Thống kê truy cập

  • Online: 18
  • Hôm nay: 42
  • Tháng: 28849
  • Tổng truy cập: 4276807
Chi tiết bài viết

Where Are The Leaders?





Nhà thơ Archibald MacLeish từng nói: “Một thế giới kết thúc khi phép ẩn dụ của nó đã chết. Đó là thời điểm chuyển đổi từ một sự phá vỡ trong các mô hình cũ của việc nắm bắt thực tế sang việc xây dựng một phép ẩn dụ mới khi mà vai trò lãnh đạo là vấn đề quan trọng nhất.


Sự tan vỡ có thể đi kèm với tiếng rên rỉ, trong đó một cách nhìn thế giới cuối cùng cũng không thể khuất phục trước entropy của những thứ đã lỗi thời. Hoặc nó có thể đi kèm với một tiếng nổ, chẳng hạn như một cuộc chiến tranh tàn khốc. Thách thức khó khăn, trong cả hai trường hợp, là làm thế nào để định hình một cách thuyết phục tinh thần đang chuyển dịch của thời đại theo cách tổ chức năng lượng và định hướng của xã hội thành một trường lực thúc đẩy nó đi theo một con đường mới.


Trong cuốn sách mới nhất của mình, “Lãnh đạo: Sáu bài học trong chiến lược thế giới”, Henry Kissinger xem xét một số trường hợp trong thế kỷ qua, trong đó, theo quan điểm của ông, những nhân cách chủ chốt đã hoàn thành nhiệm vụ một cách đáng ngưỡng mộ. Ông phân biệt hai loại nhà lãnh đạo - “chính khách” và “nhà tiên tri” - đối mặt với thách thức khác nhau như thế nào.


Chính khách “kiềm chế” những tầm nhìn về sự thay đổi với sự hiểu biết thực tế về những ràng buộc chính trị và kinh tế khi anh ta hoặc cô ta tìm cách mở ra không gian cho sự tiến hóa trong khi vẫn bảo tồn xã hội của họ “bằng cách thao túng hoàn cảnh hơn là bị chúng lấn át”. Ngược lại, nhà tiên tri, hay người có tầm nhìn xa, “đối xử với các thể chế đang thịnh hành ít theo quan điểm của cái có thể” hơn là từ tầm nhìn về mệnh lệnh phải thay đổi chính định nghĩa về những gì có thể.


Đối với Kissinger, những nhà lãnh đạo giỏi nhất, những người đã tạo ra sự khác biệt nhất đã linh hoạt tạo ra một “sự pha trộn tối ưu” giúp điều hướng thành công những hạn chế để nhận ra những khả năng mới thông qua sự ổn định trong tiến hóa. Điều này gợi nhớ đến câu ngạn ngữ cũ rằng, không có tầm nhìn, con người sẽ đau khổ; với tầm nhìn không được đánh giá cao bởi sự nhận biết các thực tại mặt đất, nhiều người hơn phải chịu đựng. Hãy nghĩ đến cuộc Cách mạng Văn hóa của Mao.


Hai nhân cách nổi bật trong cuốn sách của ông là Charles De Gaulle và Lý Quang Diệu. (Những người khác, ít hấp dẫn hơn đối với tôi, bao gồm Konrad Adenauer, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat và Margaret Thatcher.)

Henry Kissinger’s new book on leadership highlights the vacuum.

“A world ends when its metaphor has died,” the poet Archibald MacLeish once said. It is at that moment of transition from a rupture in the old patterns of apprehending reality to the construction of a new metaphor when leadership most matters.

Rupture can come with a whimper, in which a way of seeing the world finally succumbs to the entropy of the outmoded. Or it can come with a bang, such as a devastating war. The daunting challenge, in either case, is how to convincingly frame the shifting spirit of the times in a manner that organizes the energy and direction of society into a force field that propels it along a fresh path. 

In his latest book, “Leadership: Six Lessons in World Strategy,” Henry Kissinger examines several cases over the last century in which, in his view, key personalities admirably rose to the task. He distinguishes how two types of leaders — the “statesman” and “the prophet” — face challenges differently.

The statesman “tempers” visions of change with a realistic understanding of political and economic constraints as he or she seeks to open space for evolution while preserving their society “by manipulating circumstances rather than being overwhelmed by them.” In contrast, the prophet, or visionary, “treats prevailing institutions less from the perspective of the possible” than from a vision of the imperative to change the very definition of what is possible. 

For Kissinger, the best leaders who made the most difference flexibly fashioned an “optimal blend” that successfully navigated constraints to realize new possibilities through evolutionary stability. This brings to mind the old adage that, without vision, people suffer; with vision untempered by recognition of ground realities, more people suffer. Think Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

The two personalities that stand out in his book are Charles De Gaulle and Lee Kuan Yew. (The others, less compelling to me, include Konrad Adenauer, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat and Margaret Thatcher.)

De Gaulle: Existentialist Of The Nation

Jean-Paul Sartre, most famous for the “existentialist” philosophy that “men are free to invent their own destiny,” captured the mood of his times that all possibilities were open after world war had wiped the slate clean. 

De Gaulle did not sit scribbling at Café Deux Magots or hang out in the basement jazz clubs of the era like Sartre. He inhabited the halls of power at the Elysée Palace or reposed quietly in the tiny village of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, devoted to his wife and children, especially his daughter, who had Down syndrome. Yet, as Kissinger’s excellent profile makes clear, De Gaulle was, in reality, the chief existentialist of the nation. Through sheer willpower and force of personality, he invented the destiny of post-war France.

In exile at the beginning of the war with no troops and few followers, De Gaulle unilaterally proclaimed himself as leader of the Free French. In the last days of war, even as battles with the Germans still raged, he victoriously strode down the Champs-Élysées as a symbol of those noble souls who, carrying the greatness of France within, refused to submit to Nazi aggression. Leveraging that reputation once in power, he proffered “a certain idea of France” that, while only vaguely defined, confidently asserted and cultivated that lost sense of grandeur which had been buried in the national psyche by the humiliation of surrender and occupation. 

Above all else, it was De Gaulle’s persevering insistence that the French could remaster their fate and become once again the author of their destiny that revived the national spirit.

Régis Debray, the philosopher and one-time pal of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, understood better than most the narrative power of metaphor deployed by the French leader. “Myth makes the people, not the people the myth,” he has written about the provenance of De Gaulle’s influence.  

Lee Kuan Yew: A Nation With No Hinterland

In the heyday of post-colonialism in 1963, Lee Kuan Yew sought to safeguard tiny Singapore’s newfound independence from Great Britain by proposing a federation with Malaysia. Though “economics, geography and ties of kinship” logically dictated such a sensible arrangement, it came undone within two years over ethnic tensions and nationalist intrigue. In 1965, Malaysia cut loose its neighbor. 

As a forlorn Lee put it after the split, Singapore would now have to figure out how to survive as “a heart without a body.” The city-state at the tip of the Malay Peninsula had few resources to prosper on its own. Literally, it had no hinterland. 

Lee had the imagination to reconceptualize Singapore with a new metaphor: the first globalized nation. The Cambridge-trained barrister made the obstacle the way by turning the world at large into the island nation’s hinterland.

Within 30 years, he raised Singapore from a third to a first-world country through policies of open trade, investment and finance where global companies could be assured of the rule of law and the absence of corruption. He settled ethnic tensions by ensuring rights and opportunity for all Chinese, Indians and Malaysians, including the provision of housing, which cemented the allegiance of diverse citizens to the system. He made English the common language, tying Singaporeans together while connecting them to the world dominated then by the Anglo-Saxon powers.

Lee paid attention to the smallest detail, insisting when he was prime minister on a weekly report on the cleanliness of the bathrooms at the airport where foreigners gained their first impressions upon landing. Relentlessly innovative, Lee always sought to learn how others did things in order to adapt best practices. Part socialist, Confucian, Victorian and free marketeer, he harbored no theory beyond the pragmatism of what worked.

As a statesman, he would finely balance American influence in the Pacific and the power of rising China, both hosting the U.S. Navy at Singapore’s ports while at the same time advising Deng Xiaoping on how to achieve an opening to the West while preserving “the Asian way.” Western leaders avidly sought out Lee’s views on how China works, just as the Chinese listened to his critical insights about the West. He became a key interlocutor of civilizations at odds.

Kissinger saw Lee as both a statesman and a prophet who “invented Singapore from his vision of the future and wrote its history as he went along.”

The Vacuum Is Not Empty

Leaders such as De Gaulle and Lee are minted in challenging circumstances. Today, we have plenty of the latter but precious little of the former. 

Kissinger’s book serves to highlight the dearth of such transformative leaders in our time who have a vision of where to go combined with the driven will, innovative mind, political chops and deft diplomatic skills to get there.

In that vacuum, the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, skilled at their own brand of leadership, are setting the course and solidifying their sway.


Luật sư tư vấn miễn phí

Gọi ngay
0902818158- 0906834543

Tin pháp luật


  • Nhà Đất Phúc An Khang
  • The Diplomat
  • The NewYork Review of Book
  • CogitAsia
  • Reuters
  • Viet Studies
  • The NewYork Times
  • TIME
  • Bloomberg Bussiness