Leadership in Pakistan
By Dr Ghayur Ayub
London, UK
I read somewhere that once someone asked Mohammad Ali Jinnah how flexible could he become on his demand for Pakistan? He took out his handkerchief and spread it on the table. Then he uttered with absolute commitment to accept a Pakistan even if it was just the size of that handkerchief. He asserted that Pakistan was the need of Indian Muslims irrespective of how big or how small it may be.
This was a pledge of a leader who was committed to his cause like a statesman. History shows that if he had acted like a politician in those uncertain days of untold pressures; there would have been no Pakistan today.
What was it about him that attracted Muslims from all walks of life? No doubt, it was his statesmanship, leadership and commitment to the cause that magnetized the illiterate tribesmen from the north to the Karachite elite of the south.
According to the general perception, a statesman is usually a politician with a long career in politics. The term is used by his supporters as a sign of respect. Aristotle explained differently when he stated, "What the statesman is most anxious to produce is a certain moral character in his fellow citizens, namely a disposition to virtue and the performance of virtuous actions." Harry S. Truman called a statesman a politician who's been dead for 15 years. According to Henry Kissinger a statesman bridges the gap between experience and vision.
As for the leadership; there is fine behavioral similitude between humans and primates. For example, chimpanzees share a similar tendency with humans in behaviors such as violence, territoriality, and competition. Like most humans, they unite behind one male chief of the land. As opposed to this; Bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of man, do not unite behind the male chief. If leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the Bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership.
Some have argued that this inverted pattern in behavior has created genetic gender bias in humans against women having leadership as a position of authority. This trend changed in 20th century when females became leaders in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Sweden, Andorra, Israel, and Sierra Leone. Pakistan became unique that in spite of opposition from a strong clergy, the public accepted Benazir Bhutto as their leader.
According to Thomas Carlyle, leadership emerges when an entity as "leader" contrives to receive deference from other entities who become "followers". The process of getting deference can become competitive in that the emerging "leader" draws "followers" from the factions of the prior or alternative "leaders". He further says that in majority of cases the traditional closed groups rely on bloodlines or seniority to select leaders and leadership candidates. This practice is common in Pakistan where the beradri system and familial leanings have become part of politics.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, several politicians took non-traditional paths to play a dominant role in societies. They believed in strong individual leadership. In this respect James Macgregor Burns introduced a normative element that a leader will unite followers in a shared vision that will improve a society at large. He said a real leadership was the one that delivered true value, integrity, and trust, distinguishing it from a leadership that builds power by doing whatever will get more followers. Musharaf can be bracketed in the latter group. He should take a lesson from Nyerere of Tanzania, whose policies failed like his, but was big enough to know that the presidency in itself did not make him who he was. He walked away from his presidency and retired to sit under the trees in his Shamba and enjoyed family life. He knew that the most powerful thing he could do was to give up power. Instead, Musharaf is following Kenyatta of Kenya, who stayed in office knowing that he was no longer the power he used to be. We all know what happened to him in the end.
Burns suggested that "leaders" must communicate their vision to their "followers" in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Such leaders must not just see the vision themselves; they must have the ability to get others to see it also. We see Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto coming pretty close to this concept. On the other hand, Stacey (1992) mentions that the emphasis on vision not only puts an unrealistic burden on the leader but it also perpetuates a myth that people must depend on a single, uncommonly talented individual. This produces a culture of dependency in which followers take no pro-active incentives thus creating leadership vacuum.
Some leaders build coalitions, binding political parties around leaderships as presently seen between Zardari and Nawaz. Others depend on rapport with the masses standing in the front-line of offence battling for their cause. Imran Khan, (though he is known to be dictatorial in running his party) or Javed Hashmi (he is shifting away from traditional party discipline) or Aitzaz Ahsan (he is riding two horses running in opposite directions) or Qazi Hussain Ahmad (he is known for giving unfulfilled threats to governments) can be counted in this fold.
Then, there is the question of commitment. We hardly see a politician in Pakistan who doesn’t boast to be committed to his cause. The question is: are they really committed to what they say? You find them nodding their heads in obedience and making promises in front of their leaders, but more often than not fail to fulfill them. Nawaz Sharif once jokingly mentioned that he found himself standing alone after some of his colleagues deserted him despite a promise that they would follow him all the way.
In my opinion, a leader with statesmanship is like a rock which doesn’t collapse under pressure while a politician is like a balloon which collapses at one end popping up from another end changing his positions on important issues. Most leaders in Pakistan belong to the latter group. I believe a true leader is a person who has philosophical foresight, spiritual insight and the determination of a rock. He knows his goal, the paths which lead to that goal and the hurdles which are laid on the path to stop him reaching there. He struggles tirelessly with sheer determination to overcome the hurdles and reach the goal. How many political leaders do we see in Pakistan that fit these criteria?
Your guess is as good as mine. All I can say is, barring one or two; we see them as half-empty glasses posing to be half-filled. Some even pose to be philosophical with a spiritual-looking grin on their faces. What a shame!
