Published 09 Mar 2017
According to Mortimer et al (1991), allied leaders sought to design peace that will lead to the development of order across the continent. After the development of boundaries between states, placements of heads and the development of hereditary monarchs were all aimed at minimizing the risk of disorder in the land. Note, in olden times key causes of strife and unrest were mainly associated with leadership and political boundaries; the development of rules and principles that predefined these systems could therefore address the key problems. This approach in essence neglects the causes of the problems by addressing the manifestations of unrest and dissatisfaction in the society. It is worth noting that treaties aimed at coming up with common solutions were widespread and were a show of a community’s commitment to peace and stability. Leadership has never been easy, conflicting interests developed in the division of Poland in the 18th century. Uses of democratic approaches were central to resolution of such conflicts. Though leaders use democratic and social approaches, this were often supplemented by large armies, provision of better social services and the development of a bureaucratic system characterized by highly trained officials.
Comparison to 1848 Revolution
There are a number of key differences in the manner in which leadership roles were taken with regards to development of national pride and social stability before and after the 1848 revolution. According to Mortimer et al (1991), though leaders made their army presence felt before 1840, it was not until late 1840s that a regime was developed strong enough to be in power for over a decade. Leadership before the revolution was characterized by difficulty in maintenance, this changed when leadership took on a more people approach where the society was more involved in deciding who there leaders will be. Aristocracy was employed after the 1840 revolution due to the perceived danger that the society was in due to increase in the levels of worker misery (Mortimer et al, 1991). However, most leaders remained uncertain of their popularity despite the high levels of aristocracy due to what can be described as poor practice of democracy and social justice. One key similarity in the approach to leadership both before and after the revolution is that the mechanisms employed by leaders were as a direct result of changes in the social composition and awareness of the society.
Mortimer, C., Hanawalt, B., Rabb, T., Woloch, I., Crew, R.,& Tiersten, L. (1991). The Western Experience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill