I have thought about this for a while but the thread about: "Do we really need politicians this day and age" [ Which I totally liked BTW] made me
start this thread, which is coming from a slightly different angle.
Let me try and explain. In ancient history, those that fought wars well, like Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan were leaders because of their
strategic knowledge and heroism [in this case being at the forefront of the conflict hands on]. The same with some Kings.
Then it changed and there were monarchs. Not necessarily fighting any longer in person but still either ruthless or good at politics per se or just
rulers because of heritage. They ruled Lords and Earls and as such the land.
They were a different kind of leader to those that actually went out and literally fought in person.
Then at some point politicians emerged. People that were not necessarily nobility and definitively nor royalty but people with zest, ideas, persuation
powers. Maybe even good strategists if there was a war. [of course heritage still mattered but I am trying to show that monarchs were replaced by
In Britain for example the Queen doesn't actually have any power any longer, it is the Ministers and the Prime Minister that sort of "ruled".
Have you noticed the past tense I used there?
There was a golden era of politicians that were voted into parliament and then did what they thought best, elected by the people.
This era IMO is now over.
I look at any political party here in the UK and find that they are all the same, just with different names. Many people have the feeling that those
elected are nothing more than puppets.
This can also be applied to the US Presidents of late.
I am 100% sure that those who we see as the head of state are actually answering to someone else.
So they have IMO taken the place that the Queen has now. They are just for show because we are used to this kind of system.
So we have to ask, if these politicians are just nice to look at, who really has any influence?
Personally, I have the feeling that anything to do with big companies and money and hence advertising and making more money is in charge.
So why don't we change our leadership arrangements once more?
Times have changed. We live in a consumer society and hence we are ruled by big companies.
BTW I am not in any way saying that I like this!!!
First it was the strongest who ruled.
Then it was the cleverest, who ruled
Now it is blatantly those that give us what we want in goods/services that rule [or those with money, but that equates back to consumerism. They own
the people. They are the actual new leaders.
The Queen at the moment is merely an icon. She has no power. She is a remnant of times gone by.
Ministers are now exactly the same but they are still treated as if they are in power. Actors, puppets, tokens.
So why not change again and accept that the time of politicians is over and that the time of global companies and/or rich people has come?
Please remember that I do not have to like what I just said but that this is how it is nowadays and I am merely contemplating what would happen if
politics as such would be replaced officially by consumerism.
Richard Branson would make a good leader for example
Are politics as they stand in our western world out-dated as consumerism seems more important to the general public than fighting wars?
Should we stop the charades and bring on a new kind of leadership as has been done throughout history, depending on the need and trends of the
What do you reckon?