Saddam Hussein this weekend brought many celebrations, but it also brought some people to tears, saying he's been a great but misunderstood leader. Even some people who'd lost relatives under his domain said that he'd only killed those who had tried to harm him.

The other was from the trial of the four men who were accused, then acquitted, of what they'd done to Rodney King, and how they were cheered by people in that community because they also saw those officers, who had to be convicted in federal court to correct an injustice, as heroes.

I was trying to come to grips with how people can rationalize the bad behavior of others, and I just can't do it. If it was someone they were close to, had worked with or socialized with, maybe there's an understanding. But in all of these cases, none of that was true. With Saddam, there might be fear involved, but that's not true for the other two cases.

When we strive to be a good leader, we hope that people will want to work with us and follow us because we've shown character and that we're trying to do the best for everyone. When we see instances where bad leadership garners attention like this, it looks like everything we've tried to do was a waste of time. One can always take the easy way out; putting on a uniform of authority or scaring people into worship is easier than actually trying to do what's right. That's really the premise of Star Wars and talk of the dark side; it's very seductive.

But it's not the right way to do things, and I would hope that more people would hope for people to give them thanks and applause for actually doing what's right, and not for the right they should have been doing.

The initial reactions were in agreement, and it seemed like it was going to be another article where a couple of people say something, and everyone else just waits for the next one. However, one person decided to name those who she saw as good leaders, and one of the names on her list brought out the emotions.

Most Americans don't know this, but some people who lived in South Africa and, what was then known as Rhodesia and now known as Zimbabwe, mainly white Africans, have a much different perception of Nelson Mandela than we do. We know him as this freedom fighter who spent 28 years in prison. They know him as their own version of Osama bin Laden, a terrorist who, even from his jail cell, led a terrorist campaign of bombings and killings. As a matter of fact, the only difference they see is that the world seems to be against bin Laden, whereas the world seemed to support the terrorist and his organization in their own backyard.

Politics aside in general, one of the people who saw Mandela's name on the list posted a vociferous message, angry at not only Mandela, but at Oprah Winfrey and the school she's building there, basically calling Oprah racist for starting "an exclusive school in a predominantly black part of Johannesburg by selecting 150 black girls to attend her luxurious hotel-like leadership school."

As you can imagine, the comments started flying from that point, some against her thoughts and feelings, some against her being against Oprah, some against her because she had injected strong personal feelings into the conversation. Some were for her, saying that Mandela hasn't always been universally liked, pulling out old quotes from old periodicals, showing how he had other leaders as friends who were enemies of America, and some were just supporting the person who wrote against Mandela because she's a likeable person in her own right, kind of a leader in her own right where the article was posted.

Initially I was appalled at the direction the conversation had gone in, because it was getting ugly. I tried to write something to, hopefully, quell the disruption and bring it back to the original premise, but the damage was done. However, once I thought about it, I realized that what had occurred not only proved the point I had made, in an indirect way, but brought a realization to me that I hadn't thought about in years.

When Mandela was about to be elected president, which everyone in the world knew was going to occur, he was interviewed by someone and asked a question about whether he was going to accept monetary help from "dictators" of countries that the United States was against. His response was "your enemies are not necessarily my enemies". As hard as that was for the American government to accept at the time, it brings a major point home that many of us never think about until we're hit over the head with it.

Not every person acknowledges the leader as the leader, no matter the situation. In the past I've read that I don't use the word "boss" because I don't believe anyone is a boss over me, even when I was in the real working world. President Bush is the elected leader of this country, yet there are many who don't believe he represents them, and therefore don't see him as their leader. For those that do support President Bush, he's a very good leader in their eyes, maybe not perfect, but doing pretty much what they expect him to do. The same goes for every president in every country that has free elections; no one is universally loved or respected by everyone.

Talking about the concepts of leadership are relatively easy when compared to talking about whether someone was a good leader or not, mainly because those who win the battles write the history. If Germany had won World War II, he might have been written about as the great leader who brought the peoples of Europe and Africa together in a state of unity. If Genghis Khan had been killed in battle he might have been remembered as this barbarian from Mongolia who tried to take over the world. There wouldn't have been glorious talk about the empires of Rome or Greece had they been defeated earlier in their campaigns, and Napoleon would be known as the greatest conquer in the world if he hadn't invaded Russia (and Hitler might have won the war if he'd remembered this little bit of history).

As a leader, how would you like your history to be written, as a positive in someone's life or as a negative in the world? Every day, each of us gets a new opportunity to make a statement with those we lead, no matter how we received the title. Personally, I think it's better to try to make positive and effective changes, rather than worrying about whether people perceive them as good or bad initially. If the effort is shown to be for their benefit, they'll come around. And if not,... well, you're at least with famous, or infamous, company.