Saturday, June 21, 2008
It is a given that there is just a thin line between one loyalty and another, say loyalty to one’s family and that to the community, loyalty to one’s beloved and that to one’s ambition, loyalty to one’s country and that to the self. Whatever loyalty one crosses to, the decision is bound to create a great impact because in prioritizing one, a person leaves the other behind. If only it were easy to have loyalty to both in order not to lose the best of both worlds, but it is clear that one cannot serve two masters at the same time.
Since a person becomes loyal to one and surrenders the other, what if the chosen one proves regrettable after all? It would be good if the loyalty invested on one bears the desired fruits, but what if not? Of course, it will occur to the person to assume “What if?” Indeed, what if the person chose to be loyal to the other? Would the loyalty have borne more desirable results? This is granting that in every decision, one seeks to get the best out of it in order to grow and, in the case of the virtue in question, to be constant, to be devoted, to be faithful. Only with one’s unwavering loyalty will one develop a distinct identity.
If one wants to be identified as a leader, does it matter what party one belongs to? Apparently yes, for a party is like a family or a group of friends, that affiliation to either will provide an insight into one’s being. If that family or clique of a party proves too destructive to be tolerated, why not leave? Should loyalty to a party outweigh the greater need to be loyal to a country? Only a true leader knows that the answer is no, because he doesn’t have to answer that in the first place. All he has to do is to make the great move of seeing beyond his personal benefits from the party and performing a self-sacrifice for a country that so long hungers for a real leader.