Should we have someone to lead us?. Are we better off with a leadership?.Thinking about the concept of leadership in an age where most of movements/protests are initiated by social media, make us to rethink our pre-conceived notions.
Considering examples like The Hong Kong protests and The Yellow vests Movement, there are no leaders in these movements. These protests or movements were all social media initiated. So having a leader and not having one, what's the difference.
But before that, let's go behind the dark reality of the concept of leadership. Why should people vouch the concept. The answer to that question is a bit let down. We all need somebody to represent us. We can't take responsibility in all our social problems. We are insecure and out of that insecurity arises our need for leadership. We want the dirty work to be done without being in a compromising position. So having a leader is like having a point of blame. To be this centre of blame is pivotal in the making of our notions. All these hidden 'ideas' behind our notions of a leader are obviously made to submit to the social media influence.
With the surge in the use of social media, people are in a frenzy 'to do something.' Especially the Millennials who is bent on 'getting things done'. What works here is the subversion of the above conception of leadership. Everybody can be responsible. Here what happens is that social media quite masks the adequacy of leadership. Looking again at Hong Kong protests, people think they are leading a revolution. At least social media is making them believe as such. The fact that our youth when uses social media, they are in a way letting some steam off from their new capitalist inactive existence.
The idea which is 'what more than meets the eye', that is regarding where the social media initiated revolutions are going, this is something which is yet to be answered. Yellow vests are almost done. Even after protests, Macron still leads over Marine Le Pen and what has changed, well nothing!!. The movement has failed!. We have our dreams of social revolution and its violence played out as in movies and books in front of us. But nothing has materialised since protests began.
About Hong Kong, there is no one to go play the negotiation game. In politics, negotiations matter and who will share the table with Lam. No one, it seems. The people believing they have launched a revolution are in uncharted territory. About self-determination and Hong Kong's freedom, they will need a leader who could bring them out of the impending doom(Beijing). The protests may have done something for now. But the problem of Hong Kong lies with sovereignty and it ought to change only with negotiations not violence. As long as Hong Kong is without a leader, Beijing would be happy to wait till another 20-25 years. The contradictory effects of social networks on political movements now can be considered a big thing and is dangerous. It will only help the rulers stay in power, by making the ruled believe that they are ruling.
Comments
Post a Comment