Why do we still believe in a strong hand?

Why do we still cling to the "strong leader"?

You know, sometimes I catch myself thinking about how often we repeat the same mistakes in history. Take, for example, the cult of the "strong leader." We look at Genghis Khan or Napoleon and think, "Yes, that was strength." But is it really? Honestly, I have mixed feelings. A strong hand attracts with its apparent simplicity: one leader - one responsibility. But history shows that it's not so straightforward. 

This belief in a leader who will solve everything comes from somewhere very deep. Maybe it's our inner drive for order and security? Or perhaps it's just laziness to think about complex systems and their interactions. In any case, it's hard for us to let go of this idea, although, as practice shows, it doesn't always lead to development and prosperity. Are we safe entrusting everything to one person? I don't know about you, but I often doubt it.

Here's how history has taught us and what it hasn't taught us

Where the cult of personality really helped

There are examples where the strategic genius or charisma of one person led to success. Take Genghis Khan: his military campaigns left a significant mark on history. But honestly, in terms of sustainability, it's ambiguous. Yes, his conquests created a vast empire, but how long did it last after his death?

"History is lessons we have yet to learn" - unknown author.

For some, such personalities are symbols of breakthrough and change. However, looking deeper, we understand that this is more of an exception. Leaders capable of transforming society are rare. Maybe their influence is significant, but truly stable changes occur slowly, through collective efforts.

And where everything went wrong

And how many examples are there where the cult of personality led to tragedies? Hitler, Stalin, Mao - each of them represented a danger to their own people. Personalities who promised powerful development but ended their paths with destruction. Probably, we all know how hard it is to build and how easy it is to destroy. And this is especially evident in countries where power was concentrated in one pair of hands. The danger is that absolute power corrupts. Illusions are created that one person knows best what the country needs. But unfortunately, the reality is that, losing touch with the people, the leader also loses objectivity. The consequences can be catastrophic: narrowing of rights, suppression of dissent, economic problems. Look at the Soviet Union - a rapid leap at the expense of repression, but at what cost?

Why is it easier for us to believe in one person than in a system?

Sometimes it seems easier and more reliable to rely on a specific person than to trust a complex, multilayered system. Remember how often we hear: "Here's my small business, how can I influence it?" Or: "They're all the same there." Maybe it's partly fear, unwillingness to take responsibility? Honestly, people tend to look for simple solutions. One person seems more understandable and accessible. Personalization of power is a way to simplify the perception of complex social processes. After all, the system is something intangible, incomprehensible, and, most importantly, uncontrollable. But a leader is someone real, someone you can vote for or blame.

"Believe in the system, but don't forget about the person" - folk wisdom.

But let's look at it from another perspective. Even in very successful companies and countries, there is always a whole team behind the success. Yes, perhaps one person is at the helm, but the real merit is collective work. And when we start to understand this, the realization comes that the system is also us. We are the ones who create and support it.

And what about Kazakhstan?

Kazakhstan is an interesting example of how the myth of the "strong hand" continues to live. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many expect a clear course and stability from the authorities. But are these expectations justified? I don't know about you, but I often hear such conversations among Kazakh acquaintances. On the one hand, there is stability, which is valued in the region. Maybe that's what attracts: confidence in tomorrow, order. But on the other hand, how sustainable is it? 

And here comes the thought of where stability ends and stagnation begins. Economic reforms, rights, and freedoms - these are all questions that are difficult to solve in such a context. It's important to remember that without development, there is no future. Kazakhstan now, it seems to me, is at a crossroads. Yes, they see examples of other countries choosing a more democratic path. But they still believe that strong centralized power can solve all problems. Maybe it's worth trying to find a balance between stability and development?

Maybe it's time to try something new?

We look at the world around us and see: more and more countries and regions are starting to experiment with decentralization and self-governance. Why? Because in a world that is becoming more complex, there is simply no one solution for all problems. 

Decentralization is a kind of blurring of boundaries, division of responsibility, which, strangely enough, makes the system more sustainable. Remember how in a family: when everyone helps each other, things go faster and easier. The same goes for management systems. The division of power and authority allows avoiding concentration, and therefore, abuse. Yes, it may sound like a cliché, but there is strength in diversity. 

Each region, each person can contribute something unique, which ultimately makes the system more flexible and adaptive. By the way, this model has proven effective in crisis moments. When one part of the system can't cope, others pick up the slack. As a result - resilience and the ability to respond quickly. Maybe it's worth thinking about where our belief in uniformity leads us? And is it possible for us to become part of the solution?

So does the "strong hand" solve problems or not?

No matter how you look at it, the question of what is better - a strong leader or a strong system - will remain relevant for a long time. In my opinion, it all depends on the context. Sometimes leadership qualities are indeed necessary to set some processes in motion. But in the long term, it's important to have a system that can function independently of one person.

So what to choose? I think the answer is not so simple. Perhaps a combination of both. Is a hybrid model of governance possible, where strong leaders work within a sustainable system? I think this is the question facing many countries and societies today.