In search of Heroes

The news this week has been dominated by the death of Nelson Mandela. Truly Mandela was a 20^th century hero. His story had the earning of leadership, courage in fighting an unjust status quo, extensive suffering, then developing a different kind of leadership, shaping a future for many, and finally reconciliation and generosity.

This set me thinking about what constitutes a hero for me, and who else might qualify. The Mandela list is a reasonable place to start in terms of attributes. We have leadership (earned not inherited or gifted), courage (telling truth to power and being willing to suffer the consequences), shaping a future (a positive legacy) and some humility and generosity (sacrifice of power for a greater good).

In one way Mandela was lucky. He lived long enough for his heroism to become recognized universally. Often it is only looking back, sometimes a few generations back, that heroism becomes evident. It is interesting to try to skip this time interval, and predict who may be seen as a hero in the distant future but not already.

One example of this may be FW de Klerk, the last white apartheid leader who oversaw the dismantling of the odious system. The Nobel committee showed great judgement in my opinion by nominating de Klerk to share the prize with Mandela. Truly the wonder of Mandela could only bear fruit with the heroism of de Klerk. Wounds are still fresh, and it remains tough to see de Klerk as anything but a perpetrator, but there is a strong case to the contrary. In my ways, the hardest part of heroism is to cede power. De Klerk is a shining example of this. We can argue all we like about it being tactical, or too late, but from his seat of power he will have been advised to make choices opposite to the ones he made. That is enough in my book to elevate him to hero.

Another one from a similar background is Michael Gorbachev. I believe his motives were sound. He could see that persisting with communism was only going to hurt his countrymen, so he set about dismantling the system. The personal consequences were tough – and even now he is reviled in his own land and not given enough respect outside of it. He makes my list of heroes.

It is possible that in future Thein Sein in Myanmar could been seen in the same light, as the hero who stopped the nonsense in his own country. We all know about Aung San Suu Kyi, and indeed she seems to be pretty heroic too, but we have to respect the one who voluntarily sacrifices power as well.

In the same light, we all recognize Martin Luther King as a hero, but John F Kennedy deserves a lot of respect for responding to the equal rights agenda when he had little need to, at great political risk.

Edward Snowden is slightly different. He has not sacrificed much power, but he has certainly sacrificed his comfortable lifestyle. People in the US find it hard so far to respect him, and I am not surprised that Time did not make him their man of the year (even nominating him was brave), but for me he qualifies on my list of heroes, so long as it doesn’t later emerge that fame was a stronger motivator than justice.

Instead of Snowden, Time chose Pope Francis as their man of the year. What a good start he has made as Pope, I love the humility in all his pronouncements. And he too looks set to voluntarily give up power, in this case the power of the curia and the vast Vatican enterprise. I wish him well.

Someone else who surrendered power and took a risk for his country was Deng Xioaping. Much of the development in China during the last forty years can be attributed to his heroism in challenging the orthodoxy prevalent in his circle. President Lula in Brazil did not achieve quite so much, but can still be proud of his legacy, especially in reducing poverty.

No doubt many other heroes lurk in the shadows, unknown to most of us, and content to be unknown. In business, years ago I read an article about level four leaders. The article was actually not terribly convincing technically, but I did like the hypothesis, that great business leaders sacrifice themselves, and especially their ego, for their company. The best leaders that I have worked with in business have great humility, loving to coach and develop and to plan for their own succession. I always laugh when I see some CEO portrayed as a hero in a magazine. It is very common that this burnishing of the ego is swiftly followed by a fall from grace.

Sometimes heroes are simply good administrators, and are not called to great heroic acts. In the British 1940’s we all remember Churchill – it will be interesting to see if that legacy unwinds at all in the coming years as challenging him becomes permissible. But arguably three B’s had as much impact on the future of their own country, and even of others. Beveridge brilliantly designed the welfare state. Butler reorganized education. And Bevan transformed health services via the NHS. How we could do with such courageous and far-sighted political leaders today. Of course even those three would probably drown in the US congress or the UK parliament of now. The aftermath of a war is often the place where the brilliant can have a lasting impact.

Still sticking with politics, I think we will in time come to see Angela Merkel as a heroine. Navigating the euro crisis as a national politician has required all the hallmarks. She has earned respect, she has challenged dogma and she has sacrificed power for a greater good. So far, she has not really shaped an exciting future, but she has certainly helped us avoid a frightening one.

Finally, we can also look outside of politics for our heroes. In culture, we could consider van Gogh, Picasso, or Igor Stravinsky. While each suffered in different ways, the main characteristic of these artistic heroes was to challenge the dogma of their time. Popular wisdom will have derided their output, but from a distance we can see that they each took their field to an exciting new level. Perhaps these artists also sacrificed power, as in each case they would have enjoyed greater fame and fortune in their lifetime with a more conventional approach.

The Economist recently reviewed a study about how civil wars end. Overall, it made for quite depressing reading, since a prime conclusion was that ending civil wars is very hard. Most often, they only end when there is stalemate on the ground, and when outside backers lose their patience. The local protagonists are usually wedded to continuing a war even when they know they cannot win, partly because their personal power comes from the war. Those with the courage to take steps to seek peace after years of hatred can be heroes, even if they are not recognized as such even by their own side. How we could do with such a leader in Syria, or Israel. Perhaps at last we have found one in Iran.

I have really only mentioned heroes close to the spotlight of public attention. For each of these, there will be many more, toiling away in the background. I will stick with my four criteria, of earned leadership, courage to face down dogma, a lasting legacy and the voluntary sacrifice of power. I find it a good list, not least because each of the four is available to all of us, maybe in a limited way. As the new year approaches, perhaps we should all look for ways in our work and private lives to make some progress in each of the four areas. Even with our families we can do more. We may not seek the limelight, but we all have the chance to be heroes. Rest in peace, Nelson, and thank you for everything, including the gift to me of that list.