Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.
This is why we require consensus within Core. That's distributed enough. Hearn on the other hand does not like the idea of consensus, but rather one of a dictator. We have enough implementations at the moment. If we had more we'd stall the development even further.
I think it is pretty much impossible to have consensus with the ones believing 1MB is perfect and wait for the fee market to develop. Democracy solves this problem by force to make minority content, but in trully free enviroment where you have no power to force minority to accept majority consensus, the best way is ignore the minority and go its way. The idea of multiple scaling client interpretations + the unchanged 1MB core and let people+business+miners choose what wins should be done after no wide consensus is found soon how to face the scaling problem imo.