There have been wild statements flying around political society last week about leadership that are not only a denial of the rich lessons of the past two thousand years of human history but also shows a pathetic lack of familiarity with the way human nature works and the philosophical foundation of knowledge. In other words, these utterances display a serious misunderstanding of ontology.

First, there is the observation by Eric Philips (in KN- Oct 31, 06) that the problem that has plagued Guyana is not ethnic based parties; the political system is to be blamed. He wrote that even if there was Jesus, Lord Krishna, Buddha or the Prophet Mohammed in charge of the South African Government under apartheid, they would not have been able to change it. It is the system that makes people. This argument is fundamentally flawed. It is virtually impossible to put a determinist structure to the movement of history.

Secondly, two leaders of the PNC, Aubrey Norton and Jerome Khan, offered an identical position while speaking to Stabroek News (Oct 31). They opine that the leader is not important. It is the structure that is. This is how Norton puts it; “It matters little who is and who isn't the leader.” Thirdly, out of the blue, President Jagdeo came up with a shocker. He referred to the late Dr. Festus Brotherson as a good leader. Brotherson, who never exhibited any qualities of leadership when he was a favoured mandarin in the Burnham Government, suddenly becomes a good leader.

There are two arguments that can be used to rebut these evaluations of leadership. One is that the role of the individual is equally important to the dialectic of change in history. Secondly, when leadership qualities are enumerated then you can tell who is a good, jejune, ordinary or failed leader. It is outside the scope of this column to assess the importance gifted leaders have brought to the movement of broad social forces and in the process how they have changed the world. The examples are literally endless.

If there was no Julius Caesar, Roman history would have been entirely different. If there was no Gandhi, Indian history would have been entirely different. If there was no Mandela, South Africa would have disintegrated in front the eyes of the world. If there was no Gorbachev, the globe would have seen the continuation of a ruthless power struggle between the USSR and the West. If there wasn't Shakespeare, poetry would have died a long time ago. If there wasn't the presence of Brian Lara in the West Indian team maybe there would have been an occasion in which the team would have been bowled out without a run on the board.

The arrival of the great individual creates phenomena that propel social forces forward and in the process changes the course of history. It is best described by the outstanding French philosopher of the 20 th century, Jean Paul Sartre. According to Sartre, the role of the individual in history is to affirm the specific character of the human act “which holds fast to its resolves while traversing the social scene and which on the basis of given conditions, transforms the world.” Sartre said that within a certain field of possibilities the individual steps outside of his/her historical and social limitations “by what he succeeds in making of what has been made of him.” (Jean Paul Sartre, The Problem of Method . Trans., Hazel Barnes (1960) quoted in Franz Marek, Philosophy of World Revolution . Intl. Publishers: New York, 1969, p. 54)

Conversely, leaders with negative instincts can also change the world but for the worse. They possess charm, charisma, passion and purpose. At a crucial moment in time, they can step outside of the prevailing social limitation and create new possibilities. The obvious example of this is Adolph Hitler and Fidel Castro. Not to mention Burnham and Jagan of Guyana. Aubrey Norton and Eric Philips are denying history if they say that particular leaders have not intervened at crucial junctures in the history of this country and changed the course of that history though not for the better. Jagan and Burnham destroyed this nation.

This article will be too long for Sunday readers if after enumerating the leadership qualities that must be possessed before one can be classified as a leader, I offer specific examples. I will briefly define each of them and leave readers to decide which leader in the past or the present possess these features of which some must be present if the leader is to succeed in his/her purposes and endeavours. They are not listed in any prioritised order. (1) Situational sensitivity- the leader must at all times be cognizant of the particular situation that has arrived and that calls for some form of crucial awareness of what the particular moment consists of.

(2) Conceptual complexity – the ability to conceptualise the complex nature of social phenomena that surround the leader. (3) Willingness to use power – the understanding that tough decisions have to be made and must be made. (4) Hobbesian awareness – capacity to detect the difference between good and bad people. (5) Integrity of character – possession of moral fibre that encourages followers to accept, believe and trust the leader. (6) Canopy of belonging– in a world of unpredictable human nature, the leader must have the support of a school of trusted loyalists.

(7) Self-confidence – the acceptance that one is as good a leader as the others in the world. (8) Nationalism - the undying love for country and the devotion of all energies to the development of one's country. (9) Inherent sense of fair play – leader must acknowledge that right must always prevail over wrong and allow people to have their rights. (10) Belief in the individual to change the course of history – leader must possess the belief that he/she can do great things for people and country.