The Obstacle to Social Progress

— A Reflection and Warning on the “Great Leader” Phenomenon

Throughout the course of humanity’s struggle for national independence and state reconstruction, history has indeed witnessed the emergence of genuinely great leaders. In critical moments, they rose to the occasion, united the people, and drove transformative change—leaving behind indelible marks in history.

However, entering the 21st century, a troubling political undercurrent is quietly spreading in some countries: the phenomenon of manufacturing “great leaders” is becoming increasingly pervasive. Ordinary bureaucrats or technocratic politicians, in their quest to extend their grip on power and evade institutional checks, deliberately craft a glorified image of themselves as “wise leaders” or “saviors of the nation.” Media is consolidated into a singular voice of praise, history is selectively rewritten, political myths inflate unchecked, and personality cults gradually replace institutional legitimacy.

This trend is far more dangerous than mere image manipulation. Its underlying logic seeks to replace institutional rationality with personal will, public accountability with media control, and competence with blind loyalty. In such a system, dissent is silenced, oversight is hollowed out, and policymaking becomes detached from real-world feedback. Governance slides ever closer to authoritarianism and unilateralism.

At its core, the worship of a “great leader” is a form of institutional regression. A truly healthy society must be built on a stable and open system of feedback—freedom of the press, judicial independence, opposition party supervision, and regular elections. The effective functioning of these mechanisms is essential to a society’s ability to self-correct and progress.

In modern civilized societies, leaders are not deities but public servants who govern according to law and remain subject to accountability. In nations with robust rule of law, authority is derived from institutions, not personal charisma. Freedom of speech, political pluralism, and the presence of opposing parties are not threats to stability—they are the hallmarks of maturity and vitality.

In contrast, in countries where information is tightly controlled and systems are rigid, the “great leader” phenomenon tends to flourish unchecked. As personality cults rise, institutions wither. Innovation is stifled, economic growth stagnates, cultural diversity declines, and societies become rigid and ossified—ultimately leading to prolonged stagnation or even historical regression. Political stagnation is often a precursor to systemic crisis.

Take Russia as a cautionary example. The country once had a path toward institutional reform. But under President Putin, constitutional amendments, term extensions, suppression of dissent, and media crackdowns have led to political rigidity, social decline, and eventual entanglement in war and international isolation. The elevation of personal will above institutional norms lies at the heart of Russia’s deeper troubles.

Around the world today, many countries remain mired in the contradiction between national interest and personal power. National development requires the renewal of institutions and healthy political metabolism, yet some leaders seek lifelong rule—or even hereditary succession. When personal ambition eclipses the national interest, a country becomes like an organism that has lost its ability to regulate itself—eventually facing systemic collapse.

Normal turnover in leadership is also key to avoiding destructive power struggles. History has repeatedly shown that such struggles are among the most brutal—comrades, longtime allies, even families can become bitter enemies. A structured and institutionalized process of power transition prevents this kind of internecine conflict. In countries like the United States, peaceful transfers of power through party alternation are not coups—they are the normal “breathing” of a democratic system. Without this mechanism, vitality withers and corruption festers.

Every individual, no matter how brilliant, is limited by the context of their time. National leaders are no exception. They may contribute greatly to the nation in a certain historical period, but this does not entitle them to indefinite rule. Take Winston Churchill: his leadership during Britain’s darkest hour in WWII was unmatched, but when the country moved into a period of peace and rebuilding, his governing style no longer aligned with the nation’s needs. Churchill accepted this reality with humility, famously stating that his purpose in winning the war was to allow the British people the right to choose a leader more suited to the times of peace.

Across the globe, one clear pattern emerges: the more advanced a society, the more grounded and modest its leadership. In many Nordic countries, government leaders ride bicycles to work, participate in public debates, and submit decisions to institutional review. Meanwhile, in some developing countries, leaders are cloaked in mystery, operate behind closed doors, make impulsive decisions, and rarely admit mistakes—pushing their nations deeper into dysfunction.

This is the most dangerous aspect of the “great leader” phenomenon: it not only blinds a nation to its present challenges

Peter Lee in Toronto