Leadership and the Elite

For a long time, I've aligned myself with the anarchists. I hate being powerless, and in the anarchist model, power lies not in the hands of a few elites but with all people. This model is founded on the belief that those at the lowest levels—the workers in a factory, the citizens of a city—know how to make the system work best. At their level, they see the system in detail and know what works and what doesn't. How many people have complained that their management is disconnected and making bad decisions? The anarchist model is an effort to overcome this while at the same time empowering people. This essay, however, is not about anarchism. It's about elitism and why that model might be best in certain (or perhaps all) circumstances.

Consider medieval Europe. After centuries of affluence under the Roman Empire, the continent falls into poverty and disarray. People rarely live beyond fifty years. Starved, they do not grow to their full height. Uneducated, most cannot read. These were hundreds of years of scarcity, and yet at the same time, a small number of their people lived opulently in palaces. These elite received the education and nourishment the rest of the populace lacked. They also had all the power. From a modern perspective, this setup screams of inequality. Perhaps, though, no better model could have taken its place.

Looking at this another way, medieval Europeans were not the unwilling subjects of feudal lords. Rather, they invested considerable resources into ensuring that at least a fraction of their populace had enough food and education to lead effectively. These lords weren't simply drinking fine wines and eating roasted geese. They engaged other nations in diplomacy. When necessary, they led their countries to war. They also attempted to enforce some sort of order amongst the populace. All of these things require a certain level of education. A good general will know tactics, a good diplomat international decorum. To ensure that their leadership was up to snuff, societies invested a disproportionately high amount of resources into their lords and ladies.

I similar model existed in Tibet, though instead of lords, the country was ruled by monks. Once again, the nation was too poor to educate everyone, so instead they invested their resources in a handful of elites. While Europeans kept all their power in a small group of families, though, Tibetans distributed the power evenly. Monks came from every family, assuming they had a spare son. Even the most powerful of these monks could come from humble places. For instance, the current Dahli Lama was the child of peasant yak herders. He was the most powerful man in his country, and he didn't need royal blood to assume his throne.

We might think that today we've moved beyond this. In the United States and most of Europe, people receive a lengthy education. They participate in government through democracy. Many start their own small businesses. At the same time, though, only a handful go to the best private schools, and in turn, only a handful have actual power in congress or on the board of major corporations. Perhaps our education is good enough to give us a superficial say in how things are done, but at the same time, the world has grown considerably more complex than it was a thousand years ago. Not everyone receives an adequate education to really understand what's going on. I, at least, have not. If you think that you have, then seriously ask yourself how well you would do if put in the position of President. Hell, would you even make a decent diplomat? A good army general? Remember that the diplomats and generals will be highly educated. They will also be your rivals. Will you be able to outmaneuver them in the drawing room or the battle field?