Crisis in leadership – selecting persons without substance
Pakistan’s major inherent problem has been a continuing crisis in leadership over the decades. The quality of our leaders have tended to be generally poor (and where above the average, intermittent), with commensurate effect on the socio-economic fabric of the nation. Of particular concern has been the constant erosion of character at the highest level, a structural weakness that has permeated down the ladder till it is all-pervasive and is eating away at the foundations of the country. Unless we can rectify the situation expeditiously we will keep down sliding further into the corruption morass that is rapidly becoming an inherent part of our society.
We are always subjected to great rhetoric about honesty and integrity from either side of the political fence. The unfortunate problem is that morality in the higher leadership of both sides is open to question, some of them have the gall to tell blatant lies in covering up their excesses. Over the years the fundamental integrity of our leadership cadre and the national institutions has been so weakened that they do not inspire any general confidence among the intelligentsia or the masses. Democracy was to be the wonder medicine, the panacea that would cure all ills, the only difference with authoritarian rule has been that threat of media exposure has made corruption more sophisticated and the corrupt more circumspect, even that is a boon, thank God for small favours.
The evolution of political leadership differs from that emerging in the administrative or military circles. Politicians are chosen by the people, like in most democracies, the exercise is one of money (and tall promises) freely used to channelise the people’s mandate to “favourite” aspirants. Given the general illiteracy, all this along with charisma subverts the democratic process. The usual competition in the rural areas is between local competing landlords, the more powerful on election day becoming successful, the end desire being more power, a matter of life and death in certain regions of Pakistan. The increasing cost of election campaigns has caused the corruption meter to register a commensurate increase in order to offset the “investment.” The elections to the Senate are a symbolic reference point where the electors being few, a market auction of votes is generally suspected, generic name “horse trading”. The few short years of democratic freedom, 19 years out of the total of 44, may have been like a breath of fresh air, is now being thoroughly polluted in a welter of corruption, a tragedy magnified many times over for the nation. Not that every political party in the country does not have a vast majority of dedicated political workers, the sacrifice and selflessness of the overwhelming mass of sincere, honest citizens is being washed away at the altar of greed and convenience of the elected and “selected” few. This great reservoir of goodwill is being dissipated by the frustrations of the electorate. The voting public has generally become more discerning, leaders are now held accountable for promises they cannot keep. If elections could be kept reasonably fair, the masses would vote those with false pretences or making false promises out of power regularly, that is the democratic way of ensuring a corruption-free society.
It is in the bureaucratic and military circles that the calibre of leadership becomes of crucial importance. Unfortunately the masses have nothing to do with their selection and promotion, thus this elite remains morally contemptuous of the electorate and suffers their needs and/or complaints badly, being completely insensitive to the mass aspirations. In Pakistan’s 44 years, those who have benefited most have been bureaucrats and their businessman cronies. In the description of bureaucrats one includes some of the military elite who live in palatial retirement in splendour having made money during martial laws or lucrative Defence procurement contracts, completely out of proportion in ratio to the salaries and pensions earned by them. Those living in honest retirement are usually those with limited budgets which barely allows them to eke out a miserable but honourable retirement existence in a solitary house made out of their hard-earned life’s earnings.
The major problem with the progressive development of political leadership has been intermittence forced by the stop-starts faced by democracy in Pakistan at the hands of Martial Law. The leadership in the administrative cadre, whether civil and military, has been full of aberrations itself, prime among them the promotion of people known for their moral turpitude to higher rank. Selection of the right individuals to important leadership positions has thus become of crucial importance to the nation. Poor countries cannot afford poor leaders through the whole political and administrative spectrum. It will take two or three elections before a sound political leadership cadre comes to the fore, however one can target the selection and procedures (and the qualifications thereof) for civil and military promotions, particularly to the higher echelons. It would be more pertinent to focus on prime requisites among the necessary qualities necessary in our higher leadership, it being understood that the professional capabilities must be present which taken together form the basic parameters for upward mobility. The most important factor in selecting an individual for higher promotion must be his moral uprightness, honesty and integrity are synonymous with this attributes.
As the individual climbs up the ladder of hierarchy, his character qualities should come under total scrutiny because they have an effect on those around him. Normally the benefit of doubt is given to the individual, in this case the benefit of the doubt must go to the nation. Promoting people of suspect character to higher rank for whatever other consideration amounts to a conspiracy against the future of the nation, a Catch-22 cycle that we cannot seem to break out of, resulting in degradation of our once proud institutions.
The civil and military establishments have developed elaborate promotion procedures into an exact science but despite whatever is publicly proclaimed, the promotion procedure degenerates to one of personal preferences. Some of the officers are so outstanding all around that they literally pick themselves, the problems arise with the two or three that do manage to slip through on the basis of sponsoring by their respective Godfathers. This is hardly strange, since some of those sitting of the Board may have come along the same route. Generally the system works as well as it has been working over the past few decades. The problem arises not in the vast majority of problems or supersessions but in the few cases where a couple of people who should not even be considered for promotion are promoted despite their obvious shortcomings, moral and/or professional and conversely some who should be promoted because of their all-round moral and professional competence do not gain the next higher rank because they do not bend their honesty and integrity before unlawful authority. Unfortunately the controversial cases subvert the integrity of the system.
Promotion to the rank of Major General in any Third World Country makes the lucky individual a senior member of the ruling elite. Even if a person fulfils all the professional requirements of promotion, professional competence, courage and man-management, there may still be elements of doubt about his character. It is unimaginable that we should allow doubts about honesty, integrity, etc to slip through the screening procedure. We may give lip-service to Islamic Laws but if the person has been indiscreet enough to be labelled a drunkard or a womanizer, do we have the moral right to promote him? Are we not fostering a potential Yahya Khan on the nation? Given the right circumstances, an effective lobby and Pakistan’s inherent bad luck in this aspect, that may not be a far out possibility. Do we play a form of Pakistani roulette, giving the benefit of doubt to the individual or to the nation?
Another Brigadier may have been professionally competent and extremely honest, a man whose character and capabilities are so flawless that all that know him speak highly of him. Dedicated and fair, he may be unanimously proclaimed as a credit to the Army as an institution. However, this Brigadier may have one glaring fault, operating on the strength of honest logic he will not bend any rules to suit those in higher authority who may not want to circumvent them for personal gain. While being punctiliously correct as a subordinate, he will not curry any favour with his superiors by giving ground on various debatable issues. His moral uprightness may be so pronounced that even those who may have suffered from his inflexibility eulogise him. Unfortunately our system is so flawed that nine times out of ten, the Brigadier with dubious moral character will get promoted while the other who stands his ground on moral uprightness will not. Here we send a set of wrong signals down the line and all around. One Brigadier robbed a Government Treasury or two and then went onto promotions to the rank of Lieutenant General where he made greater glory and more money illegally for himself. He was professionally competent, courageous and personable. He is living now in palatial splendour off his ill-gotten gains, a living symbol of corruption to those that know him, an example that crime does pay! What the nation has had to bear because of Yahya Khan’s indiscretions once he had ascended up the country’s ladder needs no elucidation, failing to get any benefit out of his known professionalism we had to absorb grievously the backlash from his moral lapses. Superiors always see one face of a dual personality, the best Annual Confidential Reports can only come from subordinates who see the real image. Perhaps it is time to start at the higher level the Mutual Assessment Scheme that was so useful in the Military Academy to judge the Cadets real face through the eyes of his colleagues to find the real image of a person.
Justice starts with one man, if the system cannot be honest about one or two evaluations, how can we stand as judge and jury over the country’s shortcomings? It is no use giving lip-service while following varying standards, it is no use having elaborate selection procedures if we are going to compromise on the human element of it. In this we are not only fooling ourselves but we are subjecting the nation to possible detriment in the future. Whether it be the Services or the civil bureaucracy, promotion to higher rank becomes of crucial importance to the future of the country, fudging the moral standards to suit personal preferences is a national disgrace that our present leaders will have to live with.
Unfortunately we shall be doomed to a continuing crisis in leadership as a nation.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment