Leadership matters. Which is why it is one of the most researched and debated subjects. Wherever there is a group there is a leader. The converse is also true. Without a leader there is no collective. Leaders form a collective vision and direct actions to realize this vision. When you step back and step away from the many books and theories on leadership and look at it from the point of view of its most elementary purpose, you will realize something interesting. You will realize that leadership is a pan-species phenomenon. One of the survival strategies that came into play with the evolution of complex life was the formation of collectives or social groups. Within each of these groups there exists a leader. An ornithologist will tell you that when it comes to bird migration certain birds within the flock take on the role of initiating and guiding the flock through their migration. Similarly, the senior most female elephant takes on the responsibility of protecting, guiding and teaching every member of her herd. Leadership amongst non-human life forms is directed at maximizing the possibilities of survival. Picking the right time to migrate, choosing the optimal migration routes, taking ownership of the most coveted patch of land in the Serengeti, teaching younger members of the herd how to locate hidden sources of water. There is a lot that an animal leader does. At the core of their leadership is an understanding between the leader and the led – the leader must always put the collective ahead of himself or herself. The leader must act in the interest of the collective.
Let us now turn our attention to ourselves. How did leadership amongst humans evolve? We do not have any recorded history of leadership when it comes to early homo sapiens. We only have theories. Based on these theories there were probably three stages in the evolution of leadership amongst humans.
1 Early humans
We know that for most of human history survival was the biggest challenge. Early humans faced the same challenges that animals face – food, water, shelter. The leader who emerged from the closely knit group of early humans would have been the one who everyone felt could take care of them. Someone who could help them overcome the many challenges that they faced every day. In time the size of these groups grew – from family groups to a collection of families. It is estimated that early human tribes numbered less than fifty. In such groups everyone knew the leader and the leader knew everyone. Both communication and assessment of performance was direct. Capability of the leader continued to dictate the legitimacy of his leadership.
2 Emergence of cities and the rise of Monarchs
We now need to travel in time; we move past the agricultural revolution and the transformation of hunter-gatherers into farmers. We travel to the period when cities emerge. About six to seven thousand years ago. This is when we encounter the next stage of the evolution in leadership. There were some key factors that drove this change
- Larger populations
While the largest tribe was less than fifty strong; the population of early cities ran into thousands, sometimes tens of thousands
- Geographical spread
Land ownership started with farming and formation of villages. Early villages were relatively small. Spread over a few hectares. Cities were much bigger.
- Expansion of needs
At the time of formation of cities, survival was not the only factor that mattered to people.
These factors gave birth to a new kind of leader – the Monarch. This new leader had to deliver a lot more than food, water and shelter. He had to keep intruders away, he had to maintain order, he had to create conditions that led to greater prosperity. This was also the time when a leader could not maintain personal ties with everyone in his city or proto state. New methods were invented to assert his leadership. Methods that would prevent questions being raised on the legitimacy of his rule. Across cultures efforts were made to establish a connection between the monarch and the divine. Such practices continue even today. The coronation of King Charles involved a practice called anointing. This act represents the bestowing of divine authority and grace. Monarchy brought with it a symbolic connection between the monarch and the divine. In many ways the Monarch was positioned and perceived as the representative of the divine. His fundamental duty however continued to be furthering the welfare of his people.
3 1789 and the fall of Monarchy
The revolution that started with the cry of “no taxation without representation” led to the formation of an entirely new kind of social and political unit – a democratic republic. The US constitution that was adopted in 1789 begins with the most powerful and consequential words written in the political history of humanity – “We the People of the United States”. These words marked a clear separation from the kind of governments and leaders who had ruled over humans until then. For the first time in human history a large geographical area and a significant population would now be governed by a representative of the people. No more Monarchs, hereditary rights or divine representation. The US constitution was shaped and inspired by the US declaration of Independence, which held in its bosom a remarkable human insight – “all individuals possess inherent rights to live freely, make their own choices, and strive for a fulfilling life”. These two documents are products of the ongoing human striving for the creation of a fairer, more humane society. Although voting rights were reserved for the landowning, white males, these two documents and revolution that spawned it acted as catalysts in ushering in the modern age. An age where the people are sovereign. There were now newer expectations from leaders. They had to be more than just capable, they had to have a high moral standing, they had to act ethically, they had to listen to the people, they had to act without fear or favour.
“Statesman” as a concept has been explored by Plato and Cicero, it was put into practice with the evolution of modern democracies. It became associated with leaders who demonstrated a long-term vision, ethical conduct, and a commitment to public service, rather than just short-term political gains. This concept has now came to define the expectations from a leader. A leader should develop a broad consensus and carry everyone with him except when developing such a consensus comes in the way of dismantling a social evil – as experienced by Abraham Lincoln. A leader should have the courage to talk to the enemy to diffuse a confrontation. A leader should be able to see things that others cannot, he should be able to communicate that vision to his people and motivate them to strive towards realizing that vision – as John F Kennedy expertly did so during the Cuban missile crisis and during the space race with the Soviet Union.
We have so far seen the three distinct stages in the evolution of leadership
Stage 1 – “I lead as I am the most capable”
Stage 2 – “I lead as I am divine”
Stage 3 – “I lead as I am empowered by the people to act on their behalf, for their benefit”
The contract between the leaders and the led remained in place through these three distinct stages. The leader needs to always strive for the good of the collective. He needs to prioritize their needs over his own. What we have seen through these three stages is gradual evolution in the expectations of the led from their leader. The time taken for the evolution of leadership from the hunter-gatherers to the modern era has taken around twelve thousand years. However with the advent of the new year we have seen a reversal in the evolution of leadership
2025 and the devolution of leadership
Donald J Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on January 20, 2025. It is his actions since that day that has reversed a trend that ran roughly twelve thousand years. There are two critical questions that need to be addressed in the context of Trump and the devolution of leadership.
- How can the actions of one man bring about the devolution of leadership?
- What exactly did he do to usher in this devolution?
What the POTUS does matters. The decisions he takes potentially affects all life on this planet not just humans. He is simply the most powerful and influential human alive today. By virtue of his position and personality he dominates not just the news cycles, he dominates the internet, and he dominates the political and social conversations that are taking place across the world. This is exactly why his actions will have a lasting effect.
He has broken that pan-species contract that exists amongst leaders and the led. That contract states that leaders will always place the interests of those he leads above his own interests. That he will always work for the good of the collective. He has also broken the codes of morality and ethics. Codes that define leadership in this modern era. He disregards everything that does not fit into his grand plan. Science, economics and the truth were early victims of his Presidency. His crypto deals and his aircraft deal are just two examples of how he kept his interest ahead of that of the people he leads. His interactions and public bullying of fellow global leaders underlines the nature of leadership that he practices. Public spats, provocative statements, confrontational nature and ability to tirelessly repeat lies were all alien to the concept of leadership until he took office, absolute abominations apart. He looks for opportunities to humiliate and insult people, maybe because that keeps the spotlight focused on him or maybe that is his nature. After the second world war there have been monsters who masqueraded as leaders. Stalin and Mao being prime examples. But even they never had the reach and influence of Trump. Their actions were restricted mainly to their own countries and a few satellite states. And neither emerged out of a democratic process. History is littered with examples of many leaders who kept their own interest ahead of those of their people, but none of them did so as openly and nonchalantly as Trump. This is what is scary about Trump. He is almost baby-like in his blindness to or lack of concern for the consequences his actions. He asserts his dominance by creating chaos.
Trump will be POTUS only for another three and a half years, however he is setting a precedent. There will be many who will follow in his footsteps. The rudeness, selfishness, bullying, lying and corruption that he has normalized may well be celebrated by his many admirers as the hallmarks of great leadership in the future. Biographies, case studies and documentaries will in all probability be created around how much his unconventional and disruptive leadership style managed to achieve. In this modern age of ‘likes’ and ‘artificial truths’, when basic human decency is often seen as an unnecessary trait, a hindrance even; Trump’s made for social media leadership approach will find takers across all walks of life.
Some interesting and important question pop up when one reads history, especially in the case of history enthusiasts. The one that I often ask myself is – what would have happened if Britain and France had opposed Hitler’s moves on Sudetenland instead of pressurizing Czechoslovakia to cede that territory? Could he have been stopped even earlier? History enthusiasts of the future will no doubt turn back to 2025 and ask why was Trump allowed to do and act as he pleased? Eyes of the world turn to America today, like they do in many a Hollywood disaster movie. They turn expectedly. They turn to the American people and the American legal system. Can they put their differences aside and come together? Can they prevent this devolution of leadership that we are all witnessing through constitutional and legal means? Because there will be no winners if this devolution of leadership were to continue unchecked.
