If leaders with risk taking capacity come from affluent sections, what surety is there to expect that class-interest will not be the primary level of functioning by such a leader. What kind of leadership emerges in poor communities and marginalised sections of society?
27 comments:
A common perception is that satisfying self interests rather than collective interests is more important for affluent leaders. Such a leader is expected to exploit the society which was not seen in case of Surat cooperatives due to member control which forced the leaders to work for collective interests. Traditional leadership is relevant in marginalised sections of society as it influences behaviour change, especially in rural areas where indigenous leaders and traditional structures are influential. Usually they are seen to follow a participative style of leadership.
"Influence of Affluence" is generally held to be true by the society. Exceptions are there as in case of Surat who work not only for their own self but also for others which signifies their notion of "co-operative philanthropy". In case of marginalized sections of the society, where values and norms determine one's actions, it is observed that culture plays a vital role in determining leadership.
In case of leadership in affluent sections, there could be a self- interest that the leaders are working on. The class system of capitalism may allow a better social link, thereby better opportunity to participate politically. In case of poor communities, leaders possess certain values and norms that make them popular amongst the masses.They are the people,to whom the common man looks upon in the case of crisis,, or any unjust situation
Any leader can continue to hold the position of power until popular support is ensured. So even though class interest prevails, the leader will have to ensure that he caters to the majority interests in certain ways or atleast create such a belief. In the second case self interest could be masked by populist propaganda.
In the marginalised sections leadership emerges from within the community where the leader is seen as a true representative of the people, as s/he shares a common platform with the community. Thereafter the identification can stays with the leader by means of emotional connect
It depends on the consent of a Leader, class interest may come into the picture but basically the community is giving him the authority of becoming a leader. So overall working will contribute in betterment of the community. In poor and marginalized sections, leaders having a know-how of political relations and in whatever way it is beneficial for them and community, emerge more frequently. These leaders generally do not take risk but are opportunistic in a way that whenever they get support or chance from their community or affluent people, they tend to emerge with greater power.
By taking the examples of Patidars of Anand and Surat districts of Gujarat two views of affluent leadership can be explained. Class interest plays a major role in Anand dairy co-operatives. Affluent Patidars holds more power and authority than numerically strong poor Bariyas and shows class interest too. In Surat co-operatives, Patidars are more inclined towards increasing their affluence and engage in co-operative philanthropy. Instead of class interest, member control determines the primary level functioning of leaders. In poor and marginalized communities, the leadership is based on the level and credibility of expectations the leader is able to generate.
Most of the leaders with risk taking capacity come from affluent sections because they have the traditional sources of power. If these leader will focus on class interest then their leadership will not last for long because there will be agitation against him sooner or later. So for the long run a leader have to think for the masses.The leadership in the poor communities emerges to fight for their fundamental rights and against the exploitation of affluent leader. In Thana village of Uttarakhand lower caste people start agitation against upper caste under their leader of same caste.
There can be no surety against class-interest being the primary level of functioning for leaders from affluence, except the democratic process, wherein the support of majority is needed to ensure power, which was seen in the Surat cases in the form of member control. This needs to be especially vigilant to avoid hoodwinking.
From amongst the poor, leaders who employ a participative style of leadership emerge. The community perceives them as someone who knows the ground realities and can therefore provide better representation. Charisma may not always be a factor in such cases, but perceived competence & integrity is.
It is true that affluent leader may be inclined in benefitting his/her class and then poor will be deprived of being unable to organise collective action. But there are norms and culture which shapes the line of thinking as we saw in case of- Patidars of Surat- which may actually lead to the cause of poor.Gandhi ji was not poor but he fought all his life fighting for poor peasnats starting from leading Champaran movement of peasants.
6. It depends not only on the individual as to how he wants to lead a group, if given a chance, but also on the norms and values of her/his society. Whether class- interest will play an important role is an individual’s choice which is more pervasive as can be seen in the region/religion based politics pervasive in India nowadays. For example parsimony, integrity, personal sacrifice, priority to capital accumulation and acceptance of member’s right to question the leader are some of the qualities that make the affluent patidar’s from Surat who head their co operative’s work for the people.
Unless and until the charisma of leader is enough, culture and norms of society drive the course of leaders. The participation of people and fulfilling their respective duties as citizens and the proper check from the opposition will help to check class interests if any. Typical example can be member control we saw in case of Surat.
In case of marginalized people, the member who is seen as a true image of the community is chosen. The leader too may be marginalized and thus image, religion, family lineage and personal charisma will be the broadly the factors deciding the leadership.
As affluent leaders have strong back up of their resource base and different connections ,there is general tendency among them to work in their interest instead of the interest of common people as a whole. But strong control of the people as observed in case of Surat cooperative shows that even they can be controlled. in case of leader from marginalized section the leader is made popular as he/she is refection of the common mass as they exhibit a particular set of norms and values.
There is no such surety. However, the question is what this implies for the collective action. Class interest makes the affluent participate in the collective. Considering they make significant contribution to the collective by virtue of their risk taking ability, the poorer sections are still better off by benefiting from the collective than when there is no collective when there is no class interest. In its complete or partial absence, other interests like maintenance of traditional power and prestige may be the reason.
I reach a mental block trying to imagine how leadership can emerge and sustain among the marginalised.
Most often than not the leaders who emerge from the affluent sections become leaders not just for monetary benefits but because they take pride in the fact that they are in a superior position. This makes them adopt a more patronising and condescending outlook towards those from the lower classes. They draw their inspiration from the fact that they have traditional authority which they would like to maintain.
The risk taking capacity of affluent section of the society is much more than the other vulnerable sections of the society. A great example is of the leaders of our freedom struggle...Gandhi and Nehru came from affluent families, had their education abroad but struggled and lead the great Indian freedom movement. The leaders of the poor communities rely on the affluent or the reservations to get power and then pass on the benefit to their communities. The poor have too less to loose and thus are terrified by the thought of loss.
The two facets of leadership are reflected in the cases of cooperatives in Anand and Surat. It’s very difficult to say with surety that leaders from affluent sections are free of class and caste interests, however we can easily notice in the case of Surat co-operative that member control and democratisation of the co-operative made sure that the leaders don’t lose sight of the goal of betterment of the community. The community in this case determined the roles and functions of leaders’ .In poor and marginalised communities’ leaders mostly are those who give people a sense of hope.
Caste and class are two things that have their roots deepened in the society as well as in individuals. There is no surety that if a leader is from affluent section, his focus would not be class welfare. It may happen that his actions are devoted to the welfare of larger section but traces of “class” will exist. The marginalized have no voice and if a leader emerges from there, we can safely assume that it will be the voice of the community and will be focused on their welfare. The people will be able to relate more with him.
Although the leaders might be from affluent sections of society but still they might rise above class interests. This could be ensured by having member controls and as seen in the case of surat cooperatives, placing high value on integrity of the leaders. This can force the leaders to work for collective interests of all. In case of poor and marginalised sections of society leadership emerges from within the section and also the culture of the society plays a vital role in determining the type of leadership which is usually participative in nature.
Leaders from affluent section of the society come mainly for gaining political advantage, recognition and self-satisfaction. Promoting class-interest could be one of the ways of achieving these goals. Leaders also take class side to benefit the population which had selected haim so that it keeps supporting him in future.
Leaders from the marginalised section emerge when people perceive that a leader from themselves would be better as he would understand their problems. Even from this class the leader chosen is economically better off in his society.
As such there is no surety. The leader may have class interest or self interest to participate in a collective. Among the marginalized a leader is chosen who knows the hardships faced by them. He is a popular individual whom they can trust to take decisions in their best interest.
One view,leaders from the affluent section find it much easier to extend their "I" to "we". Because they are affluent they can think about others.Secondly, in case of marginalized and poorer sections those who have revolutionary nature and clear vision ascend to leadership and become good leaders as they can understand the problems of their community better than others.
If leaders with risk taking capacity come from affluent sections, there is no surety to expect that class-interest will not be the primary level of functioning by such a leader. However, the affluent tend to be inclined with power and recognition which is not the primary goal of the class. On the contrary, many examples in history have also indicated that affluence leaders can also work in public interest.
People from marginalized section of society want the leader to be one amongst them. From the observation in my fieldwork village, the poor section or the lower caste group aim to grab the position of Sarpanch for a candidate of their community so that the candidate would be able to exercise his power and position(which they currently do not have), for their betterment. They are of the opinion that only if you face the problem, you understand its acuteness. The difference in class and prestige does not lead to acceptance of an affluent leader by the weaker sections of society.
It is not necessary, though it can't be ruled out totally, that the leaders coming from affluent sections would be primarily motivated by class-interest, one way to look at this is the affluent leaders because have enough will not fall prey to minor temptations and will not stray easily, Jawaharlal Nehru/Mahatma Gandhi came from an affluent families and were not corrupt, even in the marginal sections I think that the relatively better off think of leadership while the very poor struggle with survival issues..
If the leaders come from affluent section and they acquire rational power too, provided being from affluent background they have traditional power sources at their disposal, then they tend to favour their own class. Leadership among poor community people is a rare phenomenon, though we have political leaders who come from poor community, but in most of the cases they can’t go higher in the life as they lack the charisma and the backup that affluent people have. But, the benefits of poor community leader is visible too as they rise from the ashes and have higher acceptability.
Leaders from the marginalized section of society have more respect and acceptance. They are looked as one who are from one of them and knows their conditions. Fore.g. Lalbahadur Shastri and Anna Hazare had more appeal compared to traditional leaders.
Also, leaders from affluence background had to step down to common man to become a mass leader(e.g. Gandhiji). But this may not be always true and it varies acrooss region and places.
Risk taking ability is no sure measure of class interest and it is razor edged.
Post a Comment