Humans: The only Species that Place Their Weakest Members in Charge

In the intricate web of the animal kingdom, leadership often falls into the paws, claws, or wings of the strongest, swiftest, or most dominant individuals. However, amidst this natural order, there exists a curious phenomenon unique to humans – the tendency to elevate their weakest members into leadership positions.

Recent history is awash with examples of failed leadership, viz. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted significant leadership failures at various levels of government in the United States. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil has faced criticism for his handling of environmental issues, particularly the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Prime Minister Theresa May's handling of the negotiations was criticised for its lack of clarity, ineffective communication, and inability to garner consensus within her own party and across Parliament, leading to a series of contentious votes and ultimately her resignation. President Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia has faced condemnation for its authoritarian tendencies and crackdowns on political dissent.

Closer to home, here in South Africa, one of the most significant challenges facing South Africa has been the pervasive issue of corruption, particularly during the presidency of Jacob Zuma and the complete failure of Cyril Rhamaposa to arrest the bleeding, when he had the mandate to do so.

This paradoxical inclination to put our weakest in charge, has perplexed scholars, provoked debates, and fueled theories across disciplines ranging from psychology and sociology to anthropology and political science. What drives this peculiar human behavior? Let's delve into the intricacies of this phenomenon.

Evolutionary Perspectives:

Evolutionary psychologists argue that this human tendency may stem from a deep-seated instinct to protect and care for the vulnerable within our species. In ancestral times, cooperation and cohesion within social groups were crucial for survival. Elevating weaker individuals into positions of authority could have served as a means to ensure their protection and inclusion, thereby strengthening the collective unit.

Moreover, the concept of reciprocal altruism suggests that humans may instinctively feel indebted to those who appear weaker or less fortunate, leading them to extend opportunities for leadership as a form of reciprocity for perceived past or potential assistance.

Social Dynamics:

Social psychology offers insights into how societal norms and cultural values shape the selection of leaders. In egalitarian societies, where principles of fairness and equality are paramount, the elevation of weaker individuals could be seen as a manifestation of these values. In contrast, hierarchical societies may prioritise other traits such as wealth, lineage, or physical prowess in leadership selection.

Furthermore, the Peter Principle, proposed by Laurence J. Peter, posits that individuals within hierarchical organisations tend to be promoted to their level of incompetence. This theory suggests that people are often promoted based on their performance in current roles rather than their abilities to excel in future positions. Consequently, individuals may find themselves in leadership positions for which they are ill-suited, irrespective of their strengths or weaknesses.

Political Implications:

The phenomenon of placing weaker individuals in leadership positions is not confined to social or organisational contexts; it also permeates the political sphere. Democracies, in particular, often witness the rise of leaders who may lack traditional qualifications or exhibit vulnerabilities. This can be attributed to various factors, including populist sentiments, disillusionment with establishment figures, and the allure of relatable narratives over conventional competence.

Moreover, the democratic principle of representation emphasises inclusivity and diversity in leadership, which may prompt the selection of individuals who represent marginalised or underrepresented groups, even if they are perceived as weaker by traditional standards.

Challenges and Opportunities:

While the elevation of weaker individuals into leadership roles may reflect noble intentions or democratic ideals, it also presents inherent challenges. Weak leadership can lead to inefficiency, lack of direction, and organisational dysfunction. However, it can also foster empathy, collaboration, and innovation when complemented by supportive structures and effective leadership development programs.

Recognising and navigating this paradoxical phenomenon requires a nuanced understanding of human nature, social dynamics, and organisational behavior. Striking a balance between inclusivity and competence, empathy and efficiency, remains a perennial challenge for societies and institutions worldwide.

Conclusion:

The phenomenon of humans placing their weakest members in leadership positions is a complex interplay of evolutionary instincts, societal norms, and political dynamics. While it may defy conventional wisdom, it underscores the multifaceted nature of human behavior and the intricacies of leadership selection processes.

As we continue to grapple with this phenomenon, it behooves us to critically examine our biases, values, and systems of governance. By fostering environments that empower individuals based on merit, while also ensuring inclusivity and compassion, we can strive towards more effective and equitable leadership structures, both in theory and in practice.

As South Africans, about to go to the polls, in what promises to be a watershed moment in our history, lets be mindful of the damage caused by mandating the weakest amongst us.