The difference between management and leadership is that managers job’s are to get things done using people. Leaders on the other hand, while have a vision of accomplishment, realize goals through building and empowering people, and teaching them in such a way that the individual is united with the leader, understanding their role in the ecosystem. Often management tactics involve coercion and manipulation to get the job done, because the manager hold the mandate to complete the job, even though the successful completion requires the participation of all.
Looking at that then politically, what are we voting for? A leader or a manager? Are we looking for someone to get the job done, no matter what? Or are we looking for someone to inspire people to project themselves, in order to see goals reached by and for themselves?
Karl Marx successfully pointed out the follies of a system that distinguishes the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. His works have been used as justification for socialist movements across Europe and spreading now across North America. Yet the initiatives of many politicians and campaigns today create only a management platform, through which we elevate the politicians and consider it their job to solve our problems.
What we have ended with is a management team over the nation, who make changes and manipulations in order to cause people to comply. It might represent the opinions of the majority of voters, but it absolves them of personal responsibility. You can take the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
A real leader empowers people to solve their own problems, and gives people ownership of their own affairs. Instead of calling for a manager to represent how we see the world, we should be voting a leader who has the qualities that instil confidence in people, teaches them the fundamental principles off which society grows, and then lets people care for themselves as free men and women.