The question central to Ron Walter’s  academic pursuit and his practical political activity – African American political leadership – has been, and remains, central to the advancement of a progressive agenda, not just for black people but for the country as a whole. Lord knows the country is now experiencing a leadership crisis that is sometimes frightening.

The late Paul Robeson had a useful comment on the quality and integrity of leadership in the African American community. In his 1958 book “Here I Stand,” he wrote: “The concept that I am talking about has nothing to do with matters of headline prominence, personal achievement, or popularity with the powers-that-be. I am concerned, rather with Negro leadership in the struggle for Negro rights. This includes those who are directly in charge of organizations established for such purposes, and many others as well – the leaders of Negro churches, fraternal and civic organization, elected representatives in government, trade union officials, and others whose action or inaction directly affects our common cause .” He went on to write, “The spirit of dedication in the ranks of our people … is abundantly present  in the ranks of our people but progress will be slow until it is much more manifest in the character of leadership.”

A lot has changed since Robeson wrote those words, yet the relationship between the leaders and the led, the multiplicity of levels of leadership, and the notion of legitimacy derived from the community as well as the top echelons, are very contemporary and urgent. A few years ago Walters reflected on this and extended the question to the matter of political leadership in general. In 1989, he wrote:

“An important consideration here is the nature of the relationship between those who hold power and those for whom power is held. The latter we might call ‘constituents,’ who are citizens involved in a dignified and organic relationship with leaders and who expect an empowering value in return for giving their consent to be led. This consent must be voluntary, it must be given with the expectation of reward, it must be based on a trust that the leadership will be faithful to the objectives and style of the collective, and it must be predicated on the understanding that participation and openness will be hallmarks of the governing process.”

He went on to say: “The other aspect of legitimacy is that leadership take place, as Max Weber indicated, within the framework of a common set of norms, mores, customs, and objectives of living. It is useful to recognize that legitimacy is based upon norms that are socially valid and that are truthful and morally grounded to the condition of the group and its perspective. Leaders are often regarded as legitimate if they operate within the context of a set of values that are supported by their community.

“Thus, autonomous actors, possessing a high degree of flexibility with respect to tactics and to the pace of their agenda’s implementation, may often draw a ‘bye’ on other elements of the democratic process because some members of the collective are more interested in different aspects of accountability. Leaders are most accountable when they act in the interest of the group from which they obtained their writ of legitimate authority, as well as when they employ democratic aspects of leadership, thereby increasing trust levels.”

The thrust of Walter’s essay, “Legitimacy to Lead,” was in response to the appearance of would-be “conservative” leaders in the African American community and the threat that “the contribution of legitimate black leadership is repressed in favor of those new conservative organizations and spokespersons who represent the ideology of the dominant class.” This sets up “a politics of leadership legitimacy within the black community,” he wrote. This is worth recalling the next time we see a black person claiming to represent the community speaking at a tea party rally.

And Walters added another sharp and very timely observation when he says, “the fact that minority groups who have a disadvantaged status are trapped in the paradox and suffer from its coercive effect represents a violation of democratic norms” and asks, “For example, by what right is it legitimate for blacks and Hispanics, the most presumptive beneficiaries of affirmative action, to be deprived of it by the majority on the basis of majority rule? Also, it may be asked, is it legitimate for Hispanics, simply because of their ethnicity, to be deprived by the majority of language rights and immigration benefits on the basis of majority rule?

This is only a small portion of the rich legacy – not all of it uncontroversial – that Ron Walters leaves behind. I think for those at the pinnacle of leadership and those of us toiling in the valley an important admonition of Walters’ to keep in mind is this: “…In this sense, we must regard leadership as process rather than a person. And when we refer to leaders, especially heroic leaders, it may be more accurate to regard them as one of the factors of monumental forces involved in historical change, and therefore, as symbols of those eras of change, rather than as the makers of it altogether.”

Click here to send a condolence message to the family of Ron Walters.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union. Click here to contact Mr. Bloice.