I tiakina i:
| Kaituhi matua: | |
|---|---|
| Hōputu: | Recurso digital |
| Reo: | Ingarihi |
| I whakaputaina: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Ngā marau: | |
| Urunga tuihono: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18640865 |
| Ngā Tūtohu: |
Tāpirihia he Tūtohu
Kāore He Tūtohu, Me noho koe te mea tuatahi ki te tūtohu i tēnei pūkete!
|
Rārangi ihirangi:
- <p><strong><em><span>Abstract</span></em></strong></p> <p><em><span><span> </span>Contemporary discussions on leadership and governance often emphasize institutional reforms, ethical frameworks, and administrative efficiency, yet recurrent failures across political systems indicate a deeper unresolved problem. This paper argues that leadership, ethics, and governance collapse not primarily due to structural inadequacies, but due to the absence of self-restraint and ethical self-governance among those who wield authority. Using a analytical approach, the study first interrogates the concepts of leadership, ethics, and governance themselves, exposing the contradictions that arise when power precedes moral discipline. Leadership is examined as a<span> </span>response<span> </span>to social disorder rather<span> </span>than an inherent virtue; ethics is analyzed beyond rule compliance to reveal its dependence on internal restraint; and governance is understood as an institutional expression of leadership character rather than a corrective mechanism. Against this analytical backdrop, the governance<span> </span>of<span> </span>Chhatrapati<span> </span>Shivaji<span> </span>Maharaj<span> </span>is examined<span> </span>as<span> </span>a<span> </span>historical<span> </span>case<span> </span>study,<span> </span>not<span> </span>through glorification, but as empirical verification of whether disciplined leadership can integrate ethical clarity with effective governance. The study demonstrates that ethical restraint, when internalized by leadership, enables inclusive governance, institutional stability, and public trust. The<span> </span>paper concludes that sustainable<span> </span>governance emerges not from expanding authority or procedural complexity, but from leaders capable of governing themselves before<span> </span>governing others.</span></em></p> <p> </p>