November 07 , 2007

Leaders versus Leadership

One of the dilemmas of public life is that there are many leaders, but little leadership. Often, those in leadership positions do not possess leadership qualities.
The essence of genuine leadership is that during troubled times and pressure situations people look to leaders to lead them out of troubled waters. Churchill showed it when the Nazi juggernaut seemed unstoppable as it cut through Europe. De Gaulle showed it when – in the face of assassination attempts – he decided that France should quit Algeria. He gave a vision of greatness to his people and he did not mince words.
President Bush failed as a leader when after 9/11 he did not grasp the centrality of the Palestinian issue and instead launched military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. He failed to identify that it is foreign occupation that feeds extremism and is a key catalyst for suicidal nihilism.
In much of the Muslim world, the dilemma is deepened further when those sitting in chairs are not viewed with respect. The matter is not helped when the perception is created that all limits can be crossed in the pursuit and preservation of chairs. For the sake of chairs, they refuse to be insulted.
There is an illusion that change for the better occurs automatically with the passage of time. It does not. Things don’t get better unless they are made to get better. It gets better if there is a re-direction of priorities and values.
A surfeit of the inept and unscrupulous at the helm sends a devastating message to the youth that merit and integrity do not matter. It also means that there are fewer role models to emulate.
Those who are part of the problem cannot be a part of the solution. This is more apparent when those in positions of influence do not express the moral sense of the nation, especially so, when there is thirst for truth.
Predictably, over-talking and hyper-inflated claims are increasingly presented as a placebo for social ailments.
The fixation remains on the perks of leadership. But along with benefits come obligations. One of the concomitant obligations of leadership is that when you can’t do the job, you should leave the job for someone else to do.
The Musselmans of India were fortunate that, when it mattered, they had a leader of the caliber of the Quaid. His was a classic case of conviction politics, disdain for showmanship, and moral uprightness.
In 1943, the renowned British writer, Beverley Nichols, traveled to India where he met and interviewed the leading lights. It was the Quaid who left the deepest imprint on Nichols.
In his book, “Verdict on India,” an entire chapter, ‘Dialogue with a Giant,’ is devoted to the Quaid. In that document, the Quaid reveals his inspiring instinct for leadership and visionary genius in conceptualizing a Muslim homeland.
It is a must-read in the annals of leadership.
“I realized that something very remarkable was happening, or rather was not happening. I was not losing my temper. Jinnah had been almost brutally critical of British policy … but his criticism had been clear and creative. It was not merely a medley of wild words, a hotchpotch of hatred and hallucination … It was more like a diagnosis … he was a surgeon you could trust, even though his verdict was harsh.” …
QUAID: “The one thing which keeps the British in India is the false idea of a United India, as preached by Gandhi. A United India, I repeat, is a British creation — a myth, and a very dangerous myth, which will cause endless strife. As long as that strife exists, the British have an excuse for remaining. For once, in a way, ‘divide and rule’ does not apply.”
SELF: “What you want is ‘divide and quit’”?
QUAID: “You have put it very neatly.”
Beverley Nichols, “Verdict on India” (1944).