Prof. Dr. Likhit Dhiravegin
Fellow of the Royal Institute
Man or system, which element is more important? This can be an endless debate and both arguments of one being more important than the other can be both correct and incorrect. It is a chicken and egg argument. A renowned legal expert in Thailand said definitively that man was more important because it would take a good man to come up with a good system. But he simply forgot that it would take a good system to screen for a good ad capable man. How can a good man just pop out of the blue? What he meant was probably a good man just came by to take the mission. That is based upon a big assumption. An assumption is a folly argument because it is assumed that a certain condition is present, a good man. What if there is no such a man? The question is how can we come up with a good man save for luck if the system cannot do the screening process or cannot nurture such a personality? This is going nowhere and it will become a circular argument, a good man to produce a good system or a good system to nurture a good man.
It is true that a system is created by men. But if the system or on a broader scale the society cannot produce good men, there cannot be improvement. Indeed, many good men have been spoiled after having worked in a bad system for a period of time. A corrupt public organization can destroy good and honest men and often good men would have no chance to even get near the organization due to the practice of nepotism, cronyism and favoritism. The merit system does not count in a society where the patron-client system permeates. In such a system, good and honest man who works to rule and abides by the law, rules and regulations, would be taken as standing in the way and has to be gotten rid of one way or another or just being shunned. Such a person is viewed as an embarrassment for those who are corrupt. With this kind man around they would feel uneasy. Such a person would be taken as a “black” sheep and is classified as a “bad good man,” a non-laughable oxymoron.
So far, there is no answer provided. The fact of the matter is there may not possibly be a correct answer. It is something one has to deal with on a case by case basis depending on a particular point in time and a particular situation. Argument on the subject is often specific case study. There is no hard and fast theory that can be extrapolated in time and space.
As for the issue of institution and personality cult, one can see that there is similarity between the first pair, man and system and the second pair, institution and personality cult. An institution came into existence first by conquest of the strongest man who wielded political power by force but as time progressed there were attempts to institutionalize the structure of power relationship with the concomitant allocation of economic wealth and social status. After the system has been established, the person who occupied the seat of power would have his or her status enhanced and when natural attrition took its toll, the established structure or system would continue. The demise of individuals would have no impact upon institutions because they outlived individual incumbents in so far as the institutions continued to enjoy legitimacy and were publically accepted, either through myth or time-honored tradition.
But problems may arise in the case the existing institutions are faced with serious issues which required extra-ordinary talent from the person who occupied the central seat of the institution. Such a person may have extra-ordinary quality or perceived by the general populace to possess special talent, charms, admiration, and awe inspiring to the extent of being believed by the people as having magical power. Such a person would emerge in a situation of crisis. He or she might convince the people that he or she possessed special power and blessed talent who could come to the society’s rescue. The magnetic charm is known as charisma or charismatic power. Such leader would be known as charismatic leadership. Once this type of person dominated the scene, institutions would be overshadowed and become less important. It would be the personality that counts more than institution or institutions. A charismatic leader was usually built by a process known as “personality cult.” Adolf Hitler was an example par excellence of trying to build personality cult. The salute made by raising arm and pronouncing the name Hitler being part of the process. Mao Ze-don was accused by his adversaries of building personality cult at the expense of the Communist Party as a political institution. Mao toward the end of power struggle became more important than the party which he himself was instrumental in turning it to be a powerful political institution. The red-guards who were shouting Mao’s name or Chairman Mao waving the little red book is another case in point.
But charismatic leaders based upon the building of a personality cult as opposed to institution or institutions would suffer from three problems. Since the masses believed that charismatic leaders possessed magical power and came to their rescue, they would expect the person to be able to resolve problems. There had to be a series of success. One case of failure would or could be hazardous. Failure is a taboo for charismatic leader. The second problem is once the charismatic leader gets advanced in age, he or she would lose power due to the inability to maintain the first condition, success in problem solving. The third problem is the person’s charisma cannot be transferred to his or her successor. Successor of a charismatic leader usually cannot fill the power vacuum after the demise of a charismatic leader due to the lack of caliber on a par with the predecessor. He or she cannot sit on the same chair of the predecessor with confidence. Meanwhile, there would be those who are waiting in the wings to seize the opportunity to vie for power.
It can be seen that institution or institutions are run by individuals. But some individuals could overshadow institutions with charismatic power based upon the building of personality cult. Unless institutions have become fully institutionalized and can function within the changing context through adaptation, they might face danger of being challenged. This would be especially so when a new era ushering in a new milieu which requires adjustment in order to become germane to the new situation. The key is to continue to be relevant to the changing times. Adaption to change of the environment as the key to survival was voiced by Charles Darwin, in effect, that “It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent but the ones most responsive to change”. To survive, change it must, pure and simple