No country in the world has ever given voting rights to citizens without a fight. And with the struggle in the Middle East for democratic rights its become obvious that people the world over want those rights. So why the fighting?
The reasoned critique of leadership starts with the tribal ‘headman’, the best fighter, the tallest, strongest male person. This is a leader who leads because he is too strong to defeat. In a world where other tribes may attack strength is an attribute, and strength in the modern world is still seen as desirable though not always individual physical strength. Financial clout superseded physical strength long ago, and now we have the slow emergence of probity as more desirable in a leader than it has ever been.
Leaders still see themselves as winners because the system that elects them pits them against many contenders. At the heart of the corruption of democratic states lies this fight to win.
When Rome was emerging as a power it was in crisis and the Senate sent emissaries to Agricola to ask him to take over the reins of power. He was a military man. He asked them to give him supreme power and in return he would step down after ten years. His rule was violent to some, hard and lasted ten years after which the faction fighting had abated. He could have stayed. There were none to challenge him. He stepped down as agreed.
What seasoned democratic states need from their leaders is an agreement as to how they will be as people, far more than their policies this is the most important contract we can have with our leaders. There is no one today we could trust to do what Agricola did: keep their word in the crisis.