Leader and People: What History Tells

I am deeply convinced that the crowd, this scattered mass of people, cannot change anything without a leader, not to mention the quality and scale of these changes. Only with a leader who is somehow involved in the sufferings and aspirations of the people, committed to a particular idea, and ready to sacrifice his/her interests, at least to the extent sufficient to achieve the primary goal, significant or even radical shifts in the socio-political sphere or the system of values are possible. In a metaphorical sense, adversity and oppressive conditions are a wall blocking the path to a better, most importantly, a more just future, while the people are more like a mighty buffalo, who is strong enough to destroy this wall but only looks at it in a dull daze and occasionally hums.

There are plenty of known historical facts to support this argument. For example, the Mongols, most likely, would have remained to roam in the boundless steppe, fighting with each other, if not for Genghis Khan, possessing the intelligence to chain hundreds of thousands of nomads into an invincible weapon capable of conquering all of Asia and keeping other unconquered nations in terrible fear. Or let’s turn to the Bible: for 400 years, the descendants of Abraham, who by the time of the Egyptian captivity numbered about a million, were silent under the yoke of bestial, exorbitant labor and terrible, inhuman conditions. Even when Egyptians began to kill their newborn children by order of the Pharaoh, they did not mount the necessary consolidated resistance, despite the fact that there were about a million of them — more than the oppressors themselves by that time. They were definitely like cattle that did not cultivate their own land and constantly endured merciless beatings, herewith not from their owner. I am by no means claiming that a person is a brute. However, it must be admitted that it was precisely this respect that the Egyptian ruler expressed to the Jews. Only when Moses, the messenger of God, appeared, the dispossessed and oppressed were able to unite, get out of the animal-like state and follow the intended mission. Moreover, the need for Moses as a leader was even more obvious when the Israelites miraculously crossed the Red Sea and escaped extermination from the fierce indignation of Pharaoh. It was then, on the way to the promised land, that the “stiff-necked people” regularly grumbled about their newfound freedom, thereby clearly showing that they had not yet completely freed themselves from the former bonds that had become so familiar to them. And that is precisely what Moses was intended for: to extinguish this throbbing capricious discontent and to remind — and not only to remind — but also to turn the regularly retreating Israelite people on their intended path, both spiritually and geographically.

It should also be added that leaders, in order to exert influence, must have a distinctive property that distinguishes them from the milieu. It can be either education, or rich knowledge, or a flexible, subtle mind, or amazing strength of spirit. For whom the people will go more — for a commoner or a brave knight, general, nobleman, a talented politician — the question is rhetorical. In general, there can be many ranks, but the essence is the same — the status and its characteristic qualities that one should have in order to master this status. For example, Alexander the Great is not just an ordinary military chief, just like Spartacus is not a typical gladiator. They both had to go through the proper hardening and processing that raised them to a well-deserved pedestal and inspired the masses to follow them. It is worth noting that in this respect, the leader is even more important than the idea itself. For an idea may never take on flesh and blood unless there is an appropriate performer or agent.

Finally, no matter how charismatic and gifted a leader is, appropriate conditions must be formed for the achievement of the goal. First, it is essential that the people themselves want and realize the need for changes. It is also necessary that the leader mature awareness of his role and mission, as well as the determination to sacrifice himself for the sake of collective aspirations. Third, favorable external circumstances also play a critical role here. In such cases, individuals say: you need luck, especially in critical moments. In a religious sense: it is necessary that God favors. Here are some examples. Despite the absolute authority of Princess Olga, who became famous primarily for her mind, she clearly saw that the Slavic tribes were not ready to accept Christianity or any other religion — the idols were too close to their hearts. Therefore, she pinned her hopes for religious reform on her grandchildren, not even on her son Svyatoslav, all of whose thoughts were tied to military enterprises. Another example: the spread of Christianity was most facilitated by the emergence of the Roman Empire, which erased the boundaries of the former states. And the last, the Israelites had to spend hundreds of years in the pit of slavery so that they finally realized that it was impossible to live like that any longer. I think, if Moses had come a hundred years earlier, he would not have had anyone to talk to — they would have looked at him wildly or even kicked him out as a liar and troublemaker. This idea, in particular, is proved by how often the Jews murmured on the way to the promised land and wanted to return to Egypt.