Dr. Gul Celkan
Assoc. Prof. of English Language and Literature
TurkishForum danisma Kurulu uyesi
A “Daughter of Ataturk” Analyzes
King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership
Arnold Ludwig published The King of the Mountain in 2004, and he used a chimpanzee on his book cover based on his belief that “human politicians derive their leadership drive from their primate ancestors.” It is “an arresting book that casts political science out the window and explains leadership through comparisons with chimpanzees, baboons, and gorillas.” (Washington Post Book World.) It should not also be forgotten that the “King of the Mountains” (KoM) is the title given to the best climber in a cycling road race; it is usually and officially known as the Mountains classification.
Ludwig writes in his book that people may choose to ignore their animal heritage by interpreting their behavior as divinely inspired, socially purposeful, or even self-serving, all of which they attribute to being human, but they masticate, fornicate, and procreate, much as chimps and apes do, so they should have little cause to get upset if they learn that they act like other primates when they politically agitate, debate, abdicate, placate, and administrate, too.”
Following an eighteen-year study on why people want to rule, Ludwig came up with the idea that “power, privilege, and perks” were the three factors that lied at the core of this urge to dominate. In order for this finding to be complete, he also had to come up with a response to the question “why so many rulers cling to power even when they are miserable, trust nobody, feel besieged, and face almost certain death.”
Ludwig’s results suggest that leaders of nations tend to act remarkably like monkeys and apes in the way they come to power, govern, and rule. Profiling every ruler of a recognized country in the twentieth century — over 1,900 people in all, Ludwig establishes how rulers came to power, how they lost power, the dangers they faced, and the odds of their being assassinated, committing suicide, or dying a natural death. Then, concentrating on a smaller sub-set of 377 rulers for whom more extensive personal information was available, he compares six different kinds of leaders, examining their characteristics, their childhoods, and their mental stability or instability to identify the main predictors of later political success. Ludwig’s penetrating observations, though presented in a lighthearted and entertaining way, offer some insight into why humans have engaged in war throughout recorded history as well as suggesting how they might live together in peace.
One of the very few comments written on this book says that the book consists of a series of highly entertaining anecdotes about famous political figures, collected to support his thesis that political greatness equates possessing the characteristics of the “Alpha Male”. The acceptability of this amoralistic conception of “greatness” – where Mao and FDR are co-ranked the greatest modern political leaders with Stalin a close second – is up to each reader to decide.
The book begins by a comment from the writer of Gorillas in the Mist, and hence in Dian Fossey’s words: “Initially I often had to wait for up to a half an hour, pretending to feed on foliage, before the gorillas gave in to their inquisitiveness and climbed trees surrounding me. Once their curiosity was satisfied, they would resume their usual activities, forgetting that I was there. This is what I had come to observe.”
The writer claims he was able to identify 1,941 rulers from 199 countries…in different geographical regions. “With a group this size, I was able to establish base rates for the first time ever for certain kinds of important information on rulers, such as how they came to power, how they lost power, and the dangers they faced. Then, for a more probing analysis of the lives, character, careers, and mental health of rulers, I was able to do an in-depth study of a large sample on whom more extensive personal information was available. The method I hit upon to do this was to capitalize on the work of experts who already had decided which world leaders were worthy enough to have biographical entries in the online Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana, the two most authoritative reference sources.”
Interestingly enough, the author claims his book not to be scientific, and to put it in his exact words: “In reporting my findings and observations, I wrestled with how technical to be. Since I was writing this book for general readers rather than specialists, I wanted the narrative to be sufficiently substantive, entertaining, and enlightening that it would not put them to sleep. “
Actually from the onset, Ludwig warns his readers about his capabilities: “I have opinions about politics, but I am not a political scientist, a sociologist, a historian, or a political correspondent. In fact, I have a general antipathy toward politicking and take pride in the fact that I never was elected to any office in my life. What I am is a psychiatrist who simply prefers to consider himself a student of human nature. In that capacity, my interest is in the actual people who govern and their relationship with their subjects rather than in forms of government and the mechanics of governance. So with that qualification about my abilities and interests, I trust I will be for- given if I do not always describe political situations in the proper academic ways, which I prefer to believe gives me an advantage, and even more unorthodox, if I do not always look upon politics as a distinctly human activity.”
Prior to indulging in the core reason for writing an article on this book, it is best to share some of the key issues that led Ludwig to write a book on leaders and leadership. Why do people want to rule? “You may think the reason is obvious—power, privilege, and perks—but it’s not. Nor does it have anything to do with the
more high-minded motives of patriotism, duty, and service. What I hope to show is that all of the usual reasons aspiring rulers give for seeking high office are simply rationalizations by them to do what they are socially and biologically driven to do. Just as the orgastic pleasures associated with sex ensure procreation and contribute to the preservation of the species—regardless of the reasons people give for copulating, such as doing it for love, intimacy, or fun—the rewards that come with ultimate power likewise serve as powerful motivators for would-be rulers to do Nature’s bidding.”
What is Ludwig’s perception of a leader or leadership? The general reader should have a complete understanding of this in order to be able to make correct judgments on the book. This is how the writer explains his views on leaders:
“No identifiable form of intelligence, talent, genius, or even experience seems necessary for ruling a country. Would-be rulers do not have to pass qualifying examinations in leadership or demonstrate competence in administration or show skill in diplomacy. They do not need to have good communication skills or even be popular with their subjects. While many leaders are imaginative, worldly, and intelligent, others are pedestrian, narrow-minded, and ignorant, which suggests that demonstrated ability or achievement has little to do with securing the highest office in the land.”
“Leaders need not be sane, rational, or even mentally competent to rule a country. My results reveal high rates of alcoholism, drug use, depression, mania, and paranoia among certain kinds of rulers. Remarkably, over this past century, many rulers even have managed to keep power despite being floridly crazy or demented.”
“Although intellectual or academic credentials seem irrelevant for ruling, one of the time-honored ways individuals establish their qualifications for leadership is by showing physical prowess and courage in battle.”
“Throughout history, rulers who attain legendary status often tend to be those who have conquered other nations, won major wars, expanded their country’s boundaries, founded new nations, forcibly trans- formed their societies, and imposed their own beliefs on their subjects. In short, they have killed, plundered, oppressed, and destroyed. Rarely do rulers achieve greatness who have been ambassadors for peace, kept the status quo, defended free speech, promoted independent thinking, and avoided wars at all costs.”
As a researcher you cannot help but searching all the databases to see if any other researchers from the different countries mentioned in this book have ever cited Ludwig in their studies. My in depth research yielded no positive results, whatsoever. The only piece of writing and which is unfortunately anonymous appeared in the social media in Turkey because the writer claimed Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, to be the greatest visionary of all time.
We as researchers and academics have to be cautious when we read such anonymous writings. Had this been truly the case, then wouldn’t a lot of historians in Turkey have cited Ludwig’s book? Would it not have been recommended as a good resource for those working on Ataturk?
It has been 12 years since the book got published, and no academic has ever referred to the book nor to the claims Ludwig made in his work. He himself claims this is not a scientific book. As a psychiatrist he just wanted to examine world leaders and likening their instincts to primates.
In order to show to the Turkish reader why this is not a book that truly praises Ataturk, I want to first concentrate on the concept of “visionary.”
In the chapter on Visionaries which he classifies as social engineers, utopian socialists, and mass murderers, Ludwig includes Sukarno, Atatürk, Castro, plus the Infamous Five: Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Isn’t this a frightening comparison? Putting Ataturk in the same category with those leaders he claims to be mass murderers is unacceptable. No Turkish person would consider Ataturk to be a mass murderer. This is an absolutely irrational classification. Anyway, when we make comparisons, we do it between or among things of equal value. Comparing Ataturk to Hitler or to Stalin or to Mao is completely unacceptable.
According to Ludwig, there are two features that distinguish a visionary from a tyrant: a visionary has an idealistic rationale for oppressing and killing people, and a tyrant does not. A visionary wants people to conform to his utopian vision for society, and a tyrant simply wants people to obey him. These differences are more than superficial. The fact that one kind of leader operates within the framework of a social model and another kind has more self-centered, hedonic concerns suggests that these leaders differ in other personal ways as well. When differences exist between different kinds of leaders as adults, then these differences should be rooted in their childhood, too. Based on the aforementioned definition of visionary, who would accept Ataturk to fit into Ludwig’s definition?
He talks about Ataturk’s childhood in this section: “At the age of seven, Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk, likewise had his education interrupted by his father’s death. Headstrong and in- dependent as a student, he rebelled against the traditional Turkish clothes of wide pants and a cummerbund, as well as the half-kneeling sitting at the Muslim school. He also rebelled against his barely literate mother, who wanted him to become a cleric or a businessman, drawn instead to the glamor and discipline of a military career. To keep peace with her obstinate son, his mother relented but only after conveniently having had a dream in which she was told that he would be successful if she let
him become a soldier.”
In the book, Ataturk is portrayed as a charismatic ruler: “Atatürk, for example, had almost a physical magnetism that drew people to him. One of his admirers claimed she could sense his presence even in an adjoining room, and, when he entered a room, he was too awesome to look at. If he shook hands with a child, the child would not wash his hand for weeks, fearful that the virtue would depart
it. An old peasant woman claimed to be seventeen, dating her age from the time she first saw him.”
Ideologies, says Ludwig, serve an important function in governing a nation, especially one composed of different ethnic, religious, and racial peoples. They serve as a unifying force for the majority of the population, binding them together under one system of thought. To prove his point he says “a good example is the attempt by Mustafa Kemal, alias Atatürk, to reduce the ethnic and religious tensions that threatened to tear his nation apart by seeking a unified theory to restore pride in his countrymen. In his sun-language theory, likely inspired when he was under the influence of alcohol, he claimed that the first sounds made by primitive man were due to awe of the sun and that pure Turkish, purged of Arabic influences, was the original language of primordial mankind. Claiming that all humans began as Turks, he concluded that all human achievement must be Turkish. To his credit, he eventually realized the preposterousness of his theory and rescinded it.”
“Atatürk’s sun-language theory was a lot more sophisticated and erudite than most of the other ideologies leaders advanced over this past century. Because of the needs of the people to find simple causes for their discontents or simplistic meaning for their seemingly meaningless existence, they tend to be drawn to political ideologies that are emotionally appealing and give the impression of being scientific.”
“Great rulers can work well with others as a team as long as they assume a predominant position. Any body who ranks above them or wields more influence represents an obstacle in their path.”
Announcing Ataturk as having an imperial need for domination is another fallacy of the writer. He cites an anecdote about Kemal Atatürk: “One evening, after engaging his guests in a rambling argument about some inconsequential matters, he called on Halide Adibe, a female politician, for her opinion. She replied that she did not get his point. His tone suddenly changed, and he shocked her with his reply:
“What I mean is this: I want everyone to do as I wish and command.”
She countered, “Have they not done so already in everything that is fundamental and for the good of the Turkish cause?”
Ignoring her question, he continued, “I don’t want any consideration, criticism, or advice. I will have only my own way. All shall do as I command.”
“Me too, Pasha’m?”
“You too.”
“I will obey you and do as you wish as long as I believe that you are serving the cause.”
“You shall obey me and do as I wish,” he answered, looking her straight in the eyes.
“Is that a threat, Pasha’m?” she quietly asked.
He hesitated for a moment, thought better of his answer, and decided that he had revealed too much. Although Atatürk backed off at that moment, he meant what he initially told her. He did expect everyone to obey him, and in time he would get an entire nation to comply with his wishes.” Never have I read this anecdote anywhere and this truly contradicts the true character of Ataturk.
To further exemplify the traits of leaders, the writes states in his book that “sometimes the tendency of rulers for not wanting to be bound by social conventions takes the preposterous form of not even wanting to be restrained by themselves. Again, Kemal Atatürk, as in so many other areas, illustrates this well. True to his convictions about wanting to improve the lot of women in Turkish society, he married a modern, sophisticated, and liberated woman, Latife, who had studied law and was conversant in English. After his Western-style marriage, he then pushed for the emancipation of all Turkish women. But because his wife was also headstrong and outspoken and refused to accept the lot of an un-complaining wife, they inevitably came to loggerheads over his frequent sexual affairs. Finally tiring of his wife’s efforts to curb his sexual desires, Atatürk banished her from his house, which, in the Muslim tradition, was the equivalent of divorce. Later, once he was free of her, he switched back to his Western outlook and instituted a new legal code that granted men and women equal rights and made divorce by repudiation illegal.” Considering the situation given here from the point of view of the writer, it sounds acceptable but he is again wrong in the reasons he gives for their divorce.
In another instance, when Ludwig mentions the traits of visionaries, he writes: “There is no room for pluralism, deviationism, or individuality in a totalitarian society; the dreams of the visionary are more than sufficient for all. “I am your dreams,” Kemal Atatürk told his countrymen, expressing the sentiments of all visionaries, and then informed them about what he had dreamed for them.” Thus Ludwig shows Ataturk as a man imposing his own dreams on the society which again contradicts his manner of working with this people.
In the section where the writer talks about the good being bad or the vice versa, he mentions that democracies are not always good, and dictatorships are not always bad. “Even in supposedly “true” democracies, social injustices and inequities happen. Through military rule, Atatürk was able to lay the groundwork for democracy and a secular state in Turkey,” thereby implying he was a dictator.
Ludwig also talks about the love life of the leaders he has chosen to compare in his book, and when it comes to the main persona of this study, Ataturk, he claims, “Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey and a saint-like symbol for many
of his countrymen, who was promiscuous all his life with women, perhaps best sums up the prevailing attitude of all these rulers. Asked once what qualities he admired most in a woman, he replied, “Availability.” “ He is unfortunately misjudging Ataturk by showing him as if he was a ‘womanizer’, which is something completely unacceptable.
In the section where Ludwig discusses when “many rulers assume power, they begin to suffer from what I call the Louis XIV syndrome of “L’etat, c’est moi.” As a feature of this syndrome, they seem to undergo a peculiar expansion in their personal identity and come to believe that they and their people are one. Like a spirit guide that gives voice through a medium, they often act as if their people give voice through them.” As in the other sections cited above, he again refers to Ataturk in this sense as well and unfortunately resembles him to Hitler: “Hitler was the personification of the Third Reich, just as Atatürk assumed the identity of Turkey.”
Claiming Ataturk to be the greatest visionary but at the same time comparing him to Hitler is uncanny and he claims this murderer to be “the most extraordinary in his ability to sway almost an entire nation with his oratory. Possessing an uncanny ability to sense the secret sentiments of the German people, he played on their emotions like a virtuoso and orchestrated their response.”
“Because of the tension generated by the tenuousness, insecurity, and isolation of their position,” many rulers “seem to rely on alcohol as a way to buoy up their flagging spirits and for its relaxant effects.” Ludwig states rulers are alcoholic and with no hesitation and with baseless judgments categorizes Ataturk as an alcoholic. “Despite the erratic behavior of rulers who drink too much, it is wrong to assume that their excessive drinking inevitably led to disastrous consequences. At times he was astounded by how well certain rulers were able to run their countries and accomplish impressive deeds despite their periodic drunkenness and lapses of judgment. For instance, Kemal Atatürk still managed to transform Turkey and be revered by his countrymen despite being grossly intoxicated much of the time and eventually dying of cirrhosis of the liver at the relatively young age of fifty-seven. When drunk, he might order a minaret destroyed because of the annoying music coming out of a mosque. The next morning, after he sobered up, he would rescind the order if it had not yet been implemented. But sometimes he was not in a position to undo his orders, as when he told a singer to put a glass on top of his head and then shot at it with his pistol à la William Tell. In time, though, his liver began to fail, his memory got worse, his behavior became more erratic, his temper worsened, and depression set in, but, amazingly, as debilitated as he was, Atatürk never lost his sense of humor. A French journalist wrote that Turkey was governed by one drunkard, one deaf man (referring to Ismet, the vice president), and three hundred deaf mutes (the deputies). Kemal responded, “This man is mistaken. Turkey is governed by one drunkard.” Such accusations further make this book an unreliable source and proves how wrongly Ataturk was depicted as the founding father of Turkey. As if these blasphemies were not enough, he also wrote in his book that “Among the visionaries, Atatürk drank heavily to quell his frequent depressions, but the drinking often only served to make his depressions worse.” How ironical it is that Ataturk is shown as a visionary bearing such negative traits. Is there not then a problem with the writer’s perception of a visionary? The way he perceives this term does not fall in line with the generally accepted definition on this term. Then how can we accept the scale used by Ludwig to show Ataturk as the greatest visionary of the 20th century when his understanding of visionary does not reflect ours.
Following such unjustifiable claims, the writer goes on to praise Ataturk for emancipating women from the strict Islamic tradition, and implementing a modern legal civil code based on the Swiss legal code. He then reformed the alphabet, passed a law making the use of family names compulsory, and replaced religious dress codes with European styles.
As seen from the following quotation, Ludwig again praises Ataturk for his selflessness: “Within the sample of leaders, almost one-fourth seemed to be acting selflessly according to their own lights in the best interests of their country, showing no evidence of exploiting their office for financial gain above and beyond the normal perks that go with the position. A handful of these rulers, such as Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Atatürk, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill, Jawaharlah Nehru, David Ben Gurion, and Mohammed Jinnah also gained a kind of hero status throughout much of the world that was mainly reserved for many of the immortals.”
The writer also analysis the leaders from the aspect of their religious beliefs and comes up with an astounding conclusion regarding Ataturk which is impossible to be taken seriously by any Turkish citizen: “one sign of their defiant attitudes toward religion had to do with church attendance or compliance with important religious rituals. Although many nonbelieving rulers hypocritically attended church, prayed in temples, or visited religious shrines simply for practical political reasons—as did Indira Gandhi, who was an atheist, and Kemal Atatürk, who was an agnostic—many did not, even in countries where it would have been politically expedient to do so.”
And as if these were not enough, Ludwig showed Ataturk as a person who considered himself to be invincible following the incident at the Gallipoli when a piece of shrapnel struck his watch. Being a true believer, he always said he was mortal and wanted the Turkish Republic to be immortal.
In a Radio show Ludwig was asked about his “Political Greatness Scale”. The radio show host also stated “the number one leader you found in the 20th century, from your political greatness scale, was Ataturk.” and went on to ask “But why Ataturk?” and Ludwig answers: “Let’s look at what Ataturk did. And again, mind you, take this in the context of some of the other great leaders that — some of the immortals I’ve mentioned. Ataturk created — started Turkey. He dismantled the Ottoman empire, which was in existence at the time. He not only was the founder of the country, creating a country, but he caused a profound social change in Turkey. He introduced democracy into Turkey, somewhat a militant type of democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. He separated — he was one of the — first time in history to kind of separate church and state. In fact, even though it is predominantly a Muslim country, it’s one of the few ones where certain types of freedoms are permitted…”
This is a book of contradictions. While praising Ataturk, the author goes on to attribute such traits to him that the book loses is reliability. As the author himself confessed at the very beginning, this was not a scientific book. With this characteristic, the entire work becomes a book for the layman to read for pleasure and not for the scholars to read and analyze, or even include in their research.
To conclude, it is worthwhile pointing out that the Turkish review mostly emphasizing the scale used to announce Ataturk as the greatest visionary of all time is very superficial and none of the negative attributes mentioned were mentioned. Therefore it is recommended that this book should not be taken too seriously. There are other categories where different world leaders ranked first, and no one from those countries wrote anything about the findings. As a final word, we should always be cautious when reading and analyzing such books. Why just pinpoint the parts that sound pleasant to the ear, and leave out the “lies”?
Dr. Gul Celkan
Assoc. Prof. of English Language and Literature