The Evolution of the Right to Lead

Before leaders were democratically chosen to govern, they often times needed to give justification for their legitimacy.  This meant that in order to make sure no one would oppose his or her right to govern, a leader would justify his right to be in power. One of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven.  

The mandate of heaven revolved around the idea that one deserved to lead because his or her virtues were supported and endorsed by a heavenly force.  If one were to overthrow another leader, he or she could claim that the fallen leader was not leading in a virtuous manner and therefore did not deserve to be in power. In the Shu Jing text, Yi Yin tells the heir-king that if he is not “virtuous, be it in large things or in small, it will bring the ruin of [his] ancestral temple.” In other words, if the heir to the throne lived a virtuous life, there was no “rational” justification that could prevent him from holding the position of power indefinitely and passing it on to his descendents.

It was not until the French Revolution that a major shift in political thinking occurred, regarding a monarch’s right to power.  People began questioning the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, a justification for leadership that claimed that all kings had god’s stamp of approval. How could mortal monarchs know what god wanted?  As the period of Enlightenment emerged across Europe and the New World, questioning leadership became a trend.  Revolutions in Europe had begun.

When democracies emerged, leaders no longer needed to give divine justifications for their right to govern.  Their reason for leading was that they had been chosen by their citizens.  I believe that this is one reason why democracies are beneficial to the citizens of a nation.  Rather than a leader keeping power for an extended period of time because of a religious justification, a leader can only serve for a set amount of time if he/she is voted to lead by the citizens of a nation.

I agree that voting for leaders is the most rational way of picking someone to lead, however I do not believe that there should be a time limit on how long a leader can lead for.  I believe that in the United States, if a leader is repeatedly reelected, it means the leader is accomplishing enough for the citizens of a nation to keep voting for him/her.  The leader is therefore deserving of his/her leadership position.  I am aware that the reason for a two-term limit is to stop leaders from growing greedy with their power, but if a nation likes the way an individual is leading, I do not understand why he/she cannot lead for a longer amount of time.

A leader's legitimacy to lead is valid if he/she is elected to lead.  I believe that in America, a President should be allowed to lead for as many terms as he/she is elected for.