Pakistan's leaderless moment

Tuesday, July 14, 2009
By Dr Maleeha Lodhi

More and more people, outside the ruling coalition, see the quality of leadership at the helm as the principal reason for an increasingly dysfunctional government. This in turn is sharply constraining the country's ability to deal with the myriad problems at hand.

At a time of unparalleled challenge in conditions of unprecedented economic, social and institutional disarray the incumbent leadership still appears to believe that muddling through is a viable option to address Pakistan's deep-seated problems. Whether it is managing the economy, addressing the vexed problem of power shortages, dealing with security issues, or defusing provincial tensions, there is no systematic approach or coherent plan guiding its actions.

This approach has left the country rudderless, without any direction and the means to meet challenges and inspire public faith in the future.

Pakistan has had leaderless moments in the past. But the present vacuum in leadership is especially pronounced in relation to the enormity of the tasks that confront the government in an exceedingly daunting environment. This is reflected in the spectacular gap between challenge and response, between rule and governance and between power and purpose.

The peculiar power structure derived from the constitutional ambiguities decreed by the Seventeenth Amendment has given the country not one, but two leaders at the helm of government, sharing de facto executive power, and often engaged in an official pantomime of 'jointly' directing matters of state.

But ruling is not leading and wielding power does not by itself translate into leadership. The paradox is that the country's only national political party lacks a national leader.

The public perception of this leadership void is amply reflected in opinion polls. A survey in March 2009 by the US-based International Republican Institute found the approval rating for President Asif Zardari to be 19 per cent, unchanged from the previous year. It also found that this was directly related to the fact that 81 per cent of the people polled saw the country headed in the wrong direction. The poll confirmed Mian Nawaz Sharif's position as Pakistan's most popular leader with an approval rating of 75 per cent.

The low level of public faith in the top leaders of the ruling coalition -- Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani only doing better at 33 per cent in relation to Zardari -- is not surprising in view of a record that has thus far been marked by the singular inability to inspire confidence in their governance abilities. These poll numbers show that the public does not believe that wheeling and dealing adds up to leadership. Nor does a surfeit of self-congratulatory rhetoric convey that there are strong and capable hands at the wheel.

Leadership, whether in government or in the corporate sector, is usually deemed to consist of three essential ingredients: 1) Crafting an implementable vision and strategy; 2) Organising efficiently for this mission by placing the right people in the right positions and 3) the ability to motivate and inspire people behind the goals set.

When measured against these criteria it is apparent how the present holders of power fall way short of this leadership test. No vision, strategy or programme of action has been rolled out by the government to convey a sense of purpose or direction. Instead governance has assumed the form of fitful, ad hoc responses to the crisis of the day, driven more by the compulsion of circumstances than by conviction. Sporadic bouts of official action alternate with periods of inertia that are masked by hyper-rhetoric.

Leadership is about matching strategy to situation and therefore requires an intellectual capacity to clearly diagnose the situation so as to clarify and understand the interplay between challenges, opportunities and pitfalls. The present leadership seems to be unburdened by such a capacity.

The second ingredient entails positioning the right people in the right place to match skills to the assignment. This requires a strategic and instrumental, not a personalised, approach to team-building. This leadership imperative has been trumped by the politics of personal loyalty otherwise known as cronyism. An overpopulated and weakly-knit cabinet remains underpowered by expertise and calibre. In key posts even considerations of service to the party have been set aside to give priority to those regarded as loyal to the president.

As for the third critical ingredient, motivating and inspiring people is always done by example and by an ability to connect to the public. It is hard to see how bunkered down or word-fumbling holders of office can acquire this quintessential leadership quality. Leadership in the information age is about being able to communicate effectively and here the limitations of the incumbents are more than evident.

Integrity of both person and purpose is fundamental to being able to rally and galvanise people. Political leadership is as much about personal credibility and ability as the legitimacy of the process by which they ascend to office. Hence the paradox that defines Pakistan's predicament today: legitimately elected leaders but without the credibility to enthuse and unite the country. This speaks to the importance of both 'entrance' and 'performance legitimacy' in determining public confidence in leaders.

No doubt the absence of Benazir Bhutto created a big vacuum in the PPP. But its leaders could have tried to address this disability by strengthening the party and relying on institutional rule to navigate the country's challenges. Instead personalism took primacy over party, parliament and government institutions.

Effective leaders do not always have to be charismatic. But they do need to be adept at combining hard power skills of organisation and political capacity with the soft power of vision and communication in order to attract people and inspire hope.

In some respects the current leadership is defined by what it is not: it is one that does not lead but simply rules; that does not set a direction but reacts to the problem of the moment; that does not embrace but shirks responsibility; not inspired by any vision it has demonstrated little capacity to fashion one; unmotivated by any reformist zeal it has preoccupied itself with just wielding power. National self-esteem has consequently not been enhanced by this form of leadership.

It is true that the country hasn't exactly had towering, inspirational leaders at many points in its history. It is also true that Pakistan has been ill-served by several of its rulers. In unextraordinary times when institutions such as the civil service were in better shape this leadership weakness mattered less than in a setting as the present where the country is confronted with complex and mounting challenges.

The present power holders' lack of key leadership skills and knowledge and experience of statecraft has set sharp limits on the quality of governance that has ensued. It has also set in train a number of deleterious consequences.

These consequences are evidenced, first and foremost, in the dysfunctionality of the government. This is acknowledged in private by members of the coalition themselves. The adverse effects of weak leadership are also reflected in the growing disarray in the country and the slide in virtually every dimension and area of governance.

Another consequence of this is renewed inter-provincial strains and tensions over water and other issues. The lack of effective management of these issues risks exposing the country to the hazard of growing provincial discord. This confirms one of the most familiar maxims of politics: when there is a void in national leadership all sorts of cleavages assert themselves and schisms open up especially in situations of unusual stress in society.

This is already aggravating the disorders plaguing the country and compounding the issues that need urgent attention. It is also risking a further weakening of the effectiveness of state institutions. Other consequences include the erosion in national morale and a rise in public despondency, phenomena that have also been captured by recent opinion polls.

As problems fester and challenges intensify in a climate of economic decline, public discontent and lawlessness, the lack of leadership could jeopardise the country's prospects of both economic revival and political stability. This also raises the spectre of social fragmentation in a state whose future has been clouded by the absence of statesmen.

 The writer is a former envoy to the US and the UK, and a former editor of The News.