According to Osho, yes: leadership—political or religious—thrives at the extremes because most minds live there, so to lead one must polarize, frighten, and inflame, which inevitably harms. Those centered in the “middle” speak too quietly to command crowds; they become silent inspirations, not leaders. Even Buddha, Jesus, and Socrates gained ‘leadership’ only after followers stretched their balanced insights to extremes.
Leaders get attention by shouting from extremes, while the wisest stay calm in the middle and quietly inspire instead of ruling crowds.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Do you feel, Osho, that all leaders—whether political or religious—are caught in the same dilemma?
If someone were to ask Buddha, “Is there God?” Buddha would say, “There may be.” And if someone were to ask, “Is there no God?” he would say, “There may not be.” How can such a person assume leadership? Buddha is so perfectly in the middle. It is like this: in a room a glass is kept half-filled with water. One man comes out and says the glass is half empty; another says it is half full. These two can argue; two parties can form. A third man, utterly in the middle, having seen the whole, returns and says, “The glass is both half empty and half full.” He will say, “You are right, and you are right—and you are wrong, and you are wrong. It both is and is not half. It is half empty and also not; half full and also not.” Such a man makes such a…
Beloved Osho, how come you speak about political leaders and religious leaders in the same tone -- is there no difference between them?
Just look at past history. All politicians have been promising people things which have not materialized in thousands of years. Thousands of political leaders have been promising the same things. How blind humanity must be! The promises have not changed -- that means certainly nothing has been achieved. The same promises are being given to you and you go on following, hoping. Hope is the greatest drug that man has invented. Strange, that religious people are against drugs; politicians are also against drugs. Politicians make laws against drugs, religious people create hell and punishment against drugs. Why are they so afraid of drugs? It needs a deep search, investigation. They are afraid of drugs because drugs are competitors to them. LSD can give you hallucinations of heaven. That's the trouble. No religion can afford to allow people to use LSD. LSD is not dangerous; taken in the right proportions, under…
Osho, why does politics have so much prestige? Why are politicians sitting on everyone’s chest today?
Not just today—they’ve always been sitting on your chest. The fault isn’t the politician’s; the fault lies with those who let someone sit on their chest. If you allow it, someone will climb up—if not A then B, if not B then C. Man wants to remain a slave; that’s why. He wants a master. He doesn’t want to stand on his own feet, to find his own direction. He wants to follow, to be a follower. He doesn’t want to open his own eyes. He wants to walk holding someone’s hand. Because man is not yet a complete man, politics becomes important. And politics is important also because much animality still remains within man; as long as that animality remains, politics will remain significant. It is because of the animal in man that brute force seems valuable. What is a politician’s power? Only as long as he holds office…
Beloved Osho, during your first discourse on the mahagita many people were weeping streams of tears. What does this mean? Are those who were crying weak hearted or is it the power of your voice? Please throw some light on this.
Everywhere in the world it has always been like this. Politicians only have lust for power, they are not concerned with order or revolt. Yes, when they are not keeping order, when the power is not in their hands, then they say everything is wrong; then a revolution is needed. And as soon as they come to power, revolution isn't needed any more because the work of the revolution is complete. Its work was this -- to bring him to power -- the job is done. Then whoever mentions revolution is an enemy. And those that speak of revolution also have nothing to do with it. It is an amazing thing to watch -- it is happening every day, and still man does not become alert. All revolutionaries become counter-revolutionary when they come to power. And all ousted politicians become revolutionaries as soon as they step down from office. Political…
Osho, along with being a good leader, is it also necessary that their personal life be good?
Not at all necessary. This too is one of this country’s naivetés! This too is one of this country’s naivetés! (The audio recording of the question is not clear.) Yes, yes—ordinarily it will be so. The more stupid a person is, the more they will fit into what society calls character—the more stupid they are! An intelligent person will not fit neatly. He will see twenty-five differences; he will want to live life in his own way. It is not that he is characterless—that is not the point! But what you call character he may consider a very trivial thing. He will have character, but his definition of character will be entirely different. What we call character, he may not even call character—because what we call character is an idea belonging to a mind from four or five thousand years ago. Therefore I hold that these expectations of ours are…