Delusion
The word incompetent is used to describe persons who should not undergo certain judicial processes, and also for those who lack mental capacity to make contracts, handle their financial and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and need a legal guardian to handle their affairs.
Most laws recognize that mental capacity is a continuous quality that may be present to a greater or lesser extent. Legal competence, however, cannot be present to a greater or lesser extent.
There's a fine line between being visionary and delusional. ‘Eccentric’ means literally “off-center” behavior that is definitely a bit odd or out of the ordinary, but not necessarily insane. Unfortunately we see far too many authors, speakers and thought leaders broad jumping that line. How do you define eccentricity, especially in a Monarch, President or Governor?
When it comes to holding a position of extraordinary power, it sometimes seems as though being insane is almost a job requirement. Few of us would thrive in a role of supreme leadership, and most would be incompetent at best. But, as history shows, incompetence is not actually the worst character trait that a leader can have. Some leaders are so unhinged that they’re downright dangerous. In fact, countless Rulers throughout history have gone mad with power.
History is rife with tales of Monarchs and Rulers who suffered from insanity. Although it may be more appropriate to say that their people suffered from their insanity. In some cases it is difficult to tell if these leaders’ actions were truly the result of insanity, or if events were sensationalized. It also seems that accusations of insanity were often used to overthrow Royalty and Regimes.
Nonetheless, there are cases in which members of a Royal household had all been irrefutably insane. The matter of their insanity really depends on how you define insanity. Why so many Royals went insane is anybody’s guess. It could have been the pressure of being forced into being a Royal. Maybe it was incest or poor medical care. Whatever the cause of their insanity, it is certain that a number of nations have been ruled by madmen.
Delusion refers to a strongly held belief despite evidence that the belief is false. Delusion usually occurs as a result of a neurological problem or a mental illness. This definition does not extend to beliefs that are generally accepted by members of the person's culture, as part of their faith.
A religious delusion is any delusion involving religious themes or subject matter. Though some psychologists have characterized all or nearly all religion as delusion, others focus solely on a denial of any spiritual cause of symptoms exhibited by a patient and look for other answers relating to a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Delusional disorder is a generally rare mental illness in which the patient presents delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life.
A delusion, in another form, is a belief disturbance. For instance, the belief that one's mind is being read by machines run by government agents is a delusion. Many otherwise rational and sane leaders are afflicted by delusions. A deluded leader cannot achieve the full depth and range of potential results.
People who have it can't tell what's real from what is imagined. Delusions are the main symptom of delusional disorder. They're unshakable beliefs in something that isn't true or based on reality. A person who has such thoughts might be considered delusional with bizarre-type delusions. Delusional ideation in this view is a result of disturbed cognitive and social metarepresentation.
Leadership experts ask about the next level for personal goals and how delusions fuel great leaders, as they are supposed to provide strong, steady leadership using facts, logic, and rationale. While these qualities are what the people hope their leader will provide, it isn’t always the case.
Few mixtures are as toxic as absolute power and insanity that comes from megalomania or severe mental illness. When nothing stands between a leader's delusional whims and seeing them carried them out, all sorts of bizarre outcomes are possible.
Whether it is Ottoman Sultan Ibrahim I practicing archery on palace servants and sending out his advisers to find the heaviest woman in the empire for his wife, or Turkmenistan President Turkmenbashi renaming the days of the week after himself and constructing an 80-foot golden statue that revolves to face the sun, crazed leaders have plagued society for millennia.
Susan Rice called Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi “delusional”, as Gaddafi had denied that virtually anything bad is in Libya, playing a game of “if I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.”
Some suffered from genetic disorders that led to schizophrenia, such as French King Charles VI, who thought he was made of glass, or Talal bin Abdallah who abdicated the throne after being unsuccessfully treated for schizophrenia, others believed of themselves to be God’s or Prophets.
Whatever their background, these Rulers show that dynastic politics made sure that a rightful heir always got on the throne, despite that heir's mental condition, and that power can destroy a mind worse than any mental illness.
Presidents who made rash or uninformed decisions or leaders who were downright criminal. How delusional are some presidents in history and who seems to be the most out of touch?
Carter was completely delusional about a number of policies including energy and Iran, according to The Huffington Post.
Although some citizens consider Reagan to be one of the greats, others would disagree. One of his biggest delusions was ignoring the HIV/AIDs outbreak, which became a global crisis, Vox reports.
Bush flatly ignored intelligence warnings that the 9/11 attacks were imminent and started a war in Iraq based on a gut instinct that they had weapons of mass destruction, according to The Huffington Post.
Trump doesn’t believe in climate change, calls white nationalists “fine people” and claims to be the leader for the forgotten man and woman, just to name a few. His voracious appetite for Twitter where he tweets impulsive comments has both the national and global community wondering if he’s lucid.
He gave his first address to the United Nations General Assembly, pushing for “sovereignty” in what has been called both “terrifying” and “delusional” by experts. Many believe he may be suffering from dementia, according to Newsweek. Former CIA Director John Brennan said world leaders view President Trump as not only "incompetent," but also "delusional."
Today we must follow advice and eschew narrow legalistic categories, viewing the oath and its duty to “faithfully execute the law” as embedded within a constitution’s deeper values. As a risk exists that a more moralized impeachment inquiry could quickly turn partisan, which, would debase any constitutional process.
The constitutional standard of impeachment – “high crimes and misdemeanors” – is not a legal one. Rather, an impeachable offense occurs when a Monarch, President or Governor violates the oath to abide by a constitution’s limits and respect its values.
Impeachment is supposed to be a last remedy for guarding sovereignty from a Monarch, President or Governor who refuses to respect its norms.
Most Constitutions do not stipulate conclusively whether a Monarch, President or Governor can retain legal immunity shielding them from answer to outstanding legal matters in a Labor Tribunal in contrast to a Jurisdictional Court, in a similar type of limited protection afforded to high-ranking civil servants and politicians.
Although Labor Tribunals provide for statutory, legally binding and expedient tribunal mechanisms for labor disputes, for those in the non-government sector which cannot be resolved after conciliation by the Labor Department. Government employees, be they civil servants may under Labor Tribunal Ordinances, bring money claims against their employer the Government to the Labor Tribunal arising from breaches of employment contracts. As such by extension default making civil servants subject to the powers of a Labor Tribunal.
Thereby, hypothetically: If an employer can lawfully terminate an employee who has a mental illness when his/her mental competence is accused to be impacting its ability or capacity to do its job, and when they’ve found that it’s apparent the situation will not likely to improve; why can’t a Monarch, President or Governor service be terminated through a Labor Tribunal fumus boni iuris having sufficient legal basis to bring forth legal action on the same grounds, instead of the much more tedious and usually self-defeating legislative or parliamentary impeachment process?
Food for thought!