Cult of Personality in Politics

To a certain extent, we might say that it is necessary to have a cult of personality in order to succeed in the political world.  Politicians need to have the support of their public, whether to garner votes or to stave off revolution.  We need to believe in them, probably beyond what their true abilities are, and trust that they are making decisions for the benefit of all, not just thinking of themselves.  The problem when a cult of personality develops is that the object of the cult becomes above criticism, almost god-like.  We give up critical thinking about the decisions that are being made, preferring to allow free rein to whoever is in charge, blindly accepting whatever happens as for the best.  There are politicians or social leaders who deliberately cultivate the cult around them, and a few who become the center of the cult without their input, obviously in an attempt to gain and maintain power over those around them.  It is true, however, that the public has to accept the image being sold to them, the strong leader, the savior, the wise decision-maker, whatever it is.  There is a certain savviness to it, as the cult generator has to create a respectable image to project.  The public craves stability and order, which the center of the cult tends to represent, whether there is any truth to it or not.  The phrase is also used to dismiss opponents, perhaps more often in this sense in the Western world, implying that supporters of a particular candidate or public figure are not examining the positions and actions taken with any sort of objectivity, and are merely joining a bandwagon of sorts.

Our Doctor had quite a bit to say on the subject, being involved in the theater world and well acquainted with domineering personalities.  He began by giving a short history of the word cult, coming from Latin and being connecting to growth and cultivation in its roots.  In use, however, the cult is connected to worship and exaggeration, rites and ceremonies, and generally with a negative feel to it.  The development of a cult is not based on logical or rational thinking, and any normal person should be against them because they deform reality.  He warned us of our limitations in perception and observed that we live in our global society the same way we lived in the Middle Ages.  What we need is to stop and think about what we do.  Why should we agree with anything or anyone?  "I'm my own worst enemy," he said, "Why shouldn't I be your enemy?"  Nevertheless, he admitted that these cults of personality become necessary when times are difficult, because we look for leaders.  We are social animals after all, desirous of a group to belong to and roles to play within the group.  He complained later about the ideas filtered through from "old" philosophy to the present day being absolutely insufficient; we need to develop our thinking, but meet with resistance from those around us, mostly in the form of disinterest.  He pointed to ancient heroes as examples of past personality cults, possibly real people whose deeds were exaggerated and elevated to levels of superhumanness and divinity that left them as impossible examples to follow, only representations of superior leadership that we can remember and use as molds to push our current leaders into.  He also mentioned Spanish leaders in the early days of democracy as people who were able to convince others of the correctness of their daring ideas, people who were able to develop the ability to guide a society into a new place without (many) violent or unpleasant consequences.

The True Philosopher also touched on the superhuman aspect of leaders who develop a cult of personality, and pointed out three types of domination that people often use: rational (logically I am the best choice); traditional (I am part of what we have always done); charismatic (Look at me! I'm awesome!).  He reminded us in the meeting that there are always two sides to every coin, pointing out that leaders we deem repressive and dictatorial may have been able to rise to power for legitimate reasons.  Kim Il Sung was, in fact, seen as a liberator for his part in freeing Korea from Japanese oppression, to give one example.  He wondered why so few women were the centers of cults of personality, asking if there was something inherently patriarchal about it, but the answer is probably that women are simply not allowed to take power by any means.  When the phrase is mentioned in relation to women, it tends to be the criticism of their followers rather than an analysis of the situation.  Later he pondered what prompts the emergence of cults of personality, suggesting that the influence of commercialization in today's society is mostly to blame, at least in Asia.  I wonder how modern political cults of personality would be different from past political and religious cults if we can point to commercialization as the germ that starts the modern ones.  He also reminded us that not all charismatic leaders develop cults of personality, echoing the sentiment of the Doctor that special conditions are necessary for them to flourish.

The Source revealed her deep mistrust of all forms of cult, but also her belief that the modern media is a sort of firewall to protect us from falling into them.  Strong leaders control and manipulate the media, obviously, but they cannot control media from all over the world, and thanks to the internet and television, we have access to news and opinions from almost anywhere we want, at least in the majority of developed countries.  In answer to the True Philosopher's question about the involvement of women, she mentioned Evita Perón, who was a master at projecting the image she wanted for the effect she wanted.  Possibly, what irritates her most about these cults of personality in politics is the treatment of the public like a bunch of children.  The Actress said that it is cult followers who are really childlike, especially when their leader disappears.  Before that, though, these people seem to be happier than skeptics.

Our Leader, who perhaps cultivates his own cult of personality by cleverly allowing us total freedom of expression, spoke of the need for enemies in the political world.  Nothing brings a group together like an external threat.  However, it is one thing to have enemies and another to create them out of whole cloth.  Modern society is more or less comfortable, and most people do not have to worry about basic survival from day to day.  He also mentioned the different personalities that get elevated to cut status at different times, or even the same time due to different levels of effort put in.  When things are calm, politicians generally see no reason to do the extra work of creating the cult, but hard times present great opportunities for those willing to go after them.

The Seeker of Happiness focused on the existence of a group of followers for the creation of the cult of personality.  Even without an ambitious leader, a group of followers will create the cult around whoever they deem suitable, in accordance with the human being's tendency to seek out and create order.  He thought the connection between the leader and the followers was a much more organic and mutually dependent one than others had implied, saying the leader needs to identify with the people and accept the responsibility to find out and take care of the needs of the followers.  He said further that empathy, rather than charisma, was the key to rising to power.  A leader who can connect emotionally with enough supporters will reach the top, and then develop what charisma is necessary to remain.  In a nod to Godwin, he stated that Hitler did not invent anti-Semitism in Germany, but followed the clear direction of the voters to find a good scapegoat for the ruins of the country after losing a world war, although more than an example of empathetic leadership, his tone made it sound like the answer to a question nobody had ever even considered.