The actress, Meryl Streep, criticised Donald Trump at the 74th Golden Globe Awards in January 2017. In her lifetime achievement speech, Streep took dead aim at Trump when she called out his mimicking of a New York Times reporter with a disability, which was, according to many, a deliberate attempt to mock the reporter. Streep (in Howard 2017:n.p.) said that:

In these days in our society, it is often said that power corrupts. World history also provides many examples of the abuse of power. Lavrentiy Beria operated just under Stalin during World War II, and abused his position of power by driving around Russia in his limousine and picking out women who he would take to his mansion and rape (Knight 1993:155–175). Josef Mengele was given access to the thousands of inmates passing through Auschwitz to experiment on. He would, for example remove a boy’s kidney without anaesthesia, simply to see what would happen (Kubica 1998:317–337). Christian VII of Denmark slapped people across the face whenever he felt like it (Stevens 2012). The Roman emperor, Commodus, who reigned from AD 180 to 192, murdered unarmed men in arenas and slaughtered hundreds of wild animals for fun to prove how great he was (Reese 2015). Emperor Nero, who ruled from AD 54 to 68 murdered his own mother, his first wife and (allegedly) his second wife (Jarus 2013). Emperor Caligula − also known as the worst Roman emperor − ruled from AD 37 to 41 and had a crowd that gathered at the Colosseum thrown to animals after he had their tongues cut out (Reese 2014).

In South Africa, the saying that power corrupts, has been on everybody’s lips lately. Already in 2010, Brkic (2010) states that the abuse of power by politicians was threatening to pull South Africa apart. He says that ‘the days in South Africa are growing progressively darker’, and that ‘the leading lights of the ANC reveals an appetite for abuse of power’.

On News24 on 31 August 2015, the DA’s leader, Mmusi Maimane, said: ‘we must protect SA from Zuma’s abuse of power’. Blade Nzimande, General Secretary of the South African Communist Party, delivered the South African Communist Party’s message of support at COSATU’s central committee meeting in Pretoria, and hit out at President Zuma, calling his latest cabinet reshuffle an abuse of power (Manyathela 2017). In The Citizen of 10 October 2017, Eric Naki reported different calls from a number of influential individuals for Zuma’s powers to be curtailed, both from within and outside the ANC. According to Naki, Zuma’s abuse of his presidential powers in order to pursue his personal agenda, his appointment of incompetent people to key positions, and his firing of finance minister, Pravin Gordhan (which resulted in the rand’s value dropping and the country being downgraded to junk status by international ratings agencies), brought influential people like Professor Susan Booysen, a political analyst, to say that Zuma acts as if he is the only one (citation).

President Trump commented on the land issue in South Africa and said that land expropriation in South Africa will be monitored by his administration (Shange 2018). On 24 August 2018, Siviwe Feketha (2018) of IOL News reported that the ANC’s head of the presidency, Zizi Kodwa, told The Star that the ANC was going ahead with the expropriation of land without compensation. From the report, it is clear that Kodwa blames Trump for power abuse, as he stated that Trump is not the president of the world, only the president of the USA, and cannot interfere with the domestic affairs of another country.

From the examples above it is clear that, when society is prejudiced or negatively affected or pressured, or harmed by a person in a leadership position, very often it is a result of that person’s power abuse. This article will make use of different relevant disciplines in order to answer different questions and to investigate the following three aspects:

Although it is acknowledged that power use and abuse can be differently interpreted in different cultures, a further aim of this article is to interpret the psychology behind Herod’s power abuse from a psychological perspective, and to further investigate the role that religion and spiritual intelligence − the Christian religion taken as an example − can play in preventing power abuse in society.

There is no consensus about the meaning of the concepts power and authority among scholars. For Weber (1947:28), power is the ‘probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’. For Crossman (2016) it is the ability to control others, events or resources; to make happen what one wants to happen in spite of obstacles, resistance or opposition. I would add that, if someone is taking power, he or she is taking the superordinate position. Crossman says power is thus a thing that is held, coveted, seized, taken away, lost or stolen, and it is used in what are essentially adversarial relationships, involving conflict between those with power and those without.

Weber (1947:28) considers authority, on the other hand as the ‘probability that a command with a given content will be obeyed by a given group of persons’. The major difference between power and authority for Weber, Coleman (1997:31) says, rests in the fact that power is essentially tied to the personal characteristics of individuals or groups, whereas authority is always tied to social positions or roles. While power is then a merely factual relation, authority is a legitimate relation of domination and subjection. Bierstedt (1964:79) describes authority as sanctioned power or institutional power. For Coleman (1997:32), in authoritative relations the right to command (and the probability of obedience) exists as a settled mutual expectation, independent of any specific person who occupies the office of manager, civil servant or army officer.

Weber (1958:1−11) differentiates between three (ideal) types of authority relations, namely traditional authority, charismatic authority and rational-legal authority. The first type, traditional authority, is a legitimate form of authority and grounds its legitimacy by reference to its connection to the past, and justifies its actions by claiming that they conform to precedents. Traditional authority tends to be conservative and intrinsically lacks any inner motor for social change. Traditional authority, which includes patrimonial, feudal and monarchical-bureaucratic regimes, has held sway over a large part of human history and of the earth’s surface. Statements such as ‘[a]s the ancients taught us’; ‘[a]s our originating sacred document declares’ and ‘[a]s the founding fathers saw’, are typical motifs and appeals within traditional authority systems. As we will see, traditional forms of authority never fully fade away. All authority rests on some variant of tradition or gets related back to it.

The second type of authority, charismatic authority, rests on the wisdom or even the sacred gifts of an extraordinary individual and his followers. The charismatic leader breaks with tradition: ‘You heard it said of old, but I say unto you’. From the vantage point of the beliefs of the charismatic leader and his or her followers, charismatic authority does not derive from the consent of the governed. The charismatic leader’s unusual gifts or direct conduit to God are regarded as compelling and self-justifying. In that sense, charismatic authority is non-rational (which does not mean irrational). The charismatic authority could break with authority that is based on traditions by an appeal to a higher power. Jesus is an example of a charismatic leader.

The final type of authority, rational-legal authority, is embodied in formal bureaucracy, the rule of law, the appeal to efficiency, and the rational fit between means and intended goals. Properly followed procedures displace the personal rule of charismatic authority (based mainly on witness and virtuosity) or the substantive traditions of traditional authority. Like charismatic change, rational-legal authority systems allow for social change, but unlike charismatic change, in rational-legal authority systems, change is orderly, incremental and constrained by procedure, law and scientific calculation. Indeed, Weber feared that this modern form of authority might become a kind of iron cage, devoid of spirit and radical possibility.

In sum, Coleman (1997:32) states that authority is legitimate power. Power need not be consensual; authority must be. He explains that a demagogue may, for example, exert power over groups of individuals whose motivations he or she manipulates, or actions he or she controls. In the same way, a dictator may cow (or even physically coerce) people into acquiescing to his or her commands. But the control of a manager over workers, of the civil servant over clientele, or of an army officer over soldiers, is authority.

Coleman (1997:33) warns that even legitimate power is never simply neutral or totally benign. There takes place, almost universally, a fusion of authority and mere power which can lead to or intensify intragroup conflicts. This fusion also serves to delegitimise authority when it is seen to exceed its bounds of legitimacy.

Why then would powerful people in authoritative positions move into negative directions? How can this be explained by the field of psychology?

In psychological science, power is defined as one’s capacity to alter another person’s condition or state of mind by providing or withholding resources such as food, money, knowledge and affection, or administering punishments such as physical harm, job termination or social ostracism (Keltner 2007).

Lehrer (2010) made an interesting remark when he wrote about the bad news of power. He says that once a person is at the top of the social ladder, he ends up morphing into a very different kind of beast. Why do people at the top, with authority and power, suddenly morph into beasts? Keltner (2017) says that when you give people power, they basically start acting like fools. Once people assume positions of power, they are likely to act more selfishly, impulsively and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view. Kelter did his own research and found that people with power tend to behave like patients who have damaged their brain’s orbitofrontal lobes (the region of the frontal lobes right behind the eye sockets) − a condition that seems to cause overly impulsive and insensitive behaviour. Thus, the experience of power might be thought of as having someone opening your skull and taking out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and socially appropriate behaviour. Keltner also refers to the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths.

Psychologists refer to this as the ‘paradox of power’. It means that the very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place, all but disappear once they rise to power (see Keltner 2007). According to Keltner (2007), this is a result of a damaged social intelligence.

The question why a person’s social intelligence is damaged, still remains unanswered. It could be an aspiration for superiority, as discussed by Alfred Adler (1979:29−40). While an aspiration for superiority can motivate you to work very hard, for some this aspiration can go wrong, and they may end up being arrogant and selfish, committing crimes and abusing power.

So why do people strive for superiority? Adler (1979:50−58) believes that some people might strive for superiority because of a sense of inferiority. What is also relevant in this argument is Adler’s personality types, especially the ruling type. People who belong to the ruling personality type are characterised early on by a tendency to be generally aggressive and dominant, and possess an intense energy that overwhelms anything or anybody who gets in their way.

The question regarding why a person with a ruling personality type (perhaps struggling with inferiority issues) would strive for superiority and abuse power, remains. My question is whether this is an obsession with greatness. What is present or absent in leaders’ lives that makes them obsessed with greatness? In the next section, Herod the Great will be studied to determine what brought out the beast in him.

Herod the Great is considered as an example of a person who abused his power. Riley (2003) refers to Herod the Great as one of the biblical examples of people who became corrupt when too much power was given to them. He says that Herod is an example of the abuse of power and authority that resulted in the corruption of his moral character.

Religion is found in all human societies. Throughout history, religion has continued to be a central part of societies and human experience, shaping how individuals react to the environment in which they live. Religion can shape what people think and how they see the world and themselves. Although not all religions share the same set of beliefs, I believe religion helps individuals to understand that there will always be transcendental powers beyond themselves. This realisation that there may be a higher power or powers greater than the self, I like to call ‘spiritual intelligence’.

In 2000, many scholars contributed to the spiritual intelligence debate. Emmons (2000a:3–26) asks the question: Is spirituality an intelligence? In the same journal, he wrote an article on the problems and prospects of spirituality and intelligence (Emmons 2000b:57–64). Gardner (2000:27–34) files a case against spiritual intelligence and Mayer (2000:47–56) argues that a spiritual consciousness is not necessarily a spiritual intelligence. Some scholars accepted the existence of such an intelligence and proceeded to work with it. George (2006:3–5), for example, writes on the practical application of spiritual intelligence in the workplace. Tipping (2006) wrote a book on spiritual intelligence at work. Scott (2017) wrote on psychology today, and asks once again: ‘Is spiritual intelligence a valid concept?’

Newberg et al. (2001:131−132) explain that religion promotes values and therefore it empowers the believer to alleviate stress by granting him or her a sense of control over an uncertain and terrifying world. It offers believers the assurance that their lives have meaning and purpose, that they are not alone in the struggle for survival. However, Cornelius (2014:591) argues that it is not religion as such that provides this power to believers; it only becomes a personal power once the individual makes it a personal choice. If religion is a system that provides the resources for living a good life, then spirituality is different in the sense that it is the process by which individuals recognise the importance of orienting their lives to something nonmaterial that is beyond and larger than themselves, with a dependence on a higher power (Martin & Carlson 1988:59). In this regard, Kheswa’s (2016:176) observation is significant: spirituality is the reason for believing, and religion is the way of believing. In other words, being spiritually intelligent makes a person realise that there is a higher power, and religion provides him or her with something to believe in. According to Cornelius (2014:593), being spiritually intelligent first of all implies that one recognises the existence of a god – the existence of a higher power.

Griffiths (2011–2018) defines spiritual intelligence as a higher dimension of intelligence that activates the qualities and capabilities of the authentic self in the form of wisdom, compassion, integrity, joy, love, creativity and peace. It results in a sense of deeper meaning and purpose combined with improvements in a wide range of important life skills and work skills.

Zohar (2000) discusses the principles of spiritual intelligence of which I would like to mention the following:

Being guided by values outside of yourself, trusting a higher power, valuing others and having compassion for others will never leave room for something like an obsession with greatness in your life. Thus, the absence of spiritual intelligence leads to an urge to control things yourself. We can thus conclude by saying that a form of religion can help those in leadership roles to limit themselves and not harm society.

Brkic (2010) asks the questions we all ask ourselves: How do we stop this growing abuse of power? How do we make sure we have a government that cares about our country and actually knows what to do about it? These could have been the same questions asked by the Jews under the authority of Herod the Great.

Kheswa (2016) refers to the misconception about leadership identified as the ‘destination myth’ by Maxwell (2002), namely that one will learn to lead when one reaches the top position. Successful leaders need to learn to lead before they have a leadership position. Kalunga-Banda (2008) writes that Nelson Mandela described power as a double-edged sword that can do harm as much as it can do good. The problem then is not how to use power, but how not to use power. We should therefore ask what is necessary in a leader for him or her to know how not to use power.

Kheswa (2016:83−85) shows that leading yourself is one of the greatest challenges of being a leader. Kheswa discusses the different keys to leading yourself. One of these keys is moral virtues, which provide the leader with a set of character strengths: wisdom, creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, integrity, humility, love, justice, mercy, hope and spirituality (to mention only a few). This is in line with Keltner’s (2016) thinking that compassion and selflessness are the two things that will enable us to have the most influence over others, and that the result will be power as a force for good in the world. In order for a society to vote for leaders, they will have to find those persons with a solid spiritual intelligence. That spiritual intelligence will help the individual to know and respect themselves and those around them. Such a person will develop a compassionate rather than an aggressive attitude, they will relate more deeply to the world around themselves, they will acquire a global vision, and they will see the bigger picture. Buzan (2001) says spiritual intelligence has the power to transform life, civilisation, the planet and the course of history.

I would conclude by saying that spiritual intelligence provides you with a reservoir of honesty and integrity – the good qualities necessary in a good leader who is not obsessed with his or her own greatness, who would not abuse power and harm society. And the entire world, is in need of leaders with such powers!