March 02 , 2007

Miscast

One of the striking features of modern public life is the refusal of public figures to get embarrassed. In movie director David Lean’s epic “A Passage to India”, based on the novel of EM Forster, the main protagonist, Dr. Aziz, is accused of attempting to molest an English lady. There is a trial and Dr. Aziz is exonerated and honorably acquitted of all charges. But then, Dr. Aziz decides to quit the town because he cannot endure the embarrassment of having been put unfavorably in the public spotlight.
During the closure of World War II, many members of Hitler’s inner circle and senior officers of the Japanese Imperial Army took their own lives because they could not stomach the humiliation of debacle and defeat. When Israel trounced the Egyptian armed forces in June 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser took responsibility and submitted his resignation. Millions took to the streets, urging him to take back his resignation.
There are honorable examples in Pakistan also. When the Pakistan Cricket Team lost the Test series 2-0 during its 1979-1980 tour of India, the then Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Lt. Gen. K M Azhar, took responsibility and resigned. But that was then and this is now. According to the late Farooq Mazhar, it is the Pakistani sportsmen who have provided the few moments of national joy. Recently, Pakistan’s hockey team, which is a four-time World Cup winner, lost to hockey-minnow China at the Asian Games at Doha, deepening further the public’s mood of disillusionment over the mismanagement of national affairs.
US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is refusing to say she is sorry for initially supporting the attack and invasion of Iraq, maintaining that it is President George Bush’s mistake, not hers. It is as if using one’s own independent judgment is of no consequence for a candidate aspiring for the highest office. What then is leadership?
There seems to be an acute deficit in pride, principles, and passion. All too often, there is the sorry spectacle of people either pursuing or being chosen for positions for which they are clearly ill-equipped to handle.
Bloated ‘delegations’ continue to be sent abroad, generally cutting a sorry figure and that, too, at state expense. The unfettered pursuit of perks, privileges, and patronage has taken its toll. It sends a despondent message to the youth that, for the elders in charge, integrity and ability do not matter.
When the messenger is not credible, can the message be taken seriously or considered legitimate?
What is missing, however, is what Hazrat Ali called the imperative to do what is right.
A standard excuse is pragmatism. Thus far, over-sold have been the virtues of taking advantage of opportunities, but perhaps not enough about the damage done by so-called pragmatism. The benefits of pragmatism are often revealed, while the damage done by pragmatism is mostly concealed. In the pursuit of the path of pragmatism, what is sometimes bypassed is taking the right route. What it does is that it enfeebles combative tenacity and is a precursor for a meek mind-set. Left unchecked, pragmatism can easily morph into timidity and over-compromise.
Soft excuses are not a substitute for concrete results. The inept continue to remain exempt. The basic principle boils down to this: if you can’t do the job, then make way for someone who can. If one approach has failed, the answer lies not in staying the course, but in changing policy and personnel.
To be fair, it is not entirely the fault of those actors miscast in their roles. More accurately, the responsibility lies at the doors of the directors who selected them for the roles. Until those responsible are held responsible, positions acquired shall continue to be taken for granted and be protected by cronyism.
There is a compelling need for a breakthrough in outlook and approach. Perhaps a pill or a bill is needed to restore the good old-fashioned sense of shame.