The Democratic Problem
Most leaders are not visionary but managerial. Normally, a good thing, but during periods of crisis, whether of war, rapid technological upheaval managing status quo may be the riskiest course of all.
Everything that exists in the world is the result of two things: positive energy in motion and structure. This may sound too simplistic, but with a bit of further exploration, it turns out to be far more exciting and much more practical than one might initially think.
The purpose of this article is not to be philosophical. What I want to show is that with this understanding, one can better comprehend and foresee the disturbances taking place in the world.
Since we are working with two fundamental concepts here, positive energy and structure, we can assign each its own axis. The vertical axis describes the fundamental outlook on the future, ranging from pessimistic to optimistic.
Humans create structure through determination, so we can rank the horizontal axis from decisive to indecisive. With this simple approach, we have created a matrix with four quadrants. Again, this sounds banal, but do not be deterred.
We know that an indecisive person will seek to keep all options open and thus will be characterized by diversification. They will not follow one goal on the basis of conviction, and since a strong process is a tool for reducing risk, they are more process rather than goal-oriented.
The decisive person is focused, organized, and courageous. The challenge is that he act from a basis of strong personal conviction. These leaders are goal-oriented, prioritizing their vision of the future at the cost of the existing system.
Individuals or groups that are pessimistic and indecisive are characterized by fear of the future and an inability to act. They neither believe in the future nor take initiative to change anything. They are problem-focused and become overwhelmed by choices. Additionally, they fear making mistakes, resulting in them becoming ineffective, stagnant, and easily depressed.
Pessimistic decisive people, on the other hand, do fear the future but have both the will and ability to do something about it. Here we find "preppers," individuals who prepare, plan, and implement measures to protect themselves against the threats they believe will come. They conduct thorough analyses, and if there is a weakness, they uncover it and make a backup plan in case something goes wrong.
Optimistic indecisive people see the future as bright and therefore see no need to save, invest, or secure themselves. They have big dreams, but since they fear making mistakes, they diversify in terms of both risks and opportunities.
Indecisive optimists are often popular, but their choices are both random and short-sighted. This makes this group reliant on luck to succeed. Pay special attention to this group, as we will return to them when discussing democracy and liberalism.
Among the optimistic decisive people, we find those who believe in a better future and have the ability to plan, analyze, implement, and execute. These are the successful entrepreneurs and effective leaders; they think creatively and see opportunities in challenges. They make bold decisions, but at the expense of the existing system.
A concern among many is the declining support for democracy and the increasing influence of authoritarian ideas. Let us now look at democracy as a governance model in light of the matrix.
A society consists of people from all quadrants. The decisive optimist engages and motivates. They get others to believe what they believe and take active steps to improve society, industry, and technology.
Like Moses, they are ambitious, focused, and hardworking. They act with conviction and are not afraid to break established norms and rules to solve a given task. Individuals like Napoleon, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk belong to this group.
The decisive optimist is the leader who takes technologies, industries, and societies to a new level. But gradually, as things improve and new standards are established, people get used to the good life and look for leaders who are less ambitious. They want someone who shares more.
They do not want the few to use society's resources on grand, futuristic projects. They want their fair share, and they want it now, but they also want someone who shares their hopes for the future.
The pessimists is seldom a preferred option, especially not indecisive pessimists. The world has indeed had such leaders, but because they neither succeed in gaining significant influence nor leave a lasting legacy, there are fewer of them. An example can be Neville Chamberlain, best remembered for his hesitation to confront Nazi Germany despite clear warnings.
The indecisive optimist, the one with big dreams, who distributes without prioritizing group, company, or project, becomes popular. The challenge is that they are of little help in turbulent and difficult times. Arnold Schwarzenegger, François Hollande, and Barack Obama are some examples of such leaders, but Norway has also had its own "Tåkefyrste (Prince of Fog)."
The challenge with such leaders is that since they see the future as bright, they consume more of society's resources than they earn. At the same time, their inherent indecisiveness means that instead of investing in new growth-driving technologies, they spread the risk and bet on the established alternatives.
Indecisive optimists are process oriented with the goal of upholding status quo. The result is little innovation, little saving, broad diversification, and a society that depletes itself to a level where a four-year government period is far from sufficient to get the people on board with the measures needed to get out of the situation.
The result is that the people again turn to new leaders, and therein lies the democratic problem.