Leadership in History

During our small group discussions while looking at the events of epoch three, a reoccurring theme was one of the significance of and the attachment that society had to a leader. Whether in a religious group, part of the military, or an individual in a nation, general populations tend to lean, agree with, and stand by a leader who keeps their interests in mind and shares common beliefs with them. I think that such loyalty to a leader stems off the principle of government. As realized earlier in history, societies have the need of a governing system to keep them in order, establish laws, implement a certain way of life, and maintain structure (whatever that may mean to the leader and population). But, leaders have one advantage over the general population: they can use the loyalty, trust, and authority which they are given against the very ones who gave it to them. Similar to history as a whole, what the general opinion is versus the opinion of the leader is likely to be extremely different. This causes major issues, as the common people revolt against their leader in order to instill what they want to see in society. Thus, begins a revolution. The French Revolution (1789-1799) is an ideal example of a nation being attached to a leader, but as the leader steered the nation in a direction contrary to what all others desired, a revolution beings to replace it with what they want to see. The Louis dynasty had ruled over France in an absolute monarchy for centuries, the greater French population of the Third Estate, consisting of roughly ninety seven percent of the entire French population, revolted against their leaders, King Louis XVI and the Nobility (Second Estate) and Clergy (First Estate) in order to allow them to have a say in government, gain economic status, and have the opportunity to play a major part in society. France was one of the first nations to undergo a massive transition in leadership. Replacing the monarch as the French source of leadership, the principle of nationalism was instituted into society. The Revolution essentially resulted with each citizen being the leader of the nation, causing the entire country to become the new leader of the nation; each individual’s allegiance and pride was now attached to the nation, which eventually formed a democratic system. Throughout history, democracies consistently result in stability and order across society, whereas monarchies and dictatorships have proven to be ineffective as a source of leadership because they aim  their society in a completely different direction than what everyone else longs for. So, I have come to the conclusion that all of society is better off when each individual is a leader in their own way, and when one has faith and relations with all others that they interact and share the world with, history takes a turn for the better. Leadership is just a tool used in order to achieve positive progression in society.