In an ideal society, those chosen to represent and lead the people would be chosen because they had shown 'leadership qualities' - honesty, integrity, intelligence (both emotional and intellectual) and, most importantly, a paternal or maternal protective instinct towards others. In short, leaders would be those that could effectively lead the society in a way that secured the best interests of all. Ideal leaders would certainly not be 'war-like' but rather peace-makers. So why don't we have societies like this around the world today? Does power really corrupt? Is it inevitable that any human being elevated to a leadership role will succumb to the lure of power and control over others and ultimately turn bad and against the people? Do we conclude therefore that the very idea that one or a few should lead the many is simply a bad one?
It's true that human history is embarrassingly bereft of these ideal leaders. The ones that history records as being 'great' were very often the most war-like and directly or indirectly caused the most suffering to innocent people. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, FDR, Winston Churchill....George W Bush?
There have been a few notable exceptions though,
Martin Luther King, is one,
JFK is another, and there are undoubtedly many less-well-known examples from all over the planet (
Benazir Bhutto for a more recent example). But in the case of these three, and many others of similar calibre, you may have noticed that they have an unfortunate tendency to be assassinated by, we are told, irate citizens who bizarrely, cannot abide their attempts to be truly great leaders in the ideal sense. Of course, I am being a little facetious here, because there is strong evidence to suggest that MLK, JFK, Bhutto and many others who were allegedly assassinated by 'lone nuts' were in fact murdered by the competition - the corrupt leaders.
Comment: Blair thinks it is "sad" that people want to disrupt his little ego trip. What is inexpressibly sad is the 1 million+ Iraqi civilians that were murdered as a direct result of his lies about the threat from Iraq and his pathological drive to invade and occupy Iraq at all costs.
Notice how Blair attempts to dismiss the demonstrators as members of the extremist "BNP" (British National Party) and how his spokesperson labels protest against war crimes as "unpleasant". How unfortunate for poor Tony that members of the public would dare stand up and shove the truth of his monstrous crimes back in his face. The reality is that those who have and plan to protest this particular war criminal's attempt to slip into the role of 'elder statesman' are ordinary people who happen to still possess a conscience (a rare quality in these times). They should therefore be applauded for their efforts in standing up for justice and against the predations of psychopaths in power like Blair.