The mysterious Mother Goose’s “Hickory, Dickory, Dock” is a meaningless but catchy English nursery rhyme with ancient Celtic origins. It has entertained children for more than the last three centuries and helps shepherds count their herd. Various historical and linguistic interpretations of the rhyme exist that destroy the fun of this rhyme. Many argue that it serves as a historical allegory of mocking Richard Cromwell—the son of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England. People nicknamed Richard as “Tumbledown Dick” and “Hickory Dick” because of his timidity and his reputation as a weak ruler, especially in contrast to his formidable father. The rhyme is a perfect allegory for contemporary cowardly, cunning leadership, irrespective of party lines and ideological divides, across institutional and non-institutional settings where multiple forms of authoritarianism exist.
Leaders in various fields talk about ideology and principles but operate in an ideology‑free zone, where principles are strictly for the followers. They prefer to stay unaccountable in their everyday lives, and there are no principles for the leaders themselves to follow. Such hollowness, selfishness and opportunistic culture of leadership is a product of a meaningless managerial culture found within various forms and stages of capitalism. Leadership is not about managerialism. Leadership is about taking the difficult path of challenging all forms of power to transform society along a democratic and progressive trajectory. It is the courage of conviction to swim against the current.
Contemporary leaders are crude, cunning, and careerist managers—but they are not leaders who can change society or any institution, for that matter. The compliance culture of managerialism is shaping the everyday lives of leaders in today’s capitalist society. All leaders, irrespective of their ideology, prefer the centralisation of decision-making and power.
Therefore, VI Lenin, in his book Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920), worried about the “careerists, charlatans, and unreliable persons” in politics—both among leaders and their followers, who pursue power solely for profit. Lenin argued that this “shameless careerism” is part of a “bourgeois-vulgarised parliamentary” culture, which can be found in various professions and even in trade union movements. These opportunists are enemies of the people and of society. Lenin goes further to argue that careerist leaders and their blind followers produce and regenerate a “bourgeois environment” that gives rise to “bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity, etc., only varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life,” determined by market forces.
Market-led democracies, states, governments, families, individuals, educational institutions, prisons, judiciaries, legal systems, and political parties are all operating on the basis of a managerial hierarchy. Their primary function is to manage people and their opinions on various issues without threatening the establishment that governs our lives, resources, and the planet.
The majority of leaders across the world today are not products of revolutionary struggles or mass movements. Contemporary leaders are forged through networks of power, privilege and propaganda. Leadership built on such a foundation inevitably serves the interests of that network. Therefore, these leaders seek legitimacy during elections and forget about voters once elected. This universal norm extends from politics to various spheres of life, where leadership lacks a moral compass and a vision to lead the masses. Autocratic, managerial, and technocratic leaders lack any kind of vision, idealism, or coherent plan of action to lead people along a progressive path. These careerist leaders promote stong institutions, centralised power and a strong state and government for governance which weakens people in their everyday lives.
Collective leadership, individual responsibilities and collective accountabilities can be alternative model of governance that pursue collective happiness and minimise everything that poses threat to collective foundations of society, state and governments. These alternatives are not only historic but also have been used successfully in various parts of the world. From Marinaleda village in Andalusia, southern Spain to Chinese experiment with united front strategy of decision making, implementation and public delivery of welfare service for the empowerment of individuals and their citizenship rights reveal about the power of collective leadership.
The writer teaches at the London Metropolitan University.
