For the past few years, it seems that my life revolved around leadership. I got involved in politics with the ADQ, ran for MNA, and started a Leadership Diploma at McGill. Throughout this time, I kept hearing about how lacking leadership was bad and how being a leader was good; indeed, most of the great men and women we look up to have all been great leaders able to use their tremendous charisma to change the society around them. To me their actions as change agents are what really defined them as leaders. Lately however, I started to wonder if the very things that make them effective at bringing forth change in the first place make them refractory to new change as time goes by. Now those who know me know I can't possibly start a text like this without going back in the past for an example.
Part I – The Emperor
We are in the fall of 210 BCE. The first emperor of a unified China, Qin Shi Huang had just died and the government was wondering about how they would assure the succession. The first advisor Li Si was trying to find someone with similar ideologies than that of the late emperor (and of course, someone who would keep him as chief advisor). Li Si managed to discard the prince Fusu, one of the emperor's sons who had been exiled by Qin Shi Huang earlier on. Instead, Huhai, the emperor's eighteenth son ascended to the throne and became known as Qin Er Shi (Second Emperor of the Qin Dynasty). The results were catastrophic. Within three years, the emperor had committed suicide. A few months later, his successor was toppled by rebellion which put a definitive end to the Qin Dynasty.
The woes of the Qin after the first emperor's death could be partly attributed to the inability of his successors but a large of part of it was due to his policies while in power. These policies were based on his values which hadn't changed since the time where he unified the country. Ying Zheng, who would later become Qin Shi Huang, was a brilliant military leader. He was able to lead the army from the rather small Qin state to become the strongest force in the area. His leadership was undeniably effective. He was decisive, brutal and cunning. He took every opportunity he had to advance himself and his cause. His followers, his soldiers, relied on him because his tactics would give them victory and enable them to avoid death, or worse.
When he took the mantle of emperor, his leadership style was still effective and making sure that the unification would endure. The reforms that he pushed needed a strong hand to see them through (and maybe another strong hand to push steel through their opponents). But gradually, his followers and the situation changed. Qin Shi Huang was no longer the leader of a warring state or a state in chaos. He was now the leader of a unified group of people that were starting to all themselves as brothers. His followers, who before were his army and his enforcers, were now mainly composed of his citizens. They were people who were not looking for glory but for comfort and his autocratic style of leadership was going against their needs. The very qualities that made him an efficient leader a few years before and made him able to instill the changes that were needed in order to create a country made him unable to adapt to the changing situation and better understand his followers.
The results were catastrophic for the Qin Dynasty, but China remained as one. Liu Bang, the rebel leader who toppled the third Qin ruler, became known as Han Gaozu, the first emperor of the Han Dynasty. The Han brought a new era of prosperity to the region lasted for more than 400 years. Their impact was such that the main Chinese ethnic group is still referred to as "Han Chinese".
Part II should be posted tomorrow…
No comments:
Post a Comment