Your suggestion seems to assume that the "nurturing" of these future
supergood leaders could happen in an isolated vacuum.
Until we have a system where money/profit
means power, the state will exist to defend this power, regardless of
what the polititians are saying or even doing, they
are rather irrelevant in the "existing democracy".
Eva
>
> As I noted several posts ago, to me the failure of the democratic model is
> that the leaders are politicians who have as primary goal - the retention of
> power. If we are to assume the a leader elected democratically should
> express in 90% of the cases the will of the people and in 10% of the cases
> put forward for consideration by the people suggestions for change and
> solving problems, then a democratically elected leader should provide the
> best leadership.
>
> Instead, the democratic leaders, Clinton, Blair, Chretien, Kohl continually
> promise to pursue policies that reflect the will of the people while in
> actuality they are involved in putting policies in place that will gain them
> enough resources to be elected again. In most cases, these are policies
> that favour those with money who can contribute to their war chests and sway
> the population at the time of election.
>
> I think we need a higher class of leaders with more clearly defined roles,
> with greater limitations on their powers and my suggestion is that leaders
> should be trained in consenus building, conflict resolution, judgement
> criteria and morality. And probably other things I can't think of at the
> moment. When such potential leaders have finished this extensive training,
> then they should seek election for a particular philosophy that they feel
> would work best for the country.
>
> This would allow us to improve the quality of leadership. We wouldn't think
> of sending a general into battle who has not had a long and difficult
> apprenticeship within the military organization and expect competent
> military decisions. One only has to look at the leaders, kings and military
> commanders of the feudal ages to recognize that birth or patronage do not
> produce the qualities of leadership. Yet, in politics, in Canada for
> example, we had Brian Mulroney who was elected Prime Minister without ever
> holding a public office before - in Trudeau's case it was only for several
> years.
>
> What about all the
> "individuality" and stuff like that you like to brand about when the
> idea of (democratic) socialism is mentioned?
>
> Thomas:
>
> Again, I agree with you Eva, that some of the arguments that have been made
> are disengenuous (= having secret motives, not sincere) in regards to other
> positions that these individuals have taken.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
>
> Eva
