There are a lot of clubs that are very intriguing for students to join in. However, it is usually perceivable that the leader of the club, who takes the absolutely highest charge of the entire community, forces other participants to follow his or her instruction unconditionally. This phenomenon is very popular among the entire campus atmosphere, though a lot of students feel disgusted by the leader’s oligarchical will.
Generally, clubs are groups that contain certain members with similar interests to conduct such things that are very distinctive. Of course, they should not be considered as companies because they are not so relationship-based. But nowadays, many clubs in campus are acting like that, appalling a lot of potentially personalists to take part in the job. It is true that a personalist leader could be acclaimed by its mere ability to organize the entire club well, but this kind of ideology should not be perpetuated even in the campus community. Or I may consider them as caring too much about their fame and reputation.
Some cases are, obviously, that personalist leaders could lead the clubs into huge success. As we know about such reputed clubs for their grandiose works done by the entire staff, and those crafts are not solely created by the leaders, but by their fellows. The leaders just need to make some rumors or vocally decorate the entire clubs. But what about the common? They could only listen carefully to the leader’s dogma, ensuring their works are not intended to interest themselves, but to interest their leaders. Isn’t this a kind of humanitarian terrorism? Maybe the clubs could be famous for their production, but I’m sure that their members are not glad at seeing such effortless personalist leader being reputed by a lot of people who get acquainted with the clubs. Members need freedom, too.
A club shall be a place for students to take more charges on, regardless of what positions the participants are in. By doing this, the clubs may be more active in developing their professions and get more access to various resources because most of the members are willing to do jobs. Also, people make mistakes; it is less risky to let a lot people to have commissions about the plans rather than to make a leader directly command an army to recklessly fight for clubs themselves. It is more joyful for all the members being reputed if such a club like this get famous. Generally said, “Rose given, fragrance in hands.” If we get conscious about the development of clubs, it should be clear that certain club should not be filled with so many hierarchies, and students should take their full determination to get the clubs more efficient in order to fulfill their own interests.