Telaah Kritis Kepemimpinan Profetik dalam Konteks Buddhisme (Sebuah Analisis Komparatif)

Abstract

This study conducts a critical evaluation and rigorous comparative analysis of the validity of using the term "prophetic leadership" in the context of Buddhism. This discourse arises from the global need for a strong moral compass amidst various crises, prompting the re-examination of spiritually-based leadership models. Fundamentally, prophetic leadership in the Abrahamic traditions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) is defined by a vertical authority rooted in divine revelation (theocentric), where the leader is a divinely appointed spokesperson. However, Buddhism, as a non-theistic tradition, does not acknowledge the concepts of revelation, prophets, or divine mandate as a source of legitimacy. The highest moral authority is the Dhamma (universal truth or law) accessed through personal Enlightenment and pure human effort. This fundamental difference creates a significant epistemological gap between the two frameworks. Through a comparative analysis of three core aspects Source of Authority (Revelation vs. Enlightenment), Nature of the Figure (Spokesperson vs. Exemplar/Servant), and Social Function (Enforcing Divine Will vs. Alleviating Suffering) this research concludes that the term "prophetic leadership" is a terminological error (misnomer) that is conceptually unjustifiable for Buddhism. Its adoption risks obscuring the essence of the teachings by imposing a theocentric category onto a tradition founded on self-development and pure ethical achievement. As a conceptual synthesis, this study proposes Dhamma-Based Leadership as a more accurate framework to describe the Buddhist leadership model. This model is rooted in the realization of the Dhamma, with its legitimacy based on Internal Qualities (self-control, the Dasa Raja Dhamma, and Brahmavihara) and an altruistic Function of Service (altruistic service) aimed at reducing suffering (dukkha). Historical figures like the Buddha as The Supreme Teacher and King Ashoka as Dhammaraja confirm that this model operates effectively without a basis in revelation. Theoretically, this research contributes to rectifying terminological confusion in cross-religious leadership studies. Practically, it offers a relevant moral framework for modern leaders, grounded in ethical principles, to confront challenges like corruption and inequality