Uninspiring leaders make unmotivated followers and both form a dwarf society. Your vision is as great as you are and until you get great visionary lieutenants whom are great as you are on board you cannot build your vision into a sailable ship for everyone to see; great captains with competent lieutenants form a great team work for a great inspiring voyage.
Your vision is a sailable ship and such you need others on board to join you in sailing it to your destination. After all, you are not the omnipotent God of all power who uses His power to invoke actions to achieving all his grand purposes for whatever purpose He wished to achieve. And that is why your oratory power is key to how far you can gather support and others to key into your vision in your path of leadership.
You get to make a great deal out of your oratory skills to stand convincingly on your leadership path for your followers to follow. Else, you will not be able to achieve the much needed total support of your followers in carrying out your much needed campaign policies and agendas to all the audience you need to reach out to and the generality of the public.
Your followers and believers need more information and conviction from you to succeed on the vision you bring them on board for in order to be inspired and more motivated to implement the programs, policies, agendas and strategies you have put in place as cardinal principles that formed the foundation of that vision you have set on course to achieve your leadership mission in life !
When you lack the ability to convince people of the capability of your ideas and their practicability to be the ideal vision to achieve your ultimate mission and of those who follows you, what then do you expect? They will abandon you in the centre of the road because your inability to convince them on the right leadership path had spoken volume about your lack of capacity to lead them to success and greatness. And to a large extent that also shows that you do not also know what you were doing and you might probably end up being confused and frustrated.
Yes! Unachieved great vision can left one a frustrated fellow; great vision required a whole lot from their path founders, almost everything they got in life do get to get inside, it is never a mince feet. That is why you as a leader of an idea you need to work harder to know what you are doing to enable you sound convincingly and be persuasive enough to your audience to underscore the practicability of where you and those you lead are going.
In life take it or leave it, if you cannot convince others enough of what you know, that will as well mean that you are not also sure of what you think you know and no one will be foolish enough to follow a leader who does not know where he is going.
What is oratory? Funny enough, some assume oratory as someone who is vocal and or someone with an outspoken ability or a mastery of ceremonies. But no and far from that, oratory is an eloquence; the quality of artistry and persuasiveness in a speech or writing to convince an audience on an arguing subject matter. In other words, oratory is an expressive, convincing and inspiring knowledge to an audience with a unique skill to motivate the curiosity of the audience into the mood of action to actualizing solution on a subject matter.
Yes! The best way to achieve the objective of a message being passed onto an audience is to develop a unique oratory skill to inspire and to motivate your audience into action by telling them what they need to hear; and what people need to hear in life is what they have never heard before. You cannot be tormenting your audience with boring messages, just to dull their life to death. No, you get to be ahead of your audience by telling them what the future holds, where it was all got wrong in the time past that got them into the present mess as a people, and measures that need to be put in place to avert such similar mistakes in the future. The new path that need to be followed and how to achieve the new path as a new vision with a new hope.
Let your interaction with your audience be of teaching and learning one. If your audience are not learning anything in the course of your discourse, definitely they are bored. The only way people can be inspired through your talk is when they learn new things from you through your message. It is a two way thing, either you get people inspired with new things or you get people bored to death with old things and that is an old way of doing things in a new era. You do not do that; you cannot junk expired old path into a new path and expect people to buy it from you as a new path. No, it does not work that way people rather choose to dose and sleep off from your ill-tastes and uninspiring message.
You get to learn in a great way to grow your eloquence to enable you to express your ideas and your vision in a form of a message to your audience and to the general public in a manner of its own uniqueness that your audience might probably never had heard before in order to enable you to create the kind of goodwill momentum you will so much need later on for your leadership impacts to start manifestation.
Your power of oratory places a high level of confidence on your human ability, that yes; you are capable of delivering on your vision to a mission when it matter most. Let your power of oratory paint out a picture of a practicable solution for everyone to see, that yes, when allow to be put into test there is bound to be a boom of success at the end of every effort put in.
Surely, if you sound unique and tell people what they need to hear on why you are the best man for the job base on their yearnings and their expectations you will be given the job to prove yourself to the World on what you claimed you know doing best. Of course, the World needs success as the ideal replacement for failure, and solutions for problems of both the present and the future! And with that, I bet you, the World of today needs solution providers; and so, you need to be articulated enough to persuade both your audience and your followers on your line of reasonings, your strategies and what your projects are all about as your marketing points to the World. And that alone boosts the confidence level of your followers, and believe me, your followers can bang their heads on the wall for you on their own when carrying out your campaigns, agendas, strategies and implementing your policies to those it may concern. You know why? Your oratory power has placed a very clear picture of the success of your leadership in their minds even when they have not seen it yet. And they are convinced, that yes, together you can do it.
Machiavelli's Views On Popular Liberty and Popular Speech:
Machiavelli evinces particular confidence in the capacity of the people to contribute to the
promotion of communal liberty. In the Discourses, he ascribes to the masses a quite extensive competence to judge and act for the public good in various settings, explicitly contrasting the “prudence and stability” of ordinary citizens with the unsound discretion of the prince. Simply stated, “A people is more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a prince” (Machiavelli 1965, 316). This is not an arbitrary expression of personal preference on Machiavelli's part. He maintains that the people are more concerned about, and more willing to defend, liberty than either princes or nobles (Machiavelli 1965, 204–205). Where the latter tend to confuse their liberty with their ability to dominate and control their fellows, the masses are more concerned with protecting themselves against oppression and consider themselves “free” when they are not abused by the more powerful or threatened with such abuse (Machiavelli 1965, 203). In turn, when they fear the onset of such oppression, ordinary citizens are more inclined to object and to defend the common liberty. Such an active role for the people, while necessary for the maintenance of vital public liberty, is fundamentally antithetical to the hierarchical structure of subordination-and-rule on which monarchic vivere sicuro rests. The preconditions of vivere libero simply do not favor the security that is the aim of constitutional monarchy.
One of the main reasons that security and liberty remain, in the end, incompatible for Machiavelli—and that the latter is to be preferred—may surely be traced to the “rhetorical” character of his republicanism. Machiavelli clearly views speech as the method most appropriate to the resolution of conflict in the republican public sphere; throughout the Discourses, debate is elevated as the best means for the people to determine the wisest course of action and the most qualified leaders. The tradition of classical rhetoric, with which he was evidently familiar, directly associated public speaking with contention: the proper application of speech in the realms of forensic and deliberative genres of rhetoric is an adversarial setting, with each speaker seeking to convince his audience of the validity of his own position and the unworthiness of his opponents'. This theme was taken up, in turn, by late medieval Italian practitioners and theorists of rhetoric, who emphasized that the subject matter of the art was lite (conflict). Thus, Machiavelli's insistence upon contention as a prerequisite of liberty also reflects his rhetorical predilections (Viroli 1998). By contrast, monarchic regimes—even the most secure constitutional monarchies such as France—exclude or limit public discourse, thereby placing themselves at a distinct disadvantage. It is far easier to convince a single ruler to undertake a disastrous or ill-conceived course of action than a multitude of people. The apparent “tumult” induced by the uncertain liberty of public discussion eventually renders more likely a decision conducive to the common good than does the closed conversation of the royal court.
This connects to the claim in the Discourses that the popular elements within the community form the best safeguard of civic liberty as well as the most reliable source of decision-making about the public good. Machiavelli's praise for the role of the people in securing the republic is supported by his confidence in the generally illuminating effects of public speech upon the citizen body. Near the beginning of the first Discourse, he notes that some may object to the extensive freedom enjoyed by the Roman people to assemble, to protest, and to veto laws and policies. But he responds that the Romans were able to maintain liberty and order because of the people's ability to discern the common good when it was shown to them. At times when ordinary Roman citizens wrongly supposed that a law or institution was designed to oppress them, they could be persuaded that their beliefs are mistaken … [through] the remedy of assemblies, in which some man of influence gets up and makes a speech showing them how they are deceiving themselves. And as Tully says, the people, although they may be ignorant, can grasp the truth, and yield easily when told what is true by a trustworthy man (Machiavelli 1965, 203).
The reference to Cicero (one of the few in the Discourses) confirms that Machiavelli has in mind here a key feature of classical republicanism: the competence of the people to respond to and support the words of the gifted orator when he speaks truly about the public welfare.
Machiavelli returns to this theme and treats it more extensively at the end of the first Discourse. In a chapter intended to demonstrate the superiority of popular over princely government, he argues that the people are well ordered, and hence “prudent, stable and grateful,” so long as room is made for public speech and deliberation within the community.
Citing the formula vox populi, vox dei, Machiavelli insists that public opinion is remarkably accurate in its prognostications…. With regard to its judgment, when two speakers of equal skill are heard advocating different alternatives, very rarely does one find the people failing to adopt the better view or incapable of appreciating the truth of what it hears (Machiavelli 1965, 316). Not only are the people competent to discern the best course of action when orators lay out competing plans, but they are in fact better qualified to make decisions, in Machiavelli's view, than are princes. For example, “the people can never be persuaded that it is good to appoint to an office a man of infamous or corrupt habits, whereas a prince may easily and in a vast variety of ways be persuaded to do this” (Machiavelli 1965, 316). Likewise, should the people depart from the law-abiding path, they may readily be convinced to restore order: “For an uncontrolled and tumultuous people can be spoken to by a good man and easily led back into a good way. But no one can speak to a wicked prince, and the only remedy is steel…. To cure the malady of the people words are enough” (Machiavelli 1965, 317).
The contrast Machiavelli draws is stark. The republic governed by words and persuasion—in sum, ruled by public speech—is almost sure to realize the common good of its citizens; and even should it err, recourse is always open to further discourse. Non-republican regimes, because they exclude or limit discursive practices, ultimately rest upon coercive domination and can only be corrected by violent means.
Am Fame Agidife and I just what to add my voice to voice of wisdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment