Certain ideas may be easy to understand at the same time quite difficult to materialize.
Taking a look at history on this planet we find the first evidence of life about 5 billion years ago. We are the product of 5 b y of evolution. In these 5 b years the first 4 b years life remained as individual cells. It took as long as 4 b y to develop some instinct to figure out that they could evolve more productive structures as cells living in colonies. They grouped into colonies to got their needs met better. Even though it took bill of years it took much less than that to develop the first multicellular-100 cells organisms. The smallest today is 150 cells. Once that worked out, evolution kept going faster and faster.
Now something similar is happening on a different level. Instead of cells we have human beings. They lived in isolation; only in relative recent times they started to organize themselves into structured collective forms. Looking forward from here the process will become even more sophisticated and complex. One important difference is that the evolution of cells took place on the level of instinct while in human beings there is a very conscious component. Human beings are taking consciously many of the functions that nature was processing automatically. Now in history we have 7 b people organized in many different ways, in countries, races, religions, social groups, professions and on smaller scale in companies, organisations, families and so many types of structures. These structures have been continuously tested, some survived for thousands of years, some shorter spans as they evolved.
Lot of turbulence happens in the process, progress can be slow, yet this can be avoided and progress can be made smoother. Certain universal principles that can help to guide this process in a healthy way are available today to prevent a lot of suffering that always takes place when all these structures fight with each other.
Looking at most common forms of social organizations today, most lives are affected in this period by the country, the religion and government we live in. Democracy is considered the best system, we can more or less agree with it, although it has many limitations and progress is very slow and there is lots of exploitations. There is always a lot of debate how to improve governments as well as private organizations. Lots of people work in private companies and they all are very much affected how the company is run. If it is run well people can do better service. In the past some form of dictatorship or other was the most common, typical form of government. The king or emperor and the army were able to maintain control over certain territories. We can compare to cell colonies when a group of cells join together so they can together fight the competing cells. War lords have succeeded together to control the territory. In this way gradually things have evolved, agriculture, commerce, cultural etc. Life has become more stable; it has shifted from pure physical to more intellectual and to productive power centres.
The more society is complex, the more there is delegation of authority. If we accept that authority is necessary, somehow we need to agree on some principles or rules that we can use to identify and select who are the best suited individuals to be given certain amount of authority.
Is there a universal measure we can use by which to determine one system is better than another? This universal yardstick can be a few simple principles to see what system or leadership acts in the interest of the society. Whatever or whoever works best for the society should be accept not any dogma. Today we are still very far to have the best systems and leaderships in position of authority.
What can be defined as the best candidate and what could be the mandate or sacred responsibility for leadership?
1) The first item of universal mandate for any leader should be not to harm the people over which they will have authority.
2) Next principle should be that these leaders should not harm others even if they are outside their sphere of direct authority. Leaders may be nice to their own people but they may be exploiting and creating lots of suffering outside their sphere. They may be good to their citizens but wage war on neighbouring countries.
3) Once one is not harming one’s own people then one should serve and improve the physical, mental and spiritual life of the people
4) Then the next point would be as much as possible to serve others beyond their immediate sphere of responsibility
These above criteria can fairly easily differentiate and rank leaders in history and in present times. Are they violating the first principle, are they recklessly harming their own people or others, how much are they able to improve the environment, all other areas of life?
The methodology to achieve this can be flexible. Cells had to evolve a unique kind of instinct to work together in colonies and even become an organism. This took a long time. Similarly in human society a certain development has to happen before we can evolve a better system. To identify who are the best leaders the collective body has to be maximally utilizing the collective knowledge of that body.
Technology will play more and more an important role in this. We can calculate the areas of selection of an ideal leadership. For example in general election you have only a box to cross but in facebook you get lots of facts that otherwise would not emerge. The social media is being observed by political leaders. It has lots of scope to get info to the public. There are opinion polls used in democratic societies where even a few thousand people can tell what a country thinks. Multidimensional information can be used in different ways. It can start on a small level and then be adopted on a bigger scale.