Leaders in the Times of Great Peril
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg , CA
Leadership is about leading, and not lecturing; it is about performing, and not in mere professing; it is in the serving and not in just surviving; it is about finding solutions and not mere passing resolutions; it is about bringing clarity, and not just creating parity; it is in the instinct, and not in being just distinct. Leadership is, thus, about knowing people, and not about mowing people. And as would ably say David Brinkley, a television journalist, leadership is about that successful man, “who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him”. Leadership is, thus, not about creating new hells; it is about leading people to get out of hell.
History is replete with such hours of trial that had tried harshly as well as mercilessly, both the leadership as well as the nation. Who can forget Thomas Paine’s electrifying words that he wrote in his, CRISIS, under the light of a campfire, “These are the times that try men’s souls… tyranny like hell is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph”.
The dawn of the American Independence became a sure possibility the moment these words fell on the ears of the defeated and dejected soldiers of George Washington in 1776 at Trenton.
Leaders in such moments of dejection and despair do not go on fox hunting expeditions, nor do they undertake foreign tours for photo-opt sessions. They bring in play their best by staying sleepless and half-starved (by losing appetite), and stay focused. They set aside politics, at least for the time being. Amy D. Bernstein in his beautiful article, “American Icons”, published in the special collector’s edition of US News, beautifully sums up a few such instances. This US News special issue “offers insights about why certain presidents, beginning with George Washington, were able to prevail in difficult times while others, such as Ulysses S. Grant- who like Washington, was elected after a brilliant military career - did not always succeed in governing as effectively…”. In his view, “in the mercurial world of politics, some individuals, by means of a mysterious inner alchemy, seem to develop almost magically the talents needed for a successful presidency…”
“In times of peril, one of the most important qualities of successful presidents is a coolheaded willingness to assume personal risk, ... Lincoln traveled to Washington for his inauguration even though that involved risk to his life… made speeches and extensive visits to battlefields and hospital to meet with common soldiers…. John F. Kennedy demonstrated great cool-headedness during the Cuban missile crisis… FDR’s fireside radio chats forged a bond with millions of Americans during depression and war”. Lincoln even appointed his worst adversary and chief rival as his secretary of state because under the circumstances he deemed him to be the fittest person. Cohesion rather than division was Lincoln’s chief objective.
“At other times, steadfastness of purpose was what was called for… George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson all governed in the uncertain early years of the republic… but they found the means to keep it whole: Washington largely by the force of his own personal prestige, Jefferson by his careful diplomacy, and Jackson by his personal heroism and charisma, along with his willingness to use force when necessary… each responded effectively to the pressing needs of his moment in history”. Lincoln did that relentlessly to defeat the secessionists in the civil war; FDR did that in the Second World War.
In Pakistan, the leaders of the two main political parties, and two former generals-cum-presidents, namely General Zia and General Musharraf have impacted altogether about 50% of the country’s history (1977-2009). They all have had their own times of peril and trial: General Zia had Russia moved in Afghanistan; Ms. Benazir and Mian Nawaz Sharif faced economic, political and ethnic turmoil as well as each other in two stints of their premiership; and General Musharraf confronted the menace of terrorism, combined with the absence of social cohesion during his over eight years of rule. How did these four leaders who usurped by force, design or chance the country’s 50% history act in the hours of trial that confronted them?
They all tried, but they all lacked the cool-headedness, willingness to risk their careers. General Zia created the monster of religious fanaticism in order to counter terrorism, knowing little that nations and civilizations taste their fall inevitably when religious intolerance begins to characterize them. His personal religious whims gave to Pakistan a bumper crop of religious fanatics. And they became conspicuous in all the institutions, including the army. To quote only the Muslim history, it happened to them so clearly in Spain; and it is happening to them right now. Ms. Benazir did not risk her political career to curb corruption or financial indiscipline in her government. As a solution, she either began touring foreign lands extensively, or began visiting the shrines for spiritual consolation at home. Hillary Clinton most assiduously tries to distance herself from her husband because she knows fully well her own merits.
Ms. Benazir was no less brilliant, but she could not extricate herself from the burden of father’s legacy or from her husband’s over zealousness to be everywhere. These two factors tragically impacted her intuitiveness from giving her leadership role a bold thrust. She had the vision and the talent, but surely not the zest to go full-throttled against corruption and injustice. Though being the head of a country, she thought it fit to assign herself the role of a secretary of state.
The turf could have been easier for Mian Nawaz Sharif to play effectively by not repeating what had initially triggered in the fall of Ms. Benazir. The man who had once given to the nation the concept of a free and liberal economy even before Manmohan Singh and president Salina of Mexico could venture, easily became entangled in the loop of his own ego and heavy mandate. Cronyism, corruption and inefficiency, combined with political maneuverings destroyed in him that knack of leadership which once had accomplished which had never before been achieved in Pakistan, namely, uniting those over a dozen branches of the Muslim league. People very keenly looked towards him because he had not hailed from the long line of feudal lords in the country’s politics. Somehow, he could never learn, or he was deliberately kept away from learning the basic lesson to patch up with the PPP and move on. Add to it the Musharraf syndrome, the ailment seems to have become more alarming.
In the fall of nations and people, the second sure ingredient after religious fanaticism and intolerance is the presence of arrogance. What is spared by the first two, gets destroyed by the third. There are no exceptions to this rule, be they the Romans; the British as colonists; or the United States of America as a sole Super Power after the fall of the Berlin wall, or Russia, India and China.
Then came General Musharraf wearing the robe of a messiah. Until October 1999, the country had been in turmoil on all fronts, except in the field of its sovereignty. At least there had been present a semblance of it within and outside the country. People like us greeted him, hoping he would prove wrong the history’s claim that one of its constants is that nobody ever learns any lessons from it. Instead of distancing himself from the former military dictators, he began taking them as his role models during the times of grave peril. Except for the first three years, his rule basically had been an extension of all the previous regimes, a struggle to survive by hook or by crook. Arrogance and love for absolute power ideally settled in his mind, giving him the same foolish feeling that once had become a part of President Ayub Khan’s psyche, which being, “What will happen to Pakistan if he were not there?”.
The country first time got a new nomenclature for its head, i.e. the Chief Executive; basically the country became a company like the Coca Cola or Microsoft overnight; it touched new nadirs when the General in his capacity as C-in-C imposed emergency against his own government. Even Somalia, Haiti and Nigeria would not think of doing such a low thing. Terrorists prospered as he never showed his resolve to go against them with Lincoln’s resolve during the civil war when he (Lincoln) used the fullest force against the southern secessionists, contenting that there was no room in the United States of America for two countries. The price the United States of America paid in order to stay as one country had been tremendous; but it was worth the sacrifice because it solved the problem once and for all. The Gentle Abe taught the difference between the provincial autonomy and treason to the 50 States so well that hardly any State in America can now ever think of doing what was once thought of by the tobacco and cotton growing Southern states.
But, never so in Pakistan. The green, black and white turban donning Taliban have had a hay day during Musharraf’s times. While the Holy Prophet of Islam “sweated with the effort to bring peace to war-torn Arabia… his life was a tireless campaign against greed, injustice, and arrogance. He realized that Arabia was at a turning point and that the old way of thinking would no longer suffice, so he wore himself out in the creative effort to evolve an entirely new solution”, wrote beautifully Karen Armstrong in her book Muhammad: A Prophet for our time. Our leadership in Pakistan, both religious as well as political, allowed tribalism and the tribal culture with all its allied vices of revenge, ignorance, exclusiveness, blood-shedding and intolerance to prosper, thrive and catch roots, not as vices, but as virtues, duly extolled by the members of the parliament, not on political forums, but on the floor of the House. Honor killing, rape, revenge, and the traditions of Vini etc, remained defended and protected under the name of respect for tribal culture.
All is not lost as yet. The Economist of July 25, 2009 is correct when it acknowledges that “ Pakistan’s generals have a rare victory to boast of”, by gaining control of the lofty Malakand region. General Ashfaq Kiyani deserves credit for it. Success comes to those who are sincere in their efforts. The country’s Supreme Court is trying to clear the muck that had accumulated in its corridors for so long. There is, however, much to worry about as well. The lawyers are finding it hard to adjust themselves with the newly won judicial freedom. Manhandling a camera man for exposing their excesses when some of them were found kicking and beating a police officer; or a civil judge complaining about their high-handedness as some of them confined him in his chamber and threatened him for life if he passed a verdict contrary to their wishes.
And now the incident of meting out the most inhuman treatment to Christian minorities in Gojra under the name of the desecration of the Qur’an. Over 450 target killings in Karachi alone, and of people burning government properties all over Punjab and Sindh. If these are not the times that try people’s souls, then what new perils are the people of Pakistan waiting for. It is a time for the leaders of Pakistan, not just to wake up, but to assume personal risks. Why would the PM or the CM take days to reach a place like Gojra, which is just three-and-a-half hour drive from Islamabad? Learn, if the need be from Rwanda how they accomplished social cohesion. May be Pakistan also needs a Gacaca type court system to dispense immediate justice.
On the other side of the border, India gets a new desk at the National Security Council, the second after Russia to be handled separately at the NSC. Not only this, India also completes its “triad for nuclear weapons-giving it the ability to deliver them from the air, ground-based mobile platforms and the sea”, as it launches its first nuclear sub built entirely in India, reports San Francisco Chronicle, on July 27, 2009. If India blinked at the Shermul Sheikh Conference by half-heartedly agreeing to talk to Pakistan, it was more due to its economic concerns, fearing lest further tensions with Pakistan should install its Foreign Direct Investments, than due to any other consideration.
Pakistan should not gloat over this little success by terming it as India’s defeat. Pakistan should go 100% against the terrorists, be they in Malakand, North Waziristan or South Waziristan, or those found directly linked behind the attacks in Mumbai. Once the sincerity in the effort is there, then it need not worry about what the world thinks. And the world is not blind. Trust and reliability, so essential behind all relations would follow as a natural consequence.
The country is passing through a phase that it has never passed through before. There is complete lack of good governance; and no political leader is coming forward with a clearly defined solution to such problems as: sectarian and ethnic violence; availability of power, water and justice in the earliest possible time-limit; relentless efforts to curb corruption and inflation; and immediate steps to attain self-reliance without which country’s sovereignty is a hollow slogan. The present ruling junta can be easily likened to a “bridegroom attired in an expensive outfit” that hardly fits him well. Columnist Ayaz Amir rightly calls the cabinet of ministers as “the most well-dressed” in the history of Pakistan. Leaders are not made by tailors; they are the product of intuition and vision. The nation is looking at the horizon for the appearance of such a leader, perhaps never before as keenly as it is now.
