May 1 6, 19 18 Land & Water 
Leadership : By L. P. Jacks 
13 
THE power to dismiss its leaders at a moment's 
notice and replace them with new ones has been 
celebrated as a notable privilege of British 
Democracy. I have heard it said that this power 
is one of the safeguards of liberty. And so 
perhaps it is. But what kind of liberty is that which requires 
safeguarding by an arrangement so drastic ? And what kind 
of men are they who will accept the position of leaders on 
the understanding that they are subject to instant dismissal ? 
And what is the use of choosing a leader whose retention of 
office is contingent on his pleasing you ? There was once 
a great leader who said to his followers ; " You have not chosen 
me ; I have chosen you. " That strikes the true note of 
leadership, but a saying more undemocratic was never 
uttered. 
These questions, which, of course, are very old ones, were 
brought back to my mind with fresh and even startling force 
by a perusal of Lord Morley's Recollections — and especially 
by the chapter which deals with the Irish troubles of the 
early 'nineties. Lord Morley heads his chapter " The 
Tornado," though I must confess that it seems a tornado 
in a teacup when compared with the present storm, which 
the powers of darkness had even then begun to brew. The 
principal justification for calling it a tornado is that it lifted 
the roof off the house where the political leaders of that 
time had established their dwelling, and dispersed the inmates 
into various exiles. 
As we read Lord Morley's narrative we see how these poor 
men lived in the apprehension of instant dismissal ; how thin 
and rotten was much of the ice they skated on ; how constantly 
they were engaged in vi^arning one another of the rotten places 
and seeking to avoid them ; liow slippery and steep were 
the precipices they had to climb, and how again and again 
they hung on by their teeth, expecting every moment to be 
plunged into the abyss — as indeed they ultimately were on a 
slight impulse administered by the Irish leader of those days. 
Much of their time was spent in manoeuvring to save them- 
selves frorn being overthrown by their own followers, and 
a most exciting occupation it evidently was. They piped, 
but neither ParUament nor the public would dance. They 
were certainly under no illusion as to the security of their 
tenure. They knew they were destined to a brief career ; 
and when the moment of dismissal arrived, they accepted 
it without complaint, as good sportsmen should. Yet these 
men, who never knew whether the morrow would see them 
politically alive, were the very men whom the British electors 
had chosen to lead in dealing with the most perplexing 
problem of our political history, a problem requiring length 
of time, far-reaching plans, and tenacity of purpose maintained 
through many years. With a courage that cannot be too 
much admired they undertook their leadership with a clear 
uhderstaiicfing tliat whatever plans thoy had formed, whatever, 
policy they had begun, 
might be abruptly 
broken off at any 
moment. And in all 
this their position was 
not singular, nor ex- 
ceptional. It was the 
position occupied by 
aJl leaders in a demo- 
cracy whose liberty is 
guarded jjy powers of 
immediate dismissal. 
Although this state 
of things is all fair, 
open, and avowed, it 
has some disadvan- 
tages. " Minister " of 
course, means 
"servant." But, so 
far as I know. Ministers 
of State are the only 
class of servants who 
can be dismissed with- 
out notice. We could 
hardly expect to 
secure an efficient 
gardener or an efficient 
butler on those terms. 
No doubt if we paid 
our gardeners and 
butlers at the rate 
of £5000 a year the 
positions would be attractive to a certain order of 
adventurous spirits, and we shonld have many applicants. 
But even so I doubt if things would prosper either in the 
greenhouse or the wine cellar. We should be exposed to 
^annoying intrigues in the servants' hall, with what result 
to our peaches and old wine may be easily imagined — ^just 
as the public is exposed to annoying intrigues in Parliament, 
which is the National Servants' Hall, with what result to the 
public interest is well known. 
In war the military oath pledges us to follow our leaders 
and obey their orders for a definite period — to the end of 
the campaign, or for a stated term of years ; in politics we 
reserve the right to desert our leaders whenever we choose, 
or — which comes to the same thing — to turn them out at 
any time by the same methods which put them in. 
Now this is a pretty arrangement when looked at 
from the point of view of those whose business in politics 
is to follow — the mass of the citizens. It is pleasant to feel 
that you are under no obligation to obey orders a moment 
longer than you are disposed. But the leaders, I imagine, 
must view it in a different light, and the standing wonder 
to my mind is that any great man should ever be 
willing to engage himself to the public on- those conditions. 
For every true leader knows perfectly well that in great 
affairs nothing can be done in a hurry ; that the objects 
best worth striving for are distant objects, and that he can 
accomplish little unless he is sure of long-dated loyalty in 
his followers to match the far-sighted purpose which he has 
to pursue. To be sure, the Minister of State, whether in 
office or out 6f office, can usually count on a multitude who 
will follow him ;* but if he is to carry out his^ plans as leader 
the multitude must always be large enough to keep him in, 
and this he can never count on from one day to another — 
as anybody will see who may read Lord Morley's narrative 
of what went on while he and Mr. Gladstone were leading 
the public through "the tornado" of 1891. 
Truly it must be a heart-breaking business, and £5000 
a year seems a small solatium to offer any man for eftduring 
it. To make far-reaching plans for the public good, and then 
find them suddenly upset or endlessly deferred because a 
section of your followers has exercised the sacred right to 
desert you when they will — this it is that makes me wonder 
what stuff the men are made of who consent to take office 
on these terms. As I read Lord Morley's Recollections I 
can see they have their consolations, and even enjoy 
the wild adventure while it lasts ; but that only serves to 
divert one's sympathy from them to the public. For it is 
the public which pays for this, as for everything else. 
An American writer. Dr. Cram, has recently published 
a book called The Nemesis of Mediocrity in which he discusses 
this question of leadership. He makes a canvas of the various 
men who have lately come to the front, especially in politics, 
and dismisses thern, 
one after another, as 
mediocre, with Presi- 
dent Wilson as a 
jjossible exception, 
riie mediocrity of our 
leaders reflects, he 
thinks, the general 
mediocrity of our own 
lives, so that in a 
sense it is ourselves 
who are to blame. 
The moral is that we 
must get rid of our 
own mediocrity before 
we can expect any- 
thing else in our 
leaders. 
Now there are two 
ways in which we may 
get rid of our medi- 
ocrity, one pointing 
downwards, the other 
pointing upwards. It 
is clearly the latter 
that Dr. Cram recom- 
mends. But would it 
have the effect he 
anticipates ? Would 
the efficiency 'of our 
leaders rise automat- 
ically with the parallel 
The Liberty Loan Drive 
A Typical Crowd in Wall Street, New York 
