What Happens When Leaders Lack Proper Education? (2)

If a leader is not well-educated, the impact can be very detrimental, both for the organisation they lead and for the wider society. A lack of adequate education can hinder a leader's abilities in various crucial aspects.

An uneducated leader may have a narrow perspective on various important issues, such as economics, politics, social matters, and culture. They may not understand the complexities of the problems faced and fail to see the interconnectedness of various factors. This can lead to shallow and ineffective decisions.

Education trains the ability to think critically, analyse information in depth, and evaluate various options. Without a good education, a leader may struggle to identify the root causes of problems, make sound judgments, and formulate innovative and measurable strategies. They may rely more on intuition or invalid information.

Education helps develop effective communication skills, both oral and written. An uneducated leader may struggle to convey vision and ideas clearly and persuasively, listen actively, and build good relationships with team members or external parties. This can lead to misunderstandings, lack of motivation, and conflict.

Education, especially through interaction with various perspectives and humanities studies, can increase self-awareness and emotional intelligence. An uneducated leader may have less understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses, struggle to manage emotions, and lack empathy for the needs and feelings of others. This can create an unhealthy work environment and damage team morale.

Education often instills strong ethical and moral values. An uneducated leader may be more susceptible to corrupt practices, nepotism, and irresponsible decision-making due to a lack of understanding of the ethical implications of their actions. This can damage the organization's reputation and public trust.

An uneducated leader may be less open to new ideas and innovation. They may be more comfortable with the status quo and resistant to changes necessary for the progress of the organization or society. This can lead to stagnation and a loss of competitiveness.

The modern world is full of complex and interconnected challenges. An uneducated leader may be overwhelmed and unable to navigate complicated situations, make the right decisions under pressure, or manage crises effectively.

A leader who lacks an adequate educational background may be less respected and trusted by team members, colleagues, and the wider society. This can weaken their authority and make it difficult to inspire and motivate others.

In short, a lack of good education in a leader can create a significant series of problems, hinder growth, create injustice, and ultimately harm all parties involved. Education is an essential foundation for effective, responsible, and visionary leadership.

What if a head of state does not have adequate education? If a Head of State does not have adequate education, the consequences can be very serious and far-reaching, affecting the stability, progress, and international image of the country.

Heads of State are often faced with complex issues that require a deep understanding of history, politics, economics, law, and international relations. Without adequate education, they may lack the capacity to analyze information critically, understand the nuances of problems, and make sound and informed decisions. Poor decisions can have fatal consequences for both domestic and foreign policy.

Leading a country requires high levels of organizational, strategic, communication, and negotiation skills. Education, especially in the fields of social and political sciences, equips individuals with the conceptual frameworks and practical tools to carry out leadership functions effectively. A poorly educated Head of State may struggle to formulate a clear vision, manage a complex bureaucracy, and inspire their people.

A Head of State with limited knowledge may be more easily influenced by incompetent advisors or those with hidden agendas. They may lack the ability to critically evaluate the advice given and be vulnerable to misinformation or misleading information.

Heads of State have a responsibility to uphold the laws and constitution of the country. Education in law or political science is crucial for understanding the basic principles of the rule of law, human rights, and the limits of power. Without this understanding, the Head of State could potentially violate the constitution, abuse authority, and erode the rule of law.

In an era of globalization, the ability to interact and negotiate with leaders of other countries is crucial. A poorly educated Head of State may lack knowledge of diplomacy, international relations, and global issues. This can hinder the country's ability to build alliances, resolve conflicts peacefully, and promote national interests in international forums.

The economic policies taken by the Head of State have a major impact on the welfare of the people. Without a good understanding of economic principles, the Head of State can make decisions that harm economic growth, increase unemployment, and worsen social inequality.

The Head of State is a symbol of national unity and authority. If a Head of State is considered incompetent or lacking adequate knowledge, this can erode public trust in the government and state institutions. Lack of trust can lead to political and social instability.

The Head of State is the face of the country in the international arena. A lack of education can be reflected in a less professional leadership style, weak arguments, or inability to participate effectively in global forums. This can damage the country's image and reputation in the eyes of the world, which in turn can affect diplomatic relations, foreign investment, and tourism.

Adequate education is a vital foundation for a Head of State to carry out their duties effectively, responsibly, and in the best interests of all citizens. A lack of education can have broad and profound negative consequences for the country.

The notion that "a leader doesn't need to be clever; they can simply learn on the job" is a rather contentious one, to put it mildly. While it's absolutely true that every leader must continue to learn and adapt once they're in a position of power–indeed, that's a crucial aspect of effective leadership–the idea that a fundamental lack of prior intelligence or comprehensive education is acceptable is quite a risky proposition.

Why 'Learning on the Job' isn't enough?

Firstly, leadership roles, particularly at the highest levels, often involve complex and nuanced decision-making. These aren't simple problems where a quick lesson will suffice; they demand a pre-existing foundation of critical thinking, analytical skills, and a broad understanding of history, economics, and social dynamics. Suppose a leader lacks this intellectual toolkit from the outset. In that case, they're likely to make misjudgements and poor strategic choices that could have far-reaching, detrimental consequences for the organisation or even the entire nation.

Secondly, effective leadership isn't just about absorbing facts; it's about synthesising information, anticipating challenges, and formulating innovative solutions. These aren't skills that can be picked up overnight by simply observing. A good education helps to cultivate an individual's ability to think abstractly, connect disparate ideas, and engage in foresight – qualities that are exceedingly difficult to acquire purely through reactive, on-the-job experiences.

Moreover, a leader who isn't sufficiently prepared intellectually can become overly reliant on advisers, potentially lacking the discernment to critically evaluate the advice they receive. This vulnerability can lead to manipulation or the adoption of misguided policies simply because the leader doesn't possess the necessary background to challenge or question the information effectively. It puts the entire entity they lead at considerable risk.

Finally, the pace and demands of leadership roles rarely afford the luxury of extensive foundational learning during tenure. Leaders are expected to hit the ground running, making high-stakes decisions under pressure. If they're constantly playing catch-up on basic understanding, their effectiveness will be severely hampered, and they may fail to inspire confidence or provide the decisive direction that's often required. Whilst continuous learning is vital, it should build upon a solid foundation, not compensate for a fundamental deficit.

There is also an idea that a leader, like a President, can simply "hire consultants"–political, economic, and so on – to effectively carry out their functions is a common argument, but it only tells half the story. While bringing in expert advice is a crucial and sensible practice for any leader, it fundamentally doesn't negate the need for the leader's robust education and inherent intellectual capabilities.

Why aren't consultants a substitute for a leader's acumen?

Firstly, consultants provide advice, not decisions. A President, even with the best consultants, ultimately bears the responsibility for making the final call. If they lack the foundational understanding, critical thinking skills, or the intellectual capacity to properly evaluate, synthesise, and challenge the often complex and sometimes conflicting advice they receive, then even the most brilliant consultancy can be rendered useless. Imagine being given a highly technical brief without the basic knowledge to comprehend its implications; you'd be making choices in the dark.

Secondly, consultants typically offer expertise in specific, often siloed areas. A President's role, however, demands a holistic understanding of how various policies intersect and impact different aspects of a nation or organisation. An economic consultant might offer excellent fiscal advice, but if the President doesn't grasp the social or political ramifications of that advice, they could implement policies that cause more harm than good. This integrated understanding is something that a broad education cultivates, enabling a leader to connect the dots across disciplines.

Moreover, the strategic vision and moral compass of a leader cannot be outsourced. While consultants can help formulate strategies, the fundamental vision for the country or organisation must come from the President. This vision is deeply informed by their values, their understanding of history, and their insight into societal aspirations – all elements heavily shaped by their education and personal development. A leader who lacks this internal compass might adopt strategies that are technically sound but morally bankrupt or fundamentally misaligned with the public's long-term interests.

Finally, the legitimacy and public trust a leader commands are not just built on their access to experts, but on their perceived competence and integrity. If a President is seen as merely a figurehead who simply rubber-stamps decisions handed to them by consultants, their authority can be undermined. People expect their leaders to not only listen to advice but to genuinely understand and articulate the rationale behind their actions, demonstrating their own grasp of the challenges and solutions. A leader who always has to rely on others for basic comprehension risks looking weak and out of touch.

So, while consultants are undeniably valuable tools for any leader, they are there to augment and refine decisions, not to fill a fundamental intellectual void. A truly effective leader uses their own well-honed intelligence and comprehensive education to lead their experts, not merely to be led by them.

An uneducated leader can often be recognised by several tell-tale signs, and it's not always about whether they've got a string of degrees. One might notice a distinct lack of depth in their understanding when discussing complex issues; they might grasp the superficial aspects but struggle to delve into the intricate details or the broader implications. Furthermore, you'd likely see a difficulty in engaging in truly critical or analytical thinking, meaning they might accept information at face value without questioning its validity or considering alternative perspectives, leading to rather simplistic or even flawed conclusions.

Their communication skills could also be a giveaway. A leader with insufficient education might struggle to articulate their ideas clearly and concisely, perhaps resorting to vague generalities or repeating common clichés. They might also appear to be poor listeners, often interrupting or failing to truly absorb diverse viewpoints, which inevitably hinders effective collaboration.

Moreover, there might be a noticeable absence of self-awareness and emotional intelligence. Such a leader could struggle to understand their own impact on others or to manage their emotions constructively, potentially leading to volatile reactions or an inability to empathise with their team or constituents. This can create a rather difficult and demotivating environment for those around them.

Finally, you might observe a resistance to new ideas or innovation. They might be overly reliant on old methods or be hesitant to embrace change because they lack the foundational knowledge or critical thinking skills to evaluate novel approaches. This can lead to stagnation and a failure to adapt to evolving circumstances, ultimately holding back any progress.

Alright, then, if you're trying to spot a leader who might not have had a proper education, there are several tell-tale signs to look out for, often indicating a lack of the broader understanding and honed skills that a good education typically provides.

One of the first red flags is a narrowness of vision and an inability to grasp complexity. They might struggle to see the bigger picture, focusing only on immediate issues without considering the wider implications of their decisions, or they might simplify intricate problems to a fault, missing crucial nuances. You'd often find them making decisions that seem ill-informed or reactive, rather than based on a deep, analytical understanding of the situation at hand.

You might also notice a struggle with critical and analytical thinking. When faced with challenges, they could find it genuinely difficult to break down problems, weigh up various options logically, or identify the underlying causes of issues. Instead, they might rely heavily on gut feelings, anecdotal evidence, or simply repeating what others have said, rather than demonstrating a rigorous thought process.

Poor communication skills are another common indicator. A leader lacking sufficient education might articulate their ideas unclearly, struggle to listen actively to others' perspectives, or find it hard to build rapport and motivate their team effectively. Their messages might be muddled, leading to misunderstandings and a lack of direction within the group.

Furthermore, a leader without adequate education might exhibit a lack of self-awareness and emotional intelligence. They might struggle to understand their own strengths and weaknesses, mismanage their emotions, or show little empathy for their colleagues' feelings and needs. This can often result in a rather unhealthy or unsupportive work environment, where morale might suffer.

You could also observe a tendency towards rigid or short-sighted decision-making, sometimes even leading to unethical choices. Without a grounding in ethical principles or a broad understanding of societal norms, they might be more susceptible to favouritism, corruption, or making decisions that benefit themselves or a small circle, rather than the collective good. They might also be resistant to new ideas or innovation, preferring to stick to the 'way things have always been done', which can stifle progress.

Finally, such a leader might struggle to command genuine respect and legitimacy from their peers, subordinates, and even the public. While they might hold a position of authority, their lack of demonstrable knowledge, critical thinking, or well-roundedness can undermine their credibility, making it difficult for them to truly inspire and lead others effectively through complex times. It often becomes apparent that they're out of their depth when dealing with nuanced or challenging situations.

It's a rather common observation and a widely discussed phenomenon that political candidates or leaders who are perceived to have a less robust educational background might indeed rely more heavily on paid "buzzers," "influencers," and political consultants. This isn't a universally proven rule, of course, but there's a logical connection to be drawn, as these tools often compensate for specific areas where a leader might be lacking.

Why might less-educated leaders lean on Digital Campaigners and Consultants?

Firstly, if a leader lacks a strong grasp of complex policy details or the eloquence to articulate intricate ideas, paid social media operatives ("buzzers" or "influencers") can be incredibly effective at simplifying messages into easily digestible, emotionally resonant soundbites. These individuals excel at crafting viral content that bypasses detailed policy discussions, opting instead for broad appeals or emotional rhetoric that doesn't require deep intellectual engagement from the audience, or indeed, the leader themselves. This helps to cultivate a popular image without needing to delve into the nuances of governance.

Secondly, a leader who isn't adept at critical thinking or strategic foresight, skills typically honed through comprehensive education, might find themselves heavily dependent on political consultants for their overarching campaign strategy and messaging. These consultants often provide the intellectual scaffolding that the leader themselves might not possess, crafting narratives, identifying target demographics, and designing communication plans that aim to maximise popular appeal rather than necessarily educating the public on complex issues. They become the brains behind the operation, providing the intellectual heavy lifting that the leader might struggle with independently.

Furthermore, in an era where public perception is paramount, a leader who struggles with persuasive argumentation based on facts and data might find social media influencers invaluable. These influencers can project an image of relatability and authenticity, connecting with voters on an emotional level that bypasses the need for substantive policy debate. For a leader who might struggle to articulate complex arguments or engage in detailed discussions, leveraging these influencers can be a way to maintain public favour without having to directly demonstrate deep knowledge or intellectual rigour.

Finally, this reliance can also stem from a leader's lack of confidence in their own analytical abilities. If they're not confident in dissecting economic reports, understanding legal frameworks, or debating foreign policy intricacies, they might instinctively delegate the shaping of public discourse to those who are professional communicators and strategists. This means the message being delivered is meticulously crafted by others to resonate with the masses, rather than being an authentic reflection of the leader's own deeply informed understanding.

In essence, while consultants and digital campaigners are tools used by leaders across the educational spectrum, those with a less robust educational background might find themselves relying on them more fundamentally, not just for refinement, but as a primary means of connecting with the electorate and projecting an image of competence that might not be entirely self-generated. It's about filling a potential gap in their own intellectual and communicative toolkit.

In The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (2011, Penguin Press), Eli Pariser explores how digital platforms, powered by algorithms, personalise the information individuals receive based on their previous clicks, likes, searches, and online behaviour. This seemingly benign customisation, according to Pariser, quietly encloses users within a ‘filter bubble’—a unique digital universe tailored specifically to their preferences and prejudices. Within this bubble, people are increasingly less likely to encounter viewpoints or information that challenge their existing beliefs, thus reinforcing cognitive biases and creating ideological echo chambers. Over time, these bubbles limit exposure to complexity, nuance, and dissent, cultivating a simplified and polarised view of the world.

Leaders who lack a robust intellectual foundation—or whose political strategies are shaped more by populist instincts than by philosophical depth—are particularly susceptible to exploiting such phenomena. Without a grounding in critical reasoning or democratic pluralism, these figures often either gravitate instinctively towards the use of manipulative digital tools, or are advised by strategists and spin doctors to do so. The personalised architecture of social media platforms enables them to micro-target segments of the population with emotionally charged and reductive narratives, which bypass reasoned deliberation and appeal directly to sentiment and tribal identity.

Algorithms, designed primarily to maximise engagement and profit, show users what they are most likely to click on—not what they need to know as citizens. This algorithmic curation becomes fertile ground for ‘buzzers’ and ‘influencers’, who craft content that is less concerned with truth than with traction. These actors deliberately engineer emotionally resonant messages—often sensationalist, fear-inducing, or outrage-driven—which spread rapidly across the digital landscape. In doing so, they short-circuit the processes of reflection and critical thought, turning complex societal debates into simplistic, meme-worthy slogans. The result is a public discourse increasingly dominated by spectacle rather than substance, where the loudest or most provocative message is often mistaken for the most truthful one.

In The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation (2007, PublicAffairs), Drew Westen argues that political decisions are far less influenced by cold, rational analysis than many would like to believe. Drawing from insights in psychology and neuroscience, Westen demonstrates that the human brain—especially in the realm of politics—is profoundly emotional. Voters are not detached calculators of policy data; they are emotional beings whose political choices are shaped by identity, narrative, moral intuition, and unconscious reasoning. Emotions, he contends, are not merely accessories to political thought—they are central to it. What moves people politically is not a well-structured argument, but a compelling story that resonates with their feelings, values, and sense of belonging.

In this emotionally charged landscape, buzzers and influencers play a powerful role as emotional amplifiers. They are the digital foot soldiers of persuasion, crafting and spreading narratives that connect viscerally with audiences. Their messages are rarely analytical or nuanced; instead, they rely on symbolism, simplified moral binaries, and emotionally loaded language to galvanise support or discredit opponents. Meanwhile, consultants and digital operatives work behind the scenes to map out the emotional terrain of the electorate, leveraging data analytics and behavioural insights to fine-tune messaging that triggers the desired affective response—be it hope, fear, pride, or outrage.

For leaders who lack a deep intellectual foundation—those who are not especially adept at policy, debate, or historical understanding—these tactics offer a shortcut to influence. They need not engage in complex discourse or defend their views with rigour; instead, they can rely on emotional spectacle, repetition, and the digital machinery of persuasion to rally support. Such leaders often find this approach not only easier but also far more effective, especially in an era where attention spans are short and political branding can matter more than substance. By appealing directly to emotion and bypassing critical scrutiny, they are able to build loyal followings and maintain control of the narrative, even in the face of factual contradictions or ethical inconsistencies.

A genuinely well-educated leader usually exhibits a distinct set of characteristics that allow them to navigate complex situations with much greater proficiency and foresight.

One immediately apparent trait is their breadth of understanding and intellectual curiosity. Such a leader isn't confined to a single specialism; they possess a keen awareness of various fields like history, economics, social dynamics, and technology. This allows them to grasp the interconnectedness of issues and approach problems from multiple angles, demonstrating a profound capacity for holistic thought rather than just a narrow focus.

Furthermore, you'll often observe a highly developed sense of critical thinking and analytical rigour. A well-educated leader doesn't simply accept information at face value; they'll meticulously evaluate data, identify underlying assumptions, and skillfully dissect complex problems into manageable parts. They excel at reasoned judgment, making decisions based on evidence and logical deduction, rather than impulse or popular opinion.

Their communication skills are typically exemplary, both in terms of articulating their vision and effectively listening to others. They can convey intricate ideas clearly and persuasively to diverse audiences, fostering understanding and buy-in. Crucially, they also demonstrate genuine empathy and an openness to diverse perspectives, actively seeking out and valuing differing viewpoints to inform their decision-making, rather than surrounding themselves with 'yes-men'.

A leader with a solid educational background often possesses strong self-awareness and emotional intelligence. They understand their own strengths and weaknesses, manage their emotions effectively under pressure, and have a deep appreciation for the impact of their actions on others. This allows them to build more resilient teams and foster a positive, respectful working environment.

Finally, such a leader is usually defined by their adaptability and a persistent commitment to continuous learning. They are comfortable with ambiguity, can pivot effectively when circumstances change, and actively seek out new knowledge and ideas. They don't shy away from admitting when they don't know something; instead, they see it as an opportunity to learn, demonstrating intellectual humility and a proactive approach to addressing emerging challenges. This continuous intellectual growth ensures their leadership remains relevant and effective in an ever-evolving world.

So, when it comes to choosing a leader, particularly for a significant role, there are certainly some common traits in candidates that should raise immediate red flags and might indicate they're just not the right fit for the job.

One major warning sign is a discernible lack of integrity or a questionable ethical compass. If a candidate has a history of dishonesty, even in small matters, or if their past actions suggest a willingness to compromise on moral principles for personal gain or political expediency, they're likely to undermine trust and potentially lead to corruption within the institution they govern. You simply can't build a strong, respected organisation or nation on a foundation of shaky ethics.

Another concerning trait is a clear inability to listen or an unwillingness to consider diverse perspectives. A good leader understands they don't have all the answers and actively seeks out input from others. If a candidate consistently dismisses dissenting opinions, surrounds themselves only with 'yes-men', or shows no genuine interest in understanding different viewpoints, they're likely to make isolated, misguided decisions and alienate large segments of the people they're meant to serve. This often goes hand-in-hand with a stubborn resistance to admitting mistakes, which is vital for growth and learning.

You should also be wary of candidates who exhibit poor emotional regulation or a volatile temperament. Leadership demands a calm and steady hand, especially in times of crisis. Someone who is easily angered, overly defensive, or prone to public outbursts can erode confidence, create a toxic environment, and make irrational decisions when under pressure. Their emotional instability can become a serious liability.

Furthermore, a lack of genuine empathy or a disconnect from the struggles of ordinary people is a significant drawback. Leaders are meant to represent and serve the public, and if a candidate shows little understanding or compassion for the challenges faced by the general population, their policies are likely to be out of touch and ineffective. This often manifests as an inability to relate to or communicate authentically with diverse groups of people.

Finally, a candidate who displays intellectual laziness or a dismissive attitude towards evidence and expertise should be a major cause for concern. While they don't need to be an expert in everything, a leader must value knowledge, seek out facts, and be willing to change their mind when presented with compelling evidence. If they routinely ignore data, rely on baseless assertions, or show no appetite for continuous learning, their leadership will be built on shaky ground, potentially leading to flawed policies and a failure to adapt to new challenges.

Ultimately, recognising these traits in a candidate is crucial for making an informed choice, as they often predict a leader who could struggle to govern effectively, maintain public trust, and steer the country or organisation in a positive direction.

[Part 1]

Bahasa

The Qur'anic Method of Thinking

Is there a method of thinking in the Qur'an? Yes, there is indeed a method of thinking in the Qur'an — it can even be said that the Qur'an not only provides content and teachings, but also teaches how to think. This Qur'anic method of thinking is recognized by many Islamic scholars and thinkers as manhaj at-tafkir al-Qur'ani (منهج التفكير القرآني) or the Qur'anic way of thinking. The Qur'anic method of thinking is a worldview and way of reasoning that the Qur'an instills in humans so that they use their intellect, contemplate, see reality holistically, and draw lessons based on Allah's guidance, not on desires or mere assumptions.

The Qur’an is not merely a book of divine guidance in terms of ethics, worship, and law; it is also a profound manual for thinking. It teaches a particular way of seeing the world, a method of reasoning rooted in divine revelation. This Qur’anic method of thinking—sometimes referred to by scholars as manhaj at-tafkir al-Qur’ani—encourages a worldview that unites intellect (ʿaql) and spirituality (rūḥ), integrating both reason and revelation in a holistic way. Unlike some modern philosophies that elevate reason above all else or some traditionalist attitudes that suppress inquiry in the name of blind obedience, the Qur’an carves out a middle path. It affirms the nobility of the human intellect while warning against arrogance and misguidance when that intellect is detached from. divine light.

One of the most striking features of the Qur’anic way of thinking is that it begins with Tawḥīd, the affirmation of God's Oneness, not just as a theological claim, but as a framework for understanding reality. Everything in existence—natural phenomena, historical events, inner human emotions—is presented as a sign (Āyah) pointing back to a Creator. Thus, the Qur’an calls on people not only to believe, but to reflect, to “travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before them,” or to “look at the camels, how they are created.” Such verses invite contemplation on the cosmos, society, and history as sources of divine wisdom. Thinking, therefore, is not a secular act in the Qur’anic worldview; it is a sacred endeavor, an act of worship when done sincerely and ethically. Taha Jabir al-Alwani underscores this in The Qur'anic Worldview (IIIT, 2004), arguing that reflection is a religious obligation and a foundation of the Qur'anic intellectual tradition.

Moreover, the Qur’an insists on the use of reason based on evidence. It repeatedly challenges those who follow customs blindly or make claims without proof. Verses such as, “Bring your evidence, if you are truthful” (Al-Baqarah:111) underscore the Qur'an’s demand for rational justification. At the same time, it cautions against the arrogance of those who rely solely on their logic without acknowledging the limitations of human perception. The Qur’an seeks balance—reason guided by revelation, inquiry rooted in humility. It does not discourage questions; rather, it encourages humans to ask—but with sincerity, not cynicism. Fazlur Rahman, in Islam and Modernity (University of Chicago Press, 1982), emphasizes that the Qur'an provides a consistent pattern of moral reasoning grounded in the unity of revelation and rational inquiry.

The method of Qur’anic thinking is also deeply purpose-driven. It does not delight in abstract thought for its own sake but leads every inquiry toward ethical and spiritual insight. The ultimate goal is not just to know, but to remember (Tadhakkur), to understand (Tafaqquh), and to transform the self (Tazkiyah). Knowledge is only valid in the Qur’anic sense if it brings about wisdom, gratitude, justice, and God-consciousness. This moral orientation is why Qur’anic stories are always presented with clear lessons—never just historical facts, but meaningful narratives that speak to the human condition. Imam Al-Ghazali, in Ihya' ‘Ulum al-Din (Dar al-Minhaj, n.d.; English trans. Fons Vitae), elaborates on how true understanding is inseparable from inner purification, and that tafakkur (reflection) is a superior form of worship.

In addition, the Qur’an employs parables and analogies as a means of training the imagination and moral perception. These symbolic forms push the mind beyond superficial thinking, challenging it to find deeper truths beneath everyday realities. In a sense, the Qur’an does not just tell us what to think, but how to think—critically, reflectively, humbly, and purposefully. Toshihiko Izutsu, in Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002), shows how Qur'anic language functions to awaken moral awareness through a network of semantic fields.

What makes the Qur’anic method of thinking especially unique is its insistence on the unity of knowledge. The physical and metaphysical, the empirical and the spiritual, the rational and the revelatory—all are seen as interrelated aspects of a single truth. This integration counters the modern dichotomy that splits science and spirituality, or faith and reason, into opposing camps. In the Qur’anic view, exploring the natural world can deepen one’s faith, and reading the Book of Nature is complementary to reading the Book of Revelation. Malek Bennabi, in The Qur'anic Phenomenon (Islamic Research Institute, 1983), stresses that the Qur'an initiates a new mode of consciousness that fuses reason, faith, and ethical responsibility.

So, once more, the Qur’an is not simply a book of commandments or stories; it is a complete framework for shaping the human mind and heart. It presents not only content but also a method of thinking—a pathway to develop insight, awaken the soul, and guide action. The Qur’anic model of thought proceeds through a sequence of refined spiritual and intellectual processes: Tafakkur (تفكر), Tadzakkur (تذكر), Ta’abbur (تدبر), Ta’aqqul (تعقل), and Istinbāṭ (استنباط). Each of these stages represents a distinct, yet interwoven, movement in the process of Qur’anic reflection and understanding, deeply rooted in revelation and elaborated upon by classical Islamic scholars.

The journey begins with Tafakkur, the act of contemplation through observation. The Qur’an repeatedly invites its readers to reflect on the heavens, the earth, the alternation of day and night, and the self. These signs in nature are not meant merely to satisfy curiosity but to trigger a deeper awareness of divine power and wisdom. As stated in Surah Āli ʿImrān:

إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَآيَاتٍ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ ۝ الَّذِينَ يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ قِيَامًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىٰ جُنُوبِهِمْ وَيَتَفَكَّرُونَ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ

"Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and day are signs for people of reason—those who remember Allah while standing or sitting or lying on their sides and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth..." [QS. Āli ʿImrān (3):190–191]

Imam Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, in Tafsīr al-Kabīr, explains that this kind of reflection (tafakkur) is the starting point of all spiritual awareness. It turns mere sensation into insight, awakening the soul to patterns that suggest purpose, design, and the presence of a Creator.

This leads naturally to Tadzakkur, which involves remembrance and connection to the revealed message. One does not simply observe creation for the sake of it, but remembers what the Qur’an has already said about its meanings. Tadzakkur is a process of aligning what we see with what we have been told. It bridges the āyāt kauniyyah (signs in the universe) with the āyāt qur’āniyyah (signs in revelation). As the Qur’an declares:

وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ

"And We have certainly made the Qur’an easy to remember, so is there any who will remember?" [QS. Al-Qamar (54):17]

Al-Qurṭubī, in al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, notes that tadzakkur is not limited to cognitive memory but includes spiritual remembrance. It is the reactivation of God-consciousness (taqwā) through association—linking lived experience to divine insight. A thunderstorm becomes not just a weather pattern but a reminder of God’s might and justice.

As remembrance takes root, the individual is urged to go deeper, engaging in Ta’abbur, or profound reflection. This is more than recitation or superficial understanding. It is an intentional, sustained meditation on the meanings and wisdom embedded in the verses. The Qur’an emphasizes:

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ أَمْ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبٍ أَقْفَالُهَا

"Do they not reflect deeply upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?" [QS. Muḥammad 47:24]

According to Ibn Kathīr in Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, this verse condemns those who engage with the Qur’an merely at the level of sound without grasping its meaning or consequence. He argues that ta’abbur is the heart of divine engagement—it turns ritual into revelation, and familiarity into fresh insight. Ibn al-Qayyim later described this process as the life of the heart, writing in Miftāḥ Dār as-Saʿādah that without ta’abbur, the Qur’an is like light unseen by a blind eye.

The fourth stage, Ta’aqqul, involves the disciplined use of reason, but within the boundaries of revelation. The Qur’an frequently appeals to the intellect, using the term yaʿqilūn to describe those who truly benefit from divine signs. For example:

إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

"Indeed, in that are signs for a people who use reason." [QS. An-Naḥl (16):12]

Imam al-Ghazālī, in Iḥyā’ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, likened reason to a lamp and revelation to its oil. A lamp without oil offers no light; so too is unaided reason without divine guidance. Ibn Taymiyyah, in Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql, argues that reason and revelation do not conflict when both are sound. True ta’aqqul does not elevate rationalism above faith but harmonizes intellect and trust in God. It enables believers to critically assess, to differentiate truth from falsehood, and to apply divine guidance in real-life complexity.

Finally, the process culminates in Istinbāṭ, the act of drawing conclusions, whether legal, ethical, or spiritual. This is where the thinker, having observed, remembered, reflected, and reasoned, arrives at applicable wisdom. The Qur’an affirms:

وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَىٰ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ

"Had they referred it to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, those who can draw correct conclusions from it would have known it." [QS. An-Nisā’ 4:83)

Imam al-Shāṭibī, in al-Muwāfaqāt, expands this concept to include ethical principles and the objectives (maqāṣid) of the Sharīʿah. Istinbāṭ is not merely a scholarly exercise in law but a moral conclusion drawn from sustained, God-conscious thought. It turns reflection into reform and insight into action.

Together, these five stages—Tafakkur, Tadzakkur, Ta’abbur, Ta’aqqul, and Istinbāṭ—form a spiritual-intellectual methodology that is deeply rooted in the Qur’an and classical Islamic thought. They show that revelation is not meant to be passively received but actively engaged with—through the mind, the heart, and the soul. The Qur’an is not just a book to be read, but a universe to be explored, understood, and lived. In an age overwhelmed with information and noise, the Qur’anic method of thinking offers a path back to clarity, wisdom, and divine connection.

Why is this important? The Qur'anic way of thinking empowers a Muslim to live with clarity, discernment, and deep-rooted integrity. It trains the believer not to be easily deceived by superficial appearances, trends, or manipulative rhetoric. Rather than being swept away by emotions or unverified claims, the Qur’anic mindset nurtures a critical yet humble attitude. It guards the heart against blind fanaticism and baseless hatred, as the Qur’an itself rejects taqlīd ʿamā (blind imitation) and urges every believer to ground their beliefs and judgments in evidence, reflection, and divine guidance.

Furthermore, the Qur’anic method equips a Muslim to read the realities of the present age with clarity—connecting what is seen in the world to what is revealed in the Qur’an. This approach prevents one from living reactively or ignorantly in the face of modern challenges. Above all, it shapes a believer to become an intellectually independent thinker—someone who reflects deeply and acts with wisdom—yet never detaches from the anchoring light of revelation. In this balance between reason and revelation lies the moral and spiritual maturity that the Qur’an seeks to cultivate.

In summary, the Qur’anic method of thinking is a spiritually infused rationality. It elevates the intellect, not as a master over revelation, but as its humble servant. It seeks not just to inform the mind but to awaken the heart. This model invites human beings to become seekers of truth, not passive followers—anchored in faith, alert in reason, and oriented toward a life of wisdom and meaning. In a world clouded by noise, deception, and intellectual confusion, the Qur’anic method offers clarity—a timeless compass for anyone yearning to think deeply, live consciously, and walk the path of divine insight. And Allah knows best.

[Bahasa]

What Happens When Leaders Lack Proper Education? (1)

A wise teacher once told his pupils that a leader who does not invest in learning is like a builder who constructs a house without a blueprint. No matter how strong the materials, the foundation will crack, and the entire structure will collapse — just as a nation falters under uninformed leadership.

Once, a village chose a leader simply because he was the loudest voice in the room, not because he had any knowledge or experience. Soon, the village's wells ran dry, crops failed, and disputes grew rampant. It became clear that leadership without education and wisdom is like sailing a ship without a compass — directionless and doomed to disaster.

In a certain country, a president famously admitted that he never read books, preferring "comics" over facts and research. Over time, poor policies and corruption spread unchecked. Citizens realised too late that an uneducated leader is not just a liability; they can endanger the very future of the nation.

History is full of rulers who rose to power by force or charm but lacked the education to govern well. Many of them left behind chaos, economic ruin, and a population desperate for change. This shows that leadership is not about charisma alone—knowledge and education are the pillars of true and lasting authority.

Education serves a multitude of crucial purposes, acting as a cornerstone for both individual growth and societal advancement. Fundamentally, education equips individuals with the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities necessary to navigate the complexities of life and contribute meaningfully to the world around them. It empowers people to understand themselves, their communities, and the broader global context, fostering a sense of agency and informed decision-making.

The existence of education stems from the inherent human capacity for learning and the societal need for progress and stability. From an individual perspective, education cultivates intellectual curiosity, expands horizons, and unlocks potential, leading to personal fulfilment and greater opportunities. Societally, education is the engine of innovation, driving economic growth, promoting social cohesion, and preserving cultural heritage across generations. It provides the foundation for a skilled workforce, encourages civic engagement, and strengthens democratic values. In essence, education is both a personal journey of enlightenment and a collective endeavour to build a more knowledgeable, just, and prosperous future for all.

Education plays a very important role in shaping someone into a leader through various fundamental ways. Firstly, education equips individuals with a broad knowledge and understanding of various subjects, including history, politics, economics, and social issues. This knowledge provides the necessary context to understand the challenges and opportunities facing organisations and society, which is a crucial foundation for making sound decisions as a leader.

Secondly, education actively develops critical and analytical thinking skills. Through the learning process, individuals are taught to evaluate information, identify problems, and formulate effective solutions. This ability is essential for a leader to be able to analyse complex situations, make reasoned judgements, and guide a team through challenges.

Thirdly, formal education often involves collaborative and interactive experiences, such as group projects, presentations, and class discussions. These experiences help develop effective communication and interpersonal skills, including the ability to convey ideas clearly, listen actively, build relationships, and motivate others. These skills are at the core of successful leadership.

Fourthly, education, especially at higher levels, often demands independence and initiative. Students are expected to manage their time, set goals, and take responsibility for their own learning. These qualities are vital for a leader who must be proactive, accountable, and capable of leading themselves before leading others.

Fifthly, education can also shape an individual's character and values. Through the study of ethics, philosophy, and the humanities, as well as through interaction with diverse perspectives, individuals can develop a deeper understanding of moral principles, integrity, and social responsibility. Effective leaders are those who act ethically and have a commitment to the well-being of others.

Finally, education often provides opportunities for direct leadership through extracurricular activities, student organisations, or community projects. These experiences allow individuals to practise leadership skills in a relatively safe environment, learn from mistakes, and build their confidence as future leaders.

In short, education is not just about acquiring degrees or certificates, but it is a holistic process that shapes individuals intellectually, socially, emotionally, and ethically, preparing them to take on leadership roles with confidence and competence.

Imagine a country as a large ship sailing across a vast ocean. The leaders are the captains responsible for steering the ship safely to its destination. But what if the captain doesn’t know how to read maps, doesn’t understand the direction of the wind, or can’t operate a compass? The ship might drift aimlessly, circle in confusion, or worse, crash into rocks and endanger everyone on board.

This is what happens when a country’s leaders lack adequate education. Let's explores the serious consequences of having leaders with insufficient knowledge, why it poses a threat to a nation’s future, and how this affects every aspect of society.

Leaders without proper education lead to poor policy decisions. In "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, the authors, argue that inclusive institutions, which are often shaped and managed by educated and visionary leaders, are critical for national success. Conversely, when leaders lack the educational background necessary to understand complex economic and political dynamics, they are more prone to creating or sustaining extractive institutions that serve narrow interests and impede development.

In "Leadership and the Problem of Bogus Empowerment" included in The Leadership Studies Reader (2008, Routledge), Keith Grint explores how unqualified or poorly educated leaders often rely on superficial decision-making processes or populist tactics, resulting in ineffective governance and policies that lack depth or sustainability. He emphasizes that without a foundation in critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and systems understanding—which education can provide—leaders tend to be reactive rather than strategic.

In "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization" (1990, Doubleday), Peter Senge supports the notion that leadership based on continuous learning and deep systemic thinking leads to more resilient and adaptable institutions. A lack of such educational grounding, Senge implies, results in short-sighted policies that fail to address root causes or anticipate long-term consequences.

In summary, leaders without adequate education often resort to simplistic or ideologically rigid policies, mismanage public resources, and weaken the institutions meant to serve the public. Their decisions frequently stem not from malice but from a lack of understanding of the complexities involved in governance, economics, and social dynamics.

Education is not just about degrees or certificates. It’s about the ability to understand complex issues, analyze data, and make sound decisions. When leaders lack this ability, the policies they create can be misguided or harmful. For example, in economics, they might implement policies that increase inflation or hinder job creation. When crises strike—whether a pandemic, natural disaster, or political turmoil—uneducated leaders often struggle to respond effectively, leaving citizens to bear the brunt of mismanagement.

Furthermore, leaders without sufficient knowledge and ethics tend to become authoritarian. Unable to convince people through facts and reason, they resort to censorship, silencing critics, and propaganda to cling to power.

When leaders undervalue education, the impact trickles down to society. People become less inclined to think critically, avoid digging deeper, and are more likely to accept superficial information. Innovation stalls due to a weak culture of learning and research. Citizens prefer to follow viral trends or misinformation rather than seeking valid sources.

In his classic book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963, Knopf). Richard Hofstadter traces how distrust of intellectuals and higher learning became culturally embedded in American society, particularly when emotional appeal and populist rhetoric overshadowed thoughtful analysis. He explains that when societies undervalue critical thinking, public discourse becomes shallow, reactive, and easily manipulated—setting the stage for anti-intellectualism to thrive as people grow more suspicious of experts and more accepting of simplistic, emotionally charged narratives.

Anti-intellectualism doesn’t appear overnight. It builds slowly when people begin to shy away from complexity, resist nuance, and instead embrace whatever confirms their biases. Over time, this cognitive laziness becomes cultural, shaping everything from politics to education systems to media consumption—and the result is a society that rewards charisma over competence and loyalty over logic.

This environment makes the public easy to divide and manipulate, often resulting in voting for charismatic figures who speak well but lack competence. Politics turns into drama full of intrigue, rather than a healthy arena for debate.

Leaders with limited education often rely on charisma, persuasive speech, and sweet promises to gain support. However, this is like applying makeup—it looks good on the surface but lacks real substance. Such populism often blinds citizens from judging leaders by their actual work and integrity.

In modern politics, especially within societies where critical thinking is on the decline, populism and image-building often triumph over substance and policy depth. Populist leaders typically rise by appealing to emotion rather than reason, promising simple solutions to complex problems and presenting themselves as the voice of "the people" against a supposedly corrupt elite. Their speeches are not laden with detailed plans or nuanced understanding, but with slogans, performative outrage, and relatable soundbites that spread quickly through social media.

In this environment, images become everything. Leaders focus more on how they look, how they speak, and how they trend, rather than on governing effectively or addressing root problems. A carefully curated Instagram feed or viral video often has more political impact than a well-researched economic plan. This dynamic rewards charisma over competence, and appearance over achievement.

As a result, political discourse is often reduced to theatre. Voters are not necessarily evaluating policies but are instead responding to the emotional branding of the candidate. Populist figures understand this and leverage it: they present themselves as "anti-establishment," wear common clothes, use informal language, or post memes to appear more relatable. The actual work of leadership—negotiation, analysis, accountability—takes a backseat to the show.

This trend is especially dangerous in countries where education systems have failed to instill media literacy or critical thinking. When the public is untrained to separate spectacle from substance, populists thrive. They distract from their lack of qualifications by focusing the public’s attention on enemies, crises, or exaggerated nationalism. In the long run, this undermines democratic institutions, weakens civic engagement, and results in policies driven by optics instead of outcomes. Without a strong foundation of knowledge, policies become empty promises that often create new problems down the line.

One of the most compelling references that supports the argument is "How Democracies Die" (2018) by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. In this book, the authors explore how elected leaders across the globe have gradually undermined democratic institutions—not through violent overthrows, but through a steady erosion of norms, often masked by charismatic image-building and populist rhetoric. They explain how populist figures tend to place personal image and loyalty above democratic principles, exploiting mass media and public emotions rather than presenting coherent policy frameworks. The book outlines how this image-first politics paves the way for authoritarian tendencies.

Another important work is "The Age of Spin: The Rise of Image Politics in America", part of Mark Crispin Miller’s edited volume Seeing Through Movies. This essay investigates how media-saturated democracies have increasingly prioritized the "spin" or image of political figures over their actual records or capabilities. Miller argues that voters are often seduced by the optics of leadership rather than substance, especially in an era when candidates are marketed like celebrities.

Furthermore, Guy Debord’s "The Society of the Spectacle" (1967) provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how modern politics functions as a spectacle, where appearances become more important than reality. Although not exclusively about populism, Debord’s insights into how media and capitalism create a world of superficial images help contextualize why style now often trumps substance in political life.

Together, these books form a powerful intellectual scaffolding for understanding the rise of populist leaders who favor emotional appeal, media theatrics, and branding over actual governance. They illustrate how political discourse is increasingly shaped by public relations rather than public reason.

Education is absolutely crucial for shaping someone into a proper leader. Education is like giving you a brilliant roadmap to the world. You end up with a broad understanding of all sorts of subjects, including history, politics, economics, and social issues. With this background, you can properly grasp the ins and outs of the challenges and opportunities facing organisations and society. That knowledge is a critical foundation, mind you, for making really sound decisions as a leader.

Education actively helps you hone your critical and analytical thinking skills. Through the learning process, you're taught to properly evaluate information, pinpoint problems, and then work out effective solutions. This ability is absolutely essential for a leader to be able to analyse tricky situations, make reasoned judgements, and guide a team through any hurdles.

Formal education often involves loads of collaborative and interactive experiences, like group projects, presentations, and class discussions. These experiences really help develop effective communication and interpersonal skills, which means you can get your ideas across clearly, actively listen, build good relationships, and motivate others. These skills are at the very heart of successful leadership.

Education, particularly at higher levels, often demands independence and initiative. Students are expected to manage their own time, set goals, and take responsibility for their own learning. These qualities are vital for a leader who needs to be proactive, accountable, and capable of leading themselves before they can lead anyone else.

Education can also significantly shape an individual's character and values. Through studying ethics, philosophy, and the humanities, as well as interacting with diverse viewpoints, people can develop a much deeper understanding of moral principles, integrity, and social responsibility. Effective leaders are those who act ethically and are committed to the well-being of others.

Finally, education often provides opportunities for a bit of direct leadership through extracurricular activities, student organisations, or community projects. These experiences allow individuals to practice their leadership skills in a relatively safe environment, learn from their mistakes, and build their confidence as future leaders.

[Part 2]

Bahasa

When a Leader Resorts to Dishonesty

"Are you serious, Mulyono's GPA is 3.05?" Budi exclaimed, his eyes bulging as he stared at the laptop screen. Beside him, Dinda sipped her iced tea with a skeptical expression. They, the unofficial GPA detective duo, were investigating the most perplexing case on campus: the legendary Grade Point Average of a student named Mulyono.

"It makes no sense, Bud. Absolutely no sense at all," Dinda grumbled, her finger tapping Mulyono's crumpled transcript. "Listen, the summary is crystal clear. He only has three A grades. THREE! And those were probably from compulsory philosophy and ethics classes where you could sleep through and still pass."

Budi nodded in agreement. "Then, he has ten B grades. Okay, that's somewhat decent. It means he put in a little effort in a few subjects."

"Reluctant effort, it seems," Dinda interjected sarcastically. "What really gives me a headache is this: he has thirteen C grades! THIRTEEN, Bud! That means most of his courses were just barely passing, like he was clinging to the very edge of graduation."

Budi snatched the transcript again. "And let's not forget, six D grades. SIX! That means six of his courses were on the brink, just one push away from requiring him to retake the semester."

A silence fell between them. The numbers danced in their minds, an absurd symphony of inconsistencies. Three A's, ten B's, thirteen C's, and six D's. A total of 32 courses.

"Alright, let's calculate using the sacred GPA formula," Budi said, his fingers already nimbly pressing calculator keys. "A is 4.0, B is 3.0, C is 2.0, D is 1.0. Let's assume each course is 3 credits, just to make it easy."

Dinda grabbed a pen and began scribbling on the back of Mulyono's unfortunate transcript.

"Three A's: 3×4.0=12.0"

"Ten B's: 10×3.0=30.0"

"Thirteen C's: 13×2.0=26.0"

"Six D's: 6×1.0=6.0"

They summed the figures.

"Total points: 12.0+30.0+26.0+6.0=74.0," Budi murmured.

"Total credits: 32×3=96 credits," Dinda added.

"Now, divide," Budi slid his calculator towards Dinda. "Total points divided by total credits. 74.0/96..."

The calculator screen displayed the number: 0.770833333.

Dinda's eyes widened. "Zero point seven-seven? This is a GPA for a student who only shows up for exams and even then, sleeps through them!"

Budi scratched his head. "But why does his transcript say... 3.05?"

They exchanged bewildered glances, confusion clearly etched on their faces. This wasn't just a matter of mathematics; it was a matter of GPA metaphysics. How could someone with such a mediocre academic record achieve such a "safe" number?

"Maybe Mulyono has some sort of phantom courses, Bud?" Dinda speculated, her voice a mix of frustration and conspiracy theory. "Or maybe his A grades aren't just regular A's. Maybe they're A+++ Super Saiyan?!"

Budi shook his head. "Impossible. Or... maybe the credit calculation system is different? Perhaps his A's are worth 100 credits, while his D's are only 1 credit?"

A bitter laugh escaped Dinda. "Maybe Mulyono has a personal 'karma conversion system.' Every time he helps a lecturer photocopy or buys them coffee, his C automatically becomes an A."

"Or perhaps he discovered a secret formula where the credits for D grades aren't actually counted?" Budi added, attempting to enter Mulyono's universe. "Or maybe he has a direct connection to the faculty server?"

They finally gave up, their heads spinning from a mystery more complex than Einstein's theory of relativity. Mulyono's 3.05 GPA remained an anomaly, proof that in the academic world, numbers can sometimes be more enigmatic than optical illusions. Perhaps, they thought, Mulyono truly possessed some unique magic, or perhaps... there was 'something' they missed in a far more complex equation of grades than mere A, B, C, D. One thing was certain: they would never look at a GPA the same way again.

Throughout history, there have certainly been many world leaders who were known for lying—whether through outright falsehoods, manipulative half-truths, or systematic concealment of the truth. In politics, lying is often used as a tool to gain or maintain power, shape public opinion, or silence dissent. However, history has repeatedly shown that leaders who build their rule on deception often face serious consequences, either during their lifetime or in how they are remembered.One prominent example is Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, who was involved in the Watergate scandal. Nixon lied to the American public and to Congress about his administration’s involvement in the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. As the truth unraveled, the political pressure became unbearable, and in 1974, Nixon resigned from office to avoid impeachment. He remains the only U.S. president to have resigned, and his name is forever linked to political scandal and dishonesty.

Adolf Hitler is another extreme case. He rose to power in Germany by manipulating facts and spreading what he himself described as the “Big Lie”—a propaganda technique where a massive lie is repeated so often that people begin to believe it. He used this to blame Jewish people and others for Germany’s problems, justifying horrific policies and genocidal actions. Hitler's lies led to World War II and the deaths of millions. His regime ultimately collapsed in ruin, and he died by suicide in a bunker as Allied forces closed in on Berlin.

What these leaders have in common is the use of lies to construct and preserve their power. But in the end, their dishonesty either led to their downfall, damaged their legacy, or both. While lies can be effective in the short term, history has a long memory. The truth tends to surface eventually, often with devastating consequences for those who tried to bury it.

In the broader sense, leaders who consistently lie may succeed for a while, but they cannot deceive everyone forever. Even if they manage to hold onto power, they are often haunted by distrust, rebellion, and the erosion of legitimacy. And when history judges them, it rarely does so kindly. As the old saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes"—but the truth does arrive, and when it does, it changes everything.

The act of lying, especially when done by a leader, holds significant philosophical implications. From ancient philosophy to modern political thought, deception from those in power has been debated as both a necessary evil and a dangerous betrayal. In Plato's The Republic, we find the concept of the "noble lie"—a falsehood told by rulers with the intention of maintaining social harmony. Plato, though cautious, entertained the idea that sometimes, the stability of the state might require myths or selective truths. However, he also warned of the consequences if the lie were discovered: the very legitimacy of the ruler would collapse.

Centuries later, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant offered a starkly contrasting view. For Kant, lying was morally indefensible under any circumstance. He believed that truth-telling is a categorical imperative—a moral law that applies universally, regardless of outcomes. To lie, in Kant's view, is to treat others as mere tools rather than as ends in themselves. When a leader lies, they do not merely manipulate facts—they reduce citizens to pawns in their game of control, eroding the moral fabric that holds a society together.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in his infamous treatise El Príncipe, took a more pragmatic approach. He argued that for a ruler, appearing virtuous is more important than actually being virtuous. In Machiavelli's world, a successful leader might need to lie, cheat, and deceive to maintain power and protect the state. This realpolitik philosophy has shaped centuries of political strategy, often justifying unethical behavior in the name of stability or national interest.

However, modern thinkers such as Hannah Arendt sounded the alarm about the long-term consequences of such deception. Arendt believed that persistent lying in politics creates a dangerous state where the public loses the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood. In her view, this collapse of factual reality can lead to totalitarianism, where citizens become passive, cynical, and disconnected from political responsibility. When leaders lie repeatedly, they don't just distort individual truths—they fabricate entire false realities.

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard deepened this notion with his theory of “hyperreality,” where simulations of truth become more influential than truth itself. In this view, a lying leader doesn't simply alter facts—they create a performative reality backed by media, influencers, and loyal followers, so convincing that people stop seeking authenticity altogether. It becomes a political theater in which image overtakes substance, and citizens live in a curated version of reality designed by power.

The consequences of such governance are profound. Trust between the governed and the governing erodes. Public ethics deteriorate. Citizens become numb to dishonesty, resigning themselves to the belief that “all leaders lie.” In time, a culture of falsehood replaces a culture of accountability, leaving democracy hollowed out and ripe for authoritarianism.

Philosophically, the antidote to leadership built on lies is not merely factual correction, but the reawakening of collective moral courage. As Søren Kierkegaard suggested, truth must be passionately lived, not passively received. Societies need citizens who question, who think critically, and who hold leaders to ethical standards, not just performance metrics.

In essence, when a leader lies, they gamble with the soul of the nation. The question isn’t merely whether the lie worked—but whether, in the process, the public lost its grip on what truth even means.

In psychology, particularly in the study of microexpressions, experts like Dr. Paul Ekman has demonstrated that the face often reveals emotions a person tries to hide. When someone tells a lie, even a well-practiced one, there may be involuntary facial movements—such as a twitch, a micro-frown, or a forced smile—that betray internal tension. These do not result in physical marks like blemishes or boils, but they do reflect the psychological strain that lying can cause.

On a deeper physiological level, consistent lying can induce stress, which activates the body’s fight-or-flight response. Over time, chronic stress increases cortisol levels, which has been linked to various skin issues, including acne and inflammation. So, in theory, a habitual liar who experiences guilt, anxiety, or fear of being exposed may undergo physical effects—though again, this would be indirect and dependent on the person’s psychological makeup. Not everyone feels guilt for lying; some individuals, such as narcissists or sociopaths, may lie with no visible stress or emotional cost.

From a psychosomatic perspective, emotions and moral conflicts can manifest physically. Someone consumed with guilt may have trouble sleeping, may feel anxious, and might even experience skin flare-ups due to internal turmoil. While this is not specific to liars, it shows how the body and mind are deeply connected. The face, being one of the most expressive and exposed parts of the body, often reflects that connection.

In traditional and spiritual worldviews, especially in Islamic, Eastern, and some mystical traditions, there's a belief that lying darkens the heart and removes the light (or nur) from the face. While this is not medically measurable, many people speak of a certain aura or "vibe" that disappears from a person who frequently deceives others. They may appear less trustworthy, less radiant, or "off" in a way that is hard to explain but easy to sense.

Popular culture and folklore have often used physical changes as metaphors for moral decay. One of the most famous examples is Pinocchio, whose nose grows longer every time he lies—a visual representation of how lies, no matter how small, leave a mark. In literature, deceitful characters are often described with shifting expressions, nervous tics, or shadowy appearances, symbolizing the inner chaos of dishonesty creeping onto their faces.

In conclusion, while there is no empirical evidence linking frequent lying to boils or black spots on the face, lying can still affect a person’s appearance indirectly. Whether through stress-induced skin issues, microexpressions of emotional conflict, or the gradual erosion of one's natural “light,” dishonesty often finds a way to surface—if not through the skin, then through the eyes, the voice, or the uneasy stillness of a fake smile.

In Telling Lies (Revised Edition, 2009, W.W. Norton & Company), Paul Ekman explains that when people lie, their faces, voices, and bodies often betray the emotions they are trying to conceal. Even when someone makes a conscious effort to appear composed and in control, subtle emotional cues—what Ekman calls "leakage"—can emerge through microexpressions, vocal tone, and involuntary movements. These signs are typically unintentional and occur within fractions of a second, but they can reveal the liar’s true feelings, such as fear, guilt, or contempt.

Ekman emphasizes that facial expressions are especially revealing because the muscles responsible for them are partly under involuntary control. For example, someone might smile to appear friendly or confident, but if they’re lying and internally feeling anxiety, a fleeting microexpression of fear or disgust might flash across their face before the smile sets in. This inconsistency, although very brief, can be picked up by a trained observer—or sometimes even sensed unconsciously by others.

Similarly, the voice may carry subtle shifts in pitch, speed, or hesitation that reflect nervousness or cognitive load during deception. The more complex the lie and the greater the emotional stakes, the harder it is for the liar to keep their voice completely neutral. Likewise, body language—such as touching the face, fidgeting, or sudden stiffness—can conflict with spoken words, hinting at the psychological discomfort of lying.

Ekman also notes that not everyone leaks emotions in the same way. Some individuals, like actors or sociopaths, may be better at masking emotional expressions. Still, most people—especially under pressure—unwittingly display signs of deception because managing verbal content, controlling facial expressions, modulating voice, and maintaining natural body movements simultaneously is cognitively demanding.

Ultimately, Telling Lies underscores the idea that lying is a high-stakes psychological act, and despite people’s best efforts to hide the truth, their bodies often speak louder than their words.

In Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (Vintage Books, 1999), Sissela Bok explores the deep moral and social consequences of lying, arguing that even small or seemingly harmless lies can erode the very foundations of trust that societies and relationships depend on. Bok emphasizes that honesty is not merely a private virtue but a public necessity. She presents lying as a moral choice that carries significant ethical weight, not only for the individual liar but also for the community in which the lie takes place.

According to Bok, when lies are told repeatedly, they gradually diminish a person’s credibility and integrity. What begins as a small bending of the truth can quickly spiral into a habitual form of deception, making it harder for the liar to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Over time, this can lead to self-deception, where the liar convinces themselves of their own fabricated version of reality. In this way, lying becomes corrosive to one’s identity. It erodes the consistency and coherence of one’s moral self, leading to a fractured sense of who they truly are.

On a broader social level, Bok argues that widespread lying undermines trust—the invisible glue that holds families, friendships, businesses, and governments together. When people believe that others are not telling the truth, suspicion and cynicism replace cooperation and goodwill. This breakdown in trust doesn't just harm interpersonal relationships; it can destabilize entire institutions. For example, if public officials lie regularly, citizens lose faith in the system, and social cohesion weakens.

Bok also challenges the common justification that lying is acceptable if it serves a good purpose. She warns that this reasoning can become a slippery slope, where the supposed ends begin to justify increasingly dishonest means. She encourages readers to think critically about the long-term consequences of lying—not just the immediate benefits—and to consider how honesty, even when difficult, fosters deeper respect and sustainable relationships.

Ultimately, Lying is a philosophical call to preserve integrity in both public and private life. It reminds us that truthfulness is not always the easiest path, but it is the one most essential to preserving our humanity, our relationships, and the moral fabric of society.

So, when a leader resorts to dishonesty, the repercussions can be profound and far-reaching, impacting individuals, organizations, and even entire societies. The consequences extend well beyond a simple lack of trust, often leading to a cascading series of negative outcomes that undermine stability and progress.

The most immediate and devastating impact of a leader's lie is the shattering of trust and credibility. Trust forms the absolute bedrock of effective leadership, and once a leader's honesty is compromised, the faith placed in their integrity is profoundly diminished. Rebuilding this lost trust is an arduous and protracted process, often demanding years of consistent, transparent behavior. This breakdown in credibility directly leads to severe damage to a leader's personal and professional reputation, which can manifest as public shame, widespread ridicule, and a lasting negative public perception. Furthermore, the public or the leader's followers can become increasingly cynical and skeptical, not only of the individual who lied but also of leadership in general, potentially extending to broader institutions.

A dishonest leader inevitably distorts reality, which severely impairs effective decision-making across all levels. Crucial information may be withheld or manipulated, preventing the formation of informed choices and leading to misguided strategies, wasted resources, and missed opportunities. In an environment where leaders are not truthful, psychological safety diminishes significantly; employees or citizens become reluctant to voice concerns, report problems, or offer constructive feedback, thereby stifling innovation, effective problem-solving, and accountability. This atmosphere of deception can also severely demoralize teams or constituents, leading to decreased engagement, reduced productivity, and a diminished commitment to shared goals. In organizational settings, this often translates to increased employee turnover, while in broader societal contexts, it can fuel public dissatisfaction and a demand for leadership change.

Lies inherently foster a culture of opacity, leading to a breakdown in genuine communication. Honest dialogue becomes difficult, and in the absence of reliable information, people often resort to speculation and rumor. Leaders might lie in an attempt to avoid difficult conversations or to maintain a superficial sense of stability. While this might offer short-term perceived gains, it invariably leads to long-term strategic errors as underlying issues are allowed to fester and grow unchecked. Furthermore, a leader with a history of dishonesty will find their ability to manage crises severely hampered; their credibility is paramount during a crisis, and without it, their capacity to rally support, convey vital information, and guide through turbulent times is severely undermined.

When a leader engages in dishonesty, it can set a dangerous precedent, implicitly suggesting that unethical behavior is acceptable or even necessary for success. This can lead to a general decline in moral standards within the organization or society they lead. Organizations or societies built on deceit ultimately suffer as their core values are compromised, fostering a lack of shared purpose and a fragmented culture. Beyond moral ramifications, depending on the nature of the lie, leaders can face severe legal and financial consequences, including charges of perjury or fraud, substantial financial penalties, and even imprisonment. Organizations themselves might incur massive fines, suffer significant losses in market value, and endure lasting reputational damage that directly impacts their bottom line.

In a political landscape, a leader's lies can profoundly undermine democratic processes, distort public discourse, and erode citizens' faith in the electoral system and governmental institutions. Dishonest rhetoric, particularly in political arenas, often deepens societal polarization, fostering an "us vs. them" mentality that makes it increasingly difficult for disparate groups to find common ground and collaborate. Moreover, when leaders lie with apparent impunity, it sends a troubling message to future generations about the true value of truth and integrity, potentially normalizing dishonesty as an acceptable path to power or success.

In essence, a leader's lie is never an isolated incident; it creates a pervasive ripple effect that can dismantle trust, impede progress, and inflict lasting damage upon the individuals and entities under their influence.

"Alright, Bud, let's take a break!" Dinda declared, closing her word processor. She then clicked open Chrome on her notebook, navigated to YouTube, and soon the unmistakable voice of ROSÉ filled the air, serenading them with Stephen Sanchez's 'Until I Found You,

I would never fall in love again until I found her

I said, "I would never fall unless it's you I fall into"

I was lost within the darkness, but then I found her

I found you

[Bahasa]