Grurla Paylaşıyorum

Bir mail grubuna üyeyim aşağıdaki mail gelmiş
----------------------------------------------------------

Aynı kitabı 3 yıl evvel getirtmis ve okumuş idim.

Yakın zaman evvel tercüme edilerek basıldığını da zannediyorum.

Bu büyük insan için Batıda sayısız kıymetli eserlerden en son olan ve bir bilim adamı tarafından seneler süren bir inceleme sonunda ortaya çıkan çok kıymetli bir eserdir.

Kitapta 1 ocak 1900 ile 31 Aralık 1999 arasındaki bir asırlık dönemde Dünyadaki 194 devlete hükmetmis 1977 lider incelemeye alınmıştır.

Uzun bir çalışmanın sonunda bu önce 377 lidere inmis ve bu 377 liderden Mustafa Kemal Atatürk sonunda 31 puanla, Dünyanın 20.ci asırda yetiştirdiği en büyük lideri unvanını almıştır.

Türk Ulusunu, çökmüş bir Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun enkazından yaratan bir lider halen 21.ci asrın geçerli unsurlarındandır.

Necdet Senergun
17.2.2012

HARIKA BIR HABERI GURURLA PAYLASIYORUM.

Konu: "Visionary"

Türkiye'ye ayak basmamış ABD'li Psikiyatr Profesörü Arnold LUDWIG, "in one of the most comprehensive and insightful studies of political leadership ever undertaken", KING of the MOUNTAIN adlı kitabında, 20.nci Yüzyılda tüm dünyada ülke yönetmiş, Abdülhamid'den Kaddafi'ye, Mao'dan Roosevelt'e, De Gaulle'den Nehru'ya, Churchill'den Hitler'e, Mussolini'den Mandela'ya, Stalin'den Nasır'a ve Arafat'a, 2000 (iki bin) kadar lider hakkındaki 18 yıllık araştırmasının sonucunda, 377 adet belli başlı devlet adamı / lider tesbit etmiş ve onlara 200 kadar değişik kıstasa göre, 1'den 31'e kadar puan vermiş.

PGS (Political Greatness Scale) olarak tanımladığı bu sıralamada örneğin; en cok Roosevelt ve Mao 30ar puan almışken, Nehru 25, Churchill 22, Golda Meir 12, Fidel Castro 23, Lenin 28, Khomeini 23, Kennedy 15 puan almışlar.
Bir lider ; 31 puanla ve "visionary" sıfatıyla, 20nci yüzyılın gelmiş geçmiş en büyük devlet adamı / lideri ünvanına hakkıyla layık görülmüş.

Türkiye Cumhuriyetini Kuran

Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK'dür

Ne yazık ki, ne basınımız, ne halkımız ve özellikle yeni nesiller bu önemli gerçeğin farkında bile değillerdir.

(King of the Mountain, The nature of political leadership, by, Arnold M. LUDWIG, University Press of Kentucky, 2002.- Amazon.com)

_____________________________

neommy

Yarbay

7229 Mesaj

Tüm Başarılarını Gör

LAMB: Which is in the book. And I may be wrong about this, but I found, in looking through it, that the number one -- looking at all the numbers, the number one leader you found in the 20th century, from your political greatness scale, was Ataturk.
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: Am I right about that?
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: And after him, Mao. Right after him, FDR. They're very close.
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: I mean, on your point scale, Ataturk had 31, Mao 30, FDR 30, Stalin 29, Lenin 28, Ho Chi Minh 27, De Gaulle 27, Deng -- Deng Xioping 27, Tito 25, Suharto 25. I can go on.
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: But why Ataturk?
LUDWIG: Well, let -- first let me put those numbers in context. Those numbers are not engraved in stone. I would say that probably -- that if you wanted to group people, you'd take maybe a 5 to 7-point swing and include them kind of all together. It just so happened that Ataturk did come out first. Why Ataturk? The political greatness scale -- I guess I need to say word about that, if I may, first.
LAMB: Your invention.
LUDWIG: Yes. Yes. I didn't want to invent it. When I first started the study, I was looking for some type of measure to evaluate political greatness. As I mentioned before, I was puzzled about this phenomenon, and I looked to others. I looked to political scientists. I looked -- searched the literature. I could not find any actual scale that measured political greatness cross-culturally. Of course, people rated the American presidents, this kind of thing, but nothing cross-cultural.
So then the question came to me, how do you go about evaluating political -- what is political greatness? And then I had a kind of "Eureka" experience. Well, why not look at those people who are acknowledged by almost everyone as being great political leaders? Who are the famous names in history over time that come to mind when somebody says "Mention a great political leader"? People who come to mind are people like Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Alexander the Great, Bismarck...
LAMB: These are -- the immortals.
LUDWIG: The immortals, the political immortals. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, people along those lines. And I came up with 26 of those people. OK, these -- I think almost everybody would say these are the political immortals. And then I asked the question, "What do these immortals have in common?" Are there any common denominators? And lo and behold, I found a number of common denominators. Almost every single one of them had these characteristics.
And I then used these characteristics, 11 of them, in developing the political greatness scale and tested the scale in terms of its reliability, in terms of its validity. It was interesting that the scale correlated extremely highly -- extremely highly -- with the amount of words allotted to these individuals in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana. So it had a validity to it.
So this is the political greatness scale, 11 items on it.
LAMB: What are some of the items?
LUDWIG: One item -- unfortunately, several of them have to do with conquests, unfortunately. But this is how people evaluate political greatness. Military victories, more territory, social engineering, changing the very nature of the society, economic prosperity, moral -- being a moral exemplar, in a way -- people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, for example.
LAMB: So it doesn't have anything to do with whether you feel warm and fuzzy about somebody.
LUDWIG: No. It has to do with accomplishments, political achievement.
LAMB: Is there any comparison with what you've done with political greatness scale to the "Time" magazine "Person of the Year," where people get outraged when they see Hitler on the -- on the cover, and they think that they're naming him a great person?
LUDWIG: Yes. I think that's an excellent kind of comparison. By "greatness" I mean nothing about how you feel toward the -- you know, do you admire this person? I mean, some of these people are despicable. They're horrible people. However, their achievements, political achievements, are monumental.
LAMB: Let me just show -- we'll put this on the screen, and I'll read down the American presidents, so people can see how you fit on the scale. If 31 was the top at Ataturk, and FDR was the top of all American presidents. You then have Truman at 23 points, Theodore Roosevelt 23, Ronald Reagan 22, William McKinley 20, Dwight Eisenhower 18, LBJ 18, George Bush the first 15, John F. Kennedy 15, Bill Clinton 15, Jimmy Carter 14, Calvin Coolidge 14, William Howard Taft 12, Gerald Ford 11, Herbert Hoover 10 and Warren Harding 9. Those are presidents in the 20th century.
I want to ask you quickly, though, about one of them. Why William McKinley so high?
LUDWIG: Why William McKinley? A lot of people don't realize that William McKinley was quite an activist president. He was -- he secured the Philippines for the Americans. He liberated -- helped liberate Cuba. There were many things that he did that actually, on this political greatness scale, scored him -- gave him higher points than some of the other kind of presidents.
I might mention, too, that as you rank them -- if you were to look at those rankings compared to some of the rankings that have been given for presidents in the 20th century, you would find a very high correlation. It's surprising how close that is to what others have independently come up with on I don't know what kind of measures.
LAMB: But then on the other end of the scale, I mean, the one that got the least number of points is somebody -- and I'm not sure I'm pronouncing it right -- named Steyn, who was with the Orange Free State starting in power in 1899.
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: You know who that was?
LUDWIG: Well, he just simply accomplished nothing.
(LAUGHTER)
LAMB: He got a 2. And Arias of Panama got 3. And Joseph Cook of Australia in 1941 got 5. Samuel Doe of Liberia got -- 1980 -- got 5. And then you have somebody named Quisling, I believe...
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: ... got 5. Somoza -- you got the Somoza father and son.
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: Juan Bosch. Kim Campbell, Canadian...
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: ... above us there -- only got a 6 from 1993.
LUDWIG: Sorry!
LAMB: Does it mean, basically, that nothing happened on their watch?
LUDWIG: It means not only did nothing happen, it means that there was corruption. They often ended their time in disgrace.
LAMB: Could they be there for a short time? Like, Kim Campbell was there a very short time.
LUDWIG: A very short while. Yes. Yes. And that's another criterion. How long are they in office, in terms of -- as to whether or not they will achieve greatness -- how -- how they'll score on this political greatness scale.
LAMB: Go back to why Ataturk on top of all these people.
LUDWIG: OK. Let's look at what Ataturk did. And again, mind you, take this in the context of some of the other great leaders that -- some of the immortals I've mentioned. Ataturk created -- started Turkey. He dismantled the Ottoman empire, which was in existence at the time. He not only was the founder of the country, creating a country, but he caused a profound social change in Turkey. He introduced democracy into Turkey, somewhat a militant type of democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. He separated -- he was one of the -- first time in history to kind of separate church and state. In fact, even though it is predominantly a Muslim country, it's one of the few ones where certain types of freedoms are permitted. And in fact, the military is obliged to intervene if there's any threat to the democracy in any way.
So at every single level, Ataturk had an incredible effect, and his achievements were remarkable.

LAMB: You seem to enjoy writing about this man right here. We'll get a close-up of him, King Farouk of Egypt. When was he king?
LUDWIG: Oh, about 1950 -- up till about 1950, something like that.
LAMB: What do you see in this picture? He's 330 pounds, you say.
LUDWIG: Well, I introduce it -- I -- I do try to introduce a bit of humor throughout the book to make the facts a lot more palatable. I said that people are supposed to grow in office, and certainly, King Farouk did, in every way. And...
LAMB: You call him "Little Farouky."
LUDWIG: I called him -- I -- "Little Farouky." He was a brat and pampered. And I might say here is a leader of a country, and he is supposed to uphold the faith in the country. From my information, he never really read the Quran. He never read a newspaper. He never read a book. He almost had people go to school for him to digest the information beforehand. And I guess I introduced him for the reason -- I am not overall too fond of the kings that I have encountered in the 20th century, and...
LAMB: Who served the longest of all your leaders? And you -- you feature him in the book.
LUDWIG: Yes. The -- oh, gosh! Austria, Hapsburg...
LAMB: Franz Joseph.
LUDWIG: Franz Joseph, 68 years. Thank you -- 68 years.
LAMB: How did he stay in power for 68 years?
LUDWIG: That is an excellent question. Persistence. He was a very unimaginative person. I do mention that he had a rather unique political and military strategy to -- when he went to war, and he went to war a number of times. He would usually concede or give up before his country lost, and then once he gave up, he would then try to start rebellions. It just -- I mean, it -- there are all kinds of weird things with him.
LAMB: You break folks down into categories, the leaders, of monarchs, tyrants, visionaries, authoritarians, transitionals and democrats. Are those your categories?
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: What would a -- what would a tyrant have been?
LUDWIG: A tyrant was somebody who went into office and essentially ruled the country for power and perks predominantly, usually military rule, oppression.
LAMB: Can you name one?
LUDWIG: Oh, gosh. I can name a number. Duvalier in Haiti, Papa Doc Duvalier. I think we have one now in the Middle East in Iraq.
LAMB: Saddam Hussein?
LUDWIG: Yes.
LAMB: What a -- what's a visionary?
LUDWIG: A visionary is someone who -- whose ostensible reason in office or in being a leader is to transform the country according to his vision. And I say "his" because they're all men here. And for example, Mao transformed an entire nation into this communist image and his own notion of communism. Stalin did that. He was a visionary.
LAMB: What about an authoritarian?
LUDWIG: Authoritarian would be someone who is not necessarily holding office for his own gains, but who believes in law and order, who believes in the country. Juan Peron, for example, would have been an authoritarian leader.
Copyright National Cable Satellite Corporation 2002.

Yazarla 2002'de kitap hakkında yapılmış bir röportaj var yukarda, İngilizce bilen arkadaşlar okuyabilirler, zaten ağır bir İngilizcede değil!
Güncel liderlerimizin olmaması şaşırtıcı gelebilir, ama listede Quisling bile 5 puanlık yer bulmuş, umutlarını kaybetmesinler üst sıralara doğru yolları açık!

Paylaştım!

_____________________________

GENS UNA SUMUS

_____________________________

Benzer içerikler