The Illusion of Presidential Material: Lessons from King Saul
In politics, relationships, and even religion, people often prefer those who tell them what they want to hear instead of those who speak the truth. It’s a usual tendency for many of us to favour comforting lies over uncomfortable truths. This is especially true with political leadership, where a polished image can seem more important than the competence to deliver practical and working results.
Most often, when people refer to someone as ‘presidential material’, they refer to the person’s physical appearance and the emotional impact they have—qualities like charisma and their ability to stir feelings. This focus favours the sensory and experiential over the logical. It also leans more towards appearance than reality. It emphasises the ‘phenomenal’ over the ‘noumenal.’ This write-up draws lessons from major biblical precedents to sensitise people to choose leaders based on substance and performance rather than mere appearance, emotions, attractiveness, or convenience.
King Saul: The First Example of “Presidential Material
The idea of “presidential material” is not new. It dates back to the time of Israel’s first king, Saul. Saul was chosen because he looked the part of a leader—tall, good-looking, and from a respected family. He had the qualities people often admire in a political leader. But despite these impressive qualities, Saul’s rule ended poorly, and he became known as one of Israel’s most disappointing kings.
Why Did God Choose Saul?
God chose Saul because he fits into the kind of leader Israel demanded. God’s decision was predicated on the specification of the people, not on his initiative. God’s decision to choose Saul was not free-willed but determined. The only king of Israel that God chose by himself was David. And despite his flaws, David remains the greatest king in the history of Israel. Israel told Samuel that they wanted a king like the other nations so they could be like other nations. In those days, appearance and charisma were major factors in choosing a king. Israel’s choice reflected their desire for appearances over substance or form over substance. Although God warned them of the potential consequences of wanting a king “like the other nations” (1 Samuel 8:10-17), the people remained resolute, and God ultimately granted their request.
Drawing a parallel between modern political leadership and the biblical story of King Saul highlights man’s tendency to choose political leaders based on physical appearance, charisma, and the ability to evoke emotional responses rather than focusing on their actual competence and integrity.
The reference to Immanuel Kant’s philosophy—distinguishing between the ‘phenomenal’ (what appears to the senses) and the ‘noumenal’ (the deeper essence)—offers a sharp critique of contemporary leadership selection, particularly in Africa. Many African nations, influenced by their colonial past, tend to choose leaders based on the systems and models of European countries, aspiring to mirror their democratic structures and governance. However, African societies differ greatly from European societies in terms of their needs, challenges, and mindsets. Rather than replicating foreign systems that might not be compatible with our realities, we should concentrate on addressing the distinct problems and goals of African countries to choose an effective leader.
Last but not least, just as Israel requires a king like those of other countries, contemporary societies frequently search for leaders who fit a specific mould while ignoring the more profound and subtle characteristics required for genuine leadership. Saul’s example is instructive: though he possessed the ideal appearance of a king, his leadership ultimately failed, highlighting the danger of prioritising style over substance.
