Dawood Ibrahim
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Pakistan is a case study of how misunderstood and misapplied the concept of leadership is. The country and most of its institutions have never really grown beyond the individuals who govern them.
By:
Andleeb Abbas
04-Dec-16
495
495
One can be a CEO and not be a leader; one can be a President and not be a leader; one can be a commander and not be a leader. That is a reality that is witnessed day in and day out. Leadership is the most talked about, yet the least understood and applied concept. What is most visible is the association of leadership with power and power with a position. Thereby, the position becomes all important factor to become a leader. The debate about needing a particular environment conducive to producing an influential leader is endless. Another debate is whether strong leaders create healthy institutions or do they become so important that their exit makes the institutions fragile. This discourse has been going on for centuries, but there are certain common principles that have emerged to enable understanding the complexity of these philosophies.
Pakistan is a case study of how misunderstood and misapplied the concept of leadership is. The country and most of its institutions have never really grown beyond the individuals who govern them. These institutions are thus always subject to the will and whim of the people heading them. Over time we have seen institutions go through volatile and uneven progress. State institutions have flourished or perished depending on how they are governed, which depends on how their rules and policies are respected and followed. In many institutions like NADRA and FBR, the fortunes of the institutions have fluctuated with the change of guard at the top. However, one institution that has established its credentials over a period is the armed forces of Pakistan. It has been known for its performance, its systems and its discipline. These qualities combined with the military power has in the history of our country made them over power governments and assumed the all-powerful role. This history has invited all types of admiration and criticism in the past. From Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan to Zia-ul-Haq, dictatorial rules have created a huge doubt of intent on the desire of army as an all-purpose institution. Thus military, in the past, had become a symbol of unspoken fear, apprehension and unease in the country.
Then came the return to democracy. Democracy failed to deliver, and both main political parties got two turns to prove themselves but could not perform. Army as an institution has this ability to be better at organisation and Musharraf riding on the governance gap of the democratic governments stepped in to oust democracy. However, his own addiction to power led him to compromise with the very people he had come to cleanse. Musharraf did massive damage to the image of the army, and it developed a perception as power raiders who destroy democratic principles. He did everything that a leader should not do. He promised elections within 90 days and went on for nine years; he promised accountability of politicians and let them escape the country. He imposed emergency and signed an NRO with them to let them come back. He became an ally in the War on Terror of US that made Pakistan become the base of terrorism. This reinforced the image of the army as a power hungry institution bent upon shredding the constitution of Pakistan.
When PPP won the 2008 elections, the new army Chief Ashfaq Kayani was treated with scepticism. The fact that he did not interfere with the government did little to improve the image of armed forces as an institution. He was seen as a Musharraf’s protégé who would promise to put Pakistan first but in the end put himself first. To his credit goes the Swat operation but to his discredit goes the tainted allegations of corruption and nepotism in land deals. He was also seen as a placid general who compromised on many things in exchange for an extension of his tenure. The controversy of how his extension was sponsored by General Petraeus did not make him larger than his position. Add to that the US raid of the Obama Bin Ladin compound in Abbottabad right under the nose of the army reflected poorly on the performance of the institution.
With this image, entered Raheel Sharif. And it was evident that he was not just a COAS but a leader. A leader sets the direction and vision. Raheel Sharif immediately announced a paradigm shift by saying the country is facing “existential threat from the internal enemy.” He resolutely focused on the Zarb-e-Azb and used his influence to make the reluctant political parties agree to it. If ever there was a man who led from the front it was him—be it leading the Army Public School response to terrorists, being the first leader to welcome students back to the school, visiting victims in hospitals, paying condolences, visiting every bomb blast area—he was there giving a message of standing with them. He was a great inspiration for the men in uniform at all levels. On every Eid, he would prefer to spend Eid with his troops in Waziristan and all the remote areas. He was a man of resolve and commitment. His interest in the National Action Plan and its inability to be implemented fully was visible as he would chair most of the meetings and despite being a man of few words commented on the lack of governance making the National Action Plan less efficient. Karachi operations are a proof of the focus on eliminating the internal enemy.
One of the tests of leadership is how he leads by example. A leader has to first of all make himself accountable. The army has been blamed for being a holy cow that cannot be taken to task. Raheel Sharif was the first army chief who initiated a process of accountability of 6 senior army officers and brought them to trial for corruption. A leader’s test comes on how he handles his popularity. In every survey Raheel Sharif has been rated above all political party leaders. There was this whole story of how he will step in during political clashes and cash upon his popularity to take over the country as many of his predecessors had done in the past, or, he will negotiate with the government to stay away in exchange for an extension. Not so, proved Raheel Sharif. As a leader, he showed that he was a man of integrity and till his last kept on leading with precision and professionalism.
The final test of a great leader is how many leaders he has produced in his successors who could carry the mission forward. There is unfinished business. The continuation of Karachi operations, starting operations in Punjab and the implementation of NAP are some of the areas that will determine that whether the Malacca cane baton stick Raheel Sharif has handed over to General Qamar Javed Bajwa carries this legacy to its destiny.
The writer is a columnist and analyst and can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com
http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/04-Dec-16/the-man-behind-the-baton
@SherDil007 @war&peace @GreenFalcon @Indus Falcon @Morse_Code @PakSword
By:
Andleeb Abbas
04-Dec-16
495
495
One can be a CEO and not be a leader; one can be a President and not be a leader; one can be a commander and not be a leader. That is a reality that is witnessed day in and day out. Leadership is the most talked about, yet the least understood and applied concept. What is most visible is the association of leadership with power and power with a position. Thereby, the position becomes all important factor to become a leader. The debate about needing a particular environment conducive to producing an influential leader is endless. Another debate is whether strong leaders create healthy institutions or do they become so important that their exit makes the institutions fragile. This discourse has been going on for centuries, but there are certain common principles that have emerged to enable understanding the complexity of these philosophies.
Pakistan is a case study of how misunderstood and misapplied the concept of leadership is. The country and most of its institutions have never really grown beyond the individuals who govern them. These institutions are thus always subject to the will and whim of the people heading them. Over time we have seen institutions go through volatile and uneven progress. State institutions have flourished or perished depending on how they are governed, which depends on how their rules and policies are respected and followed. In many institutions like NADRA and FBR, the fortunes of the institutions have fluctuated with the change of guard at the top. However, one institution that has established its credentials over a period is the armed forces of Pakistan. It has been known for its performance, its systems and its discipline. These qualities combined with the military power has in the history of our country made them over power governments and assumed the all-powerful role. This history has invited all types of admiration and criticism in the past. From Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan to Zia-ul-Haq, dictatorial rules have created a huge doubt of intent on the desire of army as an all-purpose institution. Thus military, in the past, had become a symbol of unspoken fear, apprehension and unease in the country.
Then came the return to democracy. Democracy failed to deliver, and both main political parties got two turns to prove themselves but could not perform. Army as an institution has this ability to be better at organisation and Musharraf riding on the governance gap of the democratic governments stepped in to oust democracy. However, his own addiction to power led him to compromise with the very people he had come to cleanse. Musharraf did massive damage to the image of the army, and it developed a perception as power raiders who destroy democratic principles. He did everything that a leader should not do. He promised elections within 90 days and went on for nine years; he promised accountability of politicians and let them escape the country. He imposed emergency and signed an NRO with them to let them come back. He became an ally in the War on Terror of US that made Pakistan become the base of terrorism. This reinforced the image of the army as a power hungry institution bent upon shredding the constitution of Pakistan.
When PPP won the 2008 elections, the new army Chief Ashfaq Kayani was treated with scepticism. The fact that he did not interfere with the government did little to improve the image of armed forces as an institution. He was seen as a Musharraf’s protégé who would promise to put Pakistan first but in the end put himself first. To his credit goes the Swat operation but to his discredit goes the tainted allegations of corruption and nepotism in land deals. He was also seen as a placid general who compromised on many things in exchange for an extension of his tenure. The controversy of how his extension was sponsored by General Petraeus did not make him larger than his position. Add to that the US raid of the Obama Bin Ladin compound in Abbottabad right under the nose of the army reflected poorly on the performance of the institution.
With this image, entered Raheel Sharif. And it was evident that he was not just a COAS but a leader. A leader sets the direction and vision. Raheel Sharif immediately announced a paradigm shift by saying the country is facing “existential threat from the internal enemy.” He resolutely focused on the Zarb-e-Azb and used his influence to make the reluctant political parties agree to it. If ever there was a man who led from the front it was him—be it leading the Army Public School response to terrorists, being the first leader to welcome students back to the school, visiting victims in hospitals, paying condolences, visiting every bomb blast area—he was there giving a message of standing with them. He was a great inspiration for the men in uniform at all levels. On every Eid, he would prefer to spend Eid with his troops in Waziristan and all the remote areas. He was a man of resolve and commitment. His interest in the National Action Plan and its inability to be implemented fully was visible as he would chair most of the meetings and despite being a man of few words commented on the lack of governance making the National Action Plan less efficient. Karachi operations are a proof of the focus on eliminating the internal enemy.
One of the tests of leadership is how he leads by example. A leader has to first of all make himself accountable. The army has been blamed for being a holy cow that cannot be taken to task. Raheel Sharif was the first army chief who initiated a process of accountability of 6 senior army officers and brought them to trial for corruption. A leader’s test comes on how he handles his popularity. In every survey Raheel Sharif has been rated above all political party leaders. There was this whole story of how he will step in during political clashes and cash upon his popularity to take over the country as many of his predecessors had done in the past, or, he will negotiate with the government to stay away in exchange for an extension. Not so, proved Raheel Sharif. As a leader, he showed that he was a man of integrity and till his last kept on leading with precision and professionalism.
The final test of a great leader is how many leaders he has produced in his successors who could carry the mission forward. There is unfinished business. The continuation of Karachi operations, starting operations in Punjab and the implementation of NAP are some of the areas that will determine that whether the Malacca cane baton stick Raheel Sharif has handed over to General Qamar Javed Bajwa carries this legacy to its destiny.
The writer is a columnist and analyst and can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com
http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/04-Dec-16/the-man-behind-the-baton
@SherDil007 @war&peace @GreenFalcon @Indus Falcon @Morse_Code @PakSword
