Decision-making and leadership
The evolution of successful leadership fails mainly at the altar of integrity, one can only expect loyalty from one’s colleagues and subordinates if they either come to believe or to accept that you are in turn loyal to them. The barometer that must be is the perception of consensus, a mutual commitment being the crux of the integrity in the decision-making process that is the hallmark of successful leaders from the lowest rung right up the measuring scale. At any level of governance it is the confidence of the people in the depth of their leader’s commitment in reciprocity that marks the difference between success and failure. The people must believe that the leaders will make decisions that are in keeping with their wishes and in their best interests. Even when personal integrity is unquestionable, the public becomes generally cynical about the overwhelming influence that outside forces exercise on their leader’s decision-making powers. In practical terms very few leaders are resilient enough to ward off special interests, they can almost never put their personal ambitions and interest subservient to the extraneous interests of the nation.
The acid test of a leader lies in taking decisions purely in the national interest. While we cannot hope for Utopia and must accept that ideals are rarely synonymous with earthy logic and must give way to pragmatic considerations, real-politik has to cater to the general good rather than the narrow interests of a few. When decisions are only made on the advice of a handful and/or even one dominant individual, it must be measured against the general public good. If it passes mass cynosure without doubt one may as well accept it but if it falls within the realm of doubt and controversy even if it is made in good faith, then the responsibility of having failed to measure upto the public’s faith must lie on the leaders. Sometimes dictatorship is essential for a fractured and/or disintegrating society but it cannot overcome public cynicism unless public perception takes it to be in the greater public interest.
Perhaps the greatest example in modern times of integrity in the decision-making process is that of Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa. He first successfully negotiated a practical arrangement for co-existence with then President Pik Botha, thus successfully and without violence dismantling the last remaining temple of apartheid in Africa. In the agreement arrived at there were a number of compromises that were unacceptable to the African National Congress (ANC) rank and file, yet so compelling were Mandela’s arguments and so sincere his motivation that not only the ANC but also Pik Botha’s whites came to believe that the compromises made were in their best interest. While there have been disagreements over the last three years, Mandela’s policy has stayed on course and therefore given credibility to his actions and motives. In the celebrated case of his ex-wife Winnie Mandela, he has not interceded at any time in the criminal actions against her. Recently he had given over the Presidency of the ANC to his Deputy as announced and on time in keeping with his schedule. One can have no doubt that he will step down as President of South Africa as committed by him in 1999. The net result has been that South Africa has not gone down the drain the way of Zaire, Angola and other African Republics who turned away from their white population to absolute disaster, continuing even today to haemorrhage in many cases. In sum, Mandela overcame his own narrow interests and that of his following for the greater good of the community and the nation.
Democracies are supposed to have a built-in check and balance against dictatorial tendencies. At the grassroots level are the Local Bodies that run local governments providing administration for the citizen at his (or her) doorstep. There are the district administrators, going up the ladder to the elected representatives at the provincial and national assemblies. It can be argued that other than the Opposition, contrary opinion is available at every rung of the ladder of democracy, that it starts as an individual voice but gathers momentum as a group as it swells. If in balance this dissent is not enough to overcome those who acquiesce to all decisions without question of propriety, then the larger force must prevail as is the essence of democracy. However, mature leadership will even then strive to achieve some sort of consensus in order to give credibility to the proposal. Not to say that consensus is an absolute requirement, if it can be arrived at, it is a bonus.
Given that consensus sometimes may be a luxury that one can do without, what about the advice and consent of one’s closest colleagues? While every decision cannot become the subject of debate, it is important that major decisions be made only after the colleagues managing the political party or at least manning the Federal Cabinet make their advise known. It is to be expected that the initial process will be debated by the “inner circle” of the leader and that after due process it will be placed in front of the next higher body for debate and decision. For the leader it is very important that he chooses the members of his “inner circle” with care, taking extra care that he does not pack it with “yes men”. More often than not, a free debate in confidence with his (or her) close associates will enable a leader to arrive at a correct decision, one which will enable him to have marshalled arguments in its favour in order to convince his cabinet colleagues as well as members of his party’s managing forum, so that they in turn can explain the logic to the masses. In this he should be very careful to sift the personal motives of his colleagues, particularly those who could be influenced by external forces, for whatever motives. Except for the announcement about Justice Tarar as the Presidential candidate, there have been major leaks at the top of the PML hierarchy over the last 4 years. Where have all these leaks come from, it has to be someone paid out of intelligence estimate? In essence the integrity of the decision-making process will be the perfect barometer of success or failure and that integrity can only be ensured by having a consensus among the senior cabinet colleagues, if not the entire cabinet for major decisions, particularly that which will be subject to public perceptions.
Pakistan is no different from other Third World countries in the evolution of its decision-making. Theoretically we have a sustained argumentative process that helps us arrive at decisions without fear and/or favour. In practical terms we take decisions without really studying the full ramifications and then spend our time defending the integrity of and the sincerity behind the decision. This is not confined to Mian Nawaz Sharif or Ms Benazir Bhutto, it is an infectious affliction that pervades through the broad spectrum of almost our entire leadership after the Quaid-e-Azam. The other thing that we do after taking a wrong or controversial decision is to try and justify the decision, thereby compounding the problems and further complicating one’s credibility. Everyone knows that Justice Rafiq Tarar’s candidacy for President was the choice of the elder Sharif. Even if the candidacy is potent given PML’s overwhelming majority in Pakistan, an in-house debate within PML’s senior hierarchy could have been used as a pressure group instead of falling back and having to defend the PML candidate. Opinion could have been coalesced and the rather stunned and collective dazed look could have been avoided.
To compare Mian Sahib to his predecessors is to compare apples with oranges, we had great expectations in him? Similarly the PML senior members of hierarchy are head and shoulders over its counterpart PPP and its coalition, both with respect to integrity and motivation. Then why is there doubt in their credibility and motivation? There is a general ring of honest purpose about many of the policies of the PML, then why is Mian Nawaz Sharif in constant crisis, particularly one seriously affecting his sincerity and credibility? The public perception that carried the PM past December 2, 1997 can be fickle if the integrity of the decision-making process is seen to be eroded and personally motivated. While Justice Rafiq Tarar is a tragedy that will play itself out in the near future, for Mian Nawaz Sharif to re-assert his leadership, he has to make the decision-making process credible and that can only be done by bringing the perception of integrity into the whole system, not only the decision-making process.
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