If you haven't heard by now, American President Barack Obama has just been awarded one of the world's most prestigious awards, the Nobel Peace Prize. There were varied responses to his commendation - some were supportive, some were skeptical. But all sides understand the fact that President Obama has only been in his current office for eight months, and critics point out that he hasn't "achieved that much" to be considered worthy enough to win this high honor.
From CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html)
Kofi Annan, the former U.N. secretary general who won the peace prize in 2001, called the choice "unexpected but inspired."
"In an increasingly challenging and volatile world, President Obama has given a sense of hope and optimism to millions around the world" and "has shown that the only way forward is through genuine cooperation with other nations."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The decision appeared to catch most observers by surprise...
One famous blogger remarked that President Obama was being awarded for his display of effort. The writer compared this year's awarding to an elementary school student being awarded an "A" grade for "effort", regardless of actual performance and results. Haha... maybe...
This was interesting to note (from the same CNN article):
Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 -- only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September -- two months before Obama was elected president.
President Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize at the same time he was elected president! So I wonder what exactly prompted his nominators to nominate him when they did? Prior to his actual election as president of the US, then-candidate Obama only had a relatively short-lived public servant's record and a lot of inspirational campaign promises. In other words, Barack Obama was initially nominated based on "hype" rather than actual achievement. Therefore, the motivation behind his initial pre-presidency Nobel nomination very well could have been different from the motivation and reasoning behind the decision made for his actual win.
It's as if Obama's Nobel nomination was made in anticipation of his potential to fulfill his promises and not much else. That's a lot of faith put into what is essentially just... a lot of potential.
I think that's part of the challenge of leadership. There can be a lot of hype and expectation put on leaders and public figures. Leaders often represent something - a vision, a movement, a group, institution - bigger than themselves. Therefore the success of that "bigger thing" is based on good leadership. Not everyone can do it - the pressure to perform and deliver on these hopeful and well-intentioned promises must be enormous. If Obama is unsuccessful and doesn't live up to his super-hyped up image, he may be seen as a fluke. It may be very difficult for people to see past his character flaws and focus on his legacy. But all leaders are criticized - it's all part of the deal.
I've been thinking a lot about legacy. In the end, it is what actually remains that matters, not necessarily the characters who played a part. Building a legacy can be likened to a physical building. Someone wealthy may have helped fundthe construction of the building, an architect designed the layout, dozens of laborers helped construct it, many will live and work in the building, and many will help maintain the building. After years have gone by, the names - the who - will be forgotten. Only the physical building - the legacy - will remain. People come and go. It is the actual change brought about that counts.
So I wonder if there is real significance and legitimacy behind Obama's Nobel win in that he is the facilitator of change by instilling the motivation and hope into many peoples
"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," it said.
Taken at face value: that comment could make Obama sound like a people pleaserwith a lot of pizzaz and charisma to inspire people.
Or it could imply something deeper - that maybe President Obama attempts to understand and connect with peoples of different cultures in a deeper way in order to be an effective international leader.
For me, I just see that there is a growing discontentment within people's hearts of the status quo. That's why President Obama's message of hope and change and "we're in this together", "Yes we can" was so well-received and inspired millions all across the world. People see how messed up their world is around them and see the need for good, effective leadership. But the truth is that people, no matter how inspirational and charismatic, are not perfect and they fail. Every leader - good or bad - has their critics. That's why behind the desire to see good human leadership lies a greater human need for a Savior.
We can only wait and see how this whole thing plays out. And most will agree - it's too early to fully know if Obama is "deserving" of the Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama gets points in my book for at least being inspirational. We need inspirational people, but that one person cannot bring about all the change on their own, he has his limits.
Change can be super-dramatic and fast and powerful and maybe even violent. But change is never random or "spontaneous". There is a definite flow of events that little by little, gradually contribute to greater moments of recognizable change. Change always takes time. And something we have to recognize is not only to have patience in waiting for change, but taking the time to reflect on the many smaller changes that are happening more frequently as a result of and resulting in bigger changes. But that's next week's blog :)
No comments:
Post a Comment