Today, I’m taking a more serious turn in my writing. This is not a political commentary forum. I seldom touch on politics in my commentary but this topic calls for reflection. Leaders, in many ways, serve as mirrors of the societies that elevate them.
They reflect the values, concerns, and aspirations of those who put them in power, becoming a kind of barometer for the political and social climate of their time. Leaders are not solitary actors. They are shaped by the demands, pressures, and expectations of the moment.
However, in many cases, politicians fail to deliver on their promises and grow increasingly disconnected from the voters who supported them. Once in power, they often seem to care little about the needs of the public unless it is an election year, when they suddenly turn their focus back to winning votes.
This disconnect, where campaign rhetoric does not match the reality of governance, leads to frustration and disillusionment. It highlights how, in some instances, politicians are more concerned with maintaining their positions than actually serving those who elected them.
When race and religion come into play, things become even more complicated. The process of selecting a leader can be heavily influenced by these factors, sometimes clouding judgment and skewing the focus from competency or vision to identity.
In such cases, voters may prioritize a leader’s race or religion over their policies or qualifications, which can both limit the pool of potential candidates and perpetuate divisions within society. Leaders, in turn, may lean into these identities to rally support, even if it means deepening societal divides rather than fostering unity.
When society is driven by fear, anger, or division, it often gravitates toward leaders who echo those emotions, leaders who may speak with boldness but act impulsively. In contrast, a society that values empathy, integrity, and unity is more likely to elevate leaders who embody those ideals.
This interplay highlights a shared responsibility. While leaders influence society’s direction and tone, it is ultimately the public’s choices and participation that empower certain types of leadership to emerge and endure. If the public remains passive or disengaged, leaders who fail to serve their interests can persist.
Leadership, in this sense, is a relationship of mutual influence. Leaders are molded by the needs and expectations of their followers, while society holds the power to shape the kind of leadership it chooses to support and sustain.