Capitelizership’: Also as Perverted form of leadership

[Published in Bogota Free Planet, South America, on 2 August 2015 and on 10 August 2016 in Dhaka Courier, Bangladesh]

Is there any perverted form of the lexicon ‘Leadership? ‘It may at the outset sound a little problematic or beside the point in its entirety but its standing and necessity can hardly be gainsaid in conclusion. Reality unfolds the truth that the practice of leadership(s) from the very days of civilizations till date on earth under countless circumstances, conforming or not, is indeed mostly not in tune with its very spirit and vein. Caprices, disregards, connivances, deviations and so forth are on in full swing for which real taste and smell of leadership(s) aimed at the well-being of people/organization is a recurring asking for all. One may readily jump to a conclusion that such phenomenon of leadership(s) amounts to perversion of leadership(s). Therefore, arises a pertinent query what should be the befitting taxonomy for branding such perversion of leadership(s)? Of course, there is nothing to be worried at all, although attempts are on to suit the very purpose. Yes, in social sciences and in particular in politics and political science, we meet with various forms of government having analogous terminologies (antonyms) for perversions therein.

History carries record that It was Aristotle who in his epoch-making book ‘Politics’ written nearly 2500 years ago, presented three forms of government depending on numerical standing showing at the same time their perverted forms. In natural form, they are called Monarchy/Dictatorship Rule of One. Here the dictator with the profoundest sense of dedication and responsibility, works as a whole for the well-being of the people, Aristocracy i.e. Rule of Few. Here the few with the profoundest sense of dedication and responsibility, work as a whole for the well-being of the people and Polity i.e. Rule of Many. Here the Many with the profoundest sense of dedication and responsibility, work as a whole for the well-being of the people. In perverted form they are named Tyranny, Plutocracy and Democracy. Differences between natural form and perverted form imply that in the former interests and well-fare of the people are primarily ensured, defended and protected while in the latter form interests and welfare of those who wield power are essentially ensured, defended and protected.

Applying this very understanding, logic and formula of the forms of government set by Aristotle, there no denying the fact that Leadership(s) can as well be tasted and understood in today’s perspectives. In simple terms Leadership denotes art/practice of guiding group/people or organization. When a leader exercises his/her leadership to reach at the targeted vision and mission taking his followers/subordinates/people into confidence in proper mood and mode then his/her leadership(s) merits to be counted and weighed as leadership in natural form. Conversely, when such leadership(s) attaches priority to self/vested interests disregarding the targeting vision and mission then s/he definitely takes resorts to deviations, which must be treated as perversions leading to perverted form of leadership.

Such perverted form of leadership pointedly in politics and statecraft may be equated with capitalization in economics. For the reason that in economics, certainly in a broader sense, capitalization means using something as capital to earn/gain/enhance more. And one who capitalizes [money, reputation etc.) is called capitalizer and such act of capitalization by the capitalizer is titled ‘Capitalizership’.

Likewise, in politics and statecraft, such capitilizership ascends when one/leader(s) capitalizes people’s supports either through election or otherwise for attaining his/her gains at the disregard/negligence of common interests/gains which s/he is committed to do necessarily. And so, in line with the perverted forms of government here ‘capitalizership’ may rightly be branded as ‘perverted form of leadership’. Let us see how capitalizership(s) under the mask of leadership(s) are moving fast in today’s world. Let political scientists, thinkers, observers and social think-tanks feel free to welcome this newly coined taxonomy to understand the real theme of leadership(s) in today’s perspectives as well. This notion may also be used in other relevant areas. Drawing here careful attention also to the fact that ‘any practice of this word as perverted form of leadership henceforward should bear reference to this article as it upholds the memo of intellectual property’.