Opinion

Leaders and the Election Agenda
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg , CA

George Burns, the famous American comedian, once said, “Too bad all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxis and cutting hair”. This may not sound true anywhere in the world; but it certain does in Pakistan. The veracity of this comic statement becomes evident if one cares to listen to the election slogans that are orchestrated these days in Pakistan, just one week before the elections scheduled to be held on February 18, 2008.

Hardly any meaningful leader appears to be giving the beleaguered nation a clear vision of what he plans to do on assuming power. What people hear is a market-tested political blather; a charade of meaningless euphuism that universally befits all.

Jack and Suzy Welsh in the Business Week of February 4, 2008 clearly define the characteristics that, let us say, are most important when choosing a big company’s CEO or the next US President, or by that token, the next PM of Pakistan. They believe that the President needs the same skills as a top CEO. The Presidents need them only a little sharper. Running a country or a company, in a way is the same. They consider six characteristics as innately essential for a good CEO or an effective President.

AUTHENTICITY: If authenticity is foremost in a business CEO, it is TRUST that is equally central in a President. Be it a policy initiative or a crisis, the nation can’t be embroiled in a debate about his or her sincerity. President’s motives must enjoy total trust of the people.
CLEAR VISION: Inspirational vision is critical for real progress. A Presidential vision does not mean telling the people, “Here is where we are going?” It is about making the case for the vision and telling the nation, “Here is how our destination will make life better for our nation and for you personally”.
ABILITY TO HIRE GREAT PEOPLE: No good head of a State or a company can live without great minds surrounding him. He should have the knack to not only hire the best people, but also should be able to utilize them and challenge them for newer ideas and deeper insights. Most importantly, he must have the courage and discipline to dispatch cabinet members who fall short- whether it opens a political can of worms or not.
RESILIENCE: A great leader must have the ability to bounce back after defeat without feeling defeated. Good CEOs and great Presidents regularly get the wind knocked out of them. He must learn from his mistakes; and every failure must get him back wiser and better.
ABLE TO SEE AROUND CORNERS: Given the world we live in, the head of the State must be able to feel the shift in his fingertips. He must look around the corner by galvanizing bipartisan support.
ABLE TO EXECUTE: Most importantly, the head of the State should not be a lame-duck, a man of half-measures. It does not matter if he generates action or channels it through others. What matters is that promises are kept and plans get completed.

Election campaigns are held not just to elect the head of the state; they often illuminate, what Kenneth Walsh of US News, February 4, 2008, says “social trends and define issues, explain where America has come from and where it is headed, and generate more than their share of triumph and tragedy, and even a fair bit of comedy in between”. Such campaigns give birth to some great moments.

Was it the wetness in the eyes of Hillary Clinton at the voter forum on the eve of the New Hampshire primary that helped propel her to a come-from-behind victory? Women voters were pleasantly surprised by her vulnerability because often she is known for her steely resolve and stoicism. A touch of human weakness sometimes pays rich dividends.

A similar incident in 1972 reacted differently and destroyed Democratic candidate Ed Muskie of Main. It is still debated whether he had actually wept or just had some melted snow on his face. One thing became clear that men do not cry in public. President Ford got knocked down in 1976 elections just because of one sentence. In a timely question during the Cold War era about the relationship with the Soviet Union, he said, “There is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe….” Voters backed off, questioning Ford’s understanding of world affairs.

Reagan, the great actor, knocked down Jimmy Carter through a dramatic rebuttal on a question of Medicare with a tingle of mocking, “There you go again.”

In the 1800 elections between incumbent John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the tone became shriller and bitter and harsher, even by today’s standards. Character assassination of Jefferson was taken to a high pitch by the Federalists, though by modern stands it still seemed somewhat genteel. Federalists charged, “Not only had Jefferson cheated British creditors, obtained property by fraud, and robbed a widow of 10,000 pounds but, if elected: murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced,”. They also accused Jefferson, a person whose head was filled with too much of French philosophy; who just would not acknowledge any hierarchy between classes. Virtually his accusers did not stop anywhere. One of the most virulent attacks came from a 25-year-old poet whose main grievance against him was, “ Jefferson’s views on creation and Earth’s geological history made him an infidel… that he took a dehumanizing attitude toward blacks while raising the ape above its proper sphere”. Jefferson, the great president, won the elections just by ignoring these accusations.

Nixon in 1950 nullified all charges leveled against him that he personally had profited from a secret political slush fund, when in a TV debate people heard him talking less on those funds and more on his meager beginnings, and how still he was tight on finances; how still he moved about in his 1950 Oldsmobile and paid mortgages on the two houses he owned, and how regular he had been on payments on a $3,500 loan from his parents. With the memories of the great depression still fresh in the minds “people cried as they listened, even in the studio”.

HOW MUCH GREAT LEADERS CAN MATTER IN RESHAPING PEOPLE’S LIVES?

It would not be wrong to say that no President has had as great an impact on everyday life in America today as Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took office 75 years ago this spring, writes The New York Times-upfront, January 14, 2008. The minimum wage limit was introduced by him through the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Those who receive Social Security must feel thankful to FDR as he introduced it through the Social Security Act; if our deposits are safe in the banks up to 100,000 dollars, it is also due to him.

During the Depression, banks failed and with that vanished people’s savings. FDIC restored people’s confidence in banks. He also paved the way for an international peacekeeping organization after World War II and hence the birth of the United Nations that replaced the failed League of Nations. If roads and airports and schools have beautiful buildings it is also because of him. He created the alphabet agencies like the CWA or WPA (works progress administration) which put millions of unemployed Americans to work.

In 1797, George Washington had declined to run for a third term. All subsequent Presidents followed Washington’s precedent until Roosevelt, who ran for a third term in 1940, and in 1944 he ran again for a fourth as the war continued. People began to fear that a long presidency could become a kind of dictatorship. The 22 nd Amendment in 1947 made it a law: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice”.

The power that labor unions have today is also largely the result of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which gave the Unions the right to organize workers and to engage in collective bargaining with employers.

President Johnson is remembered as the Education President. Students benefit every year through the reforms he introduced. George Washington placed the civilian President as head of the army and blocked the way to military take-over; honest Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery; Kennedy ended segregation and strengthened civil rights. American Presidents have left behind rich legacies. What did Pakistani politicians leave behind? … a gradual trail of disorder and chaos.

WHAT DO POLITICIANS IN PAKISTAN SAY IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS?

“Politics is like a form of worship to us”, opines Asif Ali Zardari. The slogan is also echoed by Mian Nawaz Sharif. “Nawaz Sharif should repent three times and vow publicly before he contends in the elections that he would not run away”, says Pervez Ilahi. The tenacity and the ability of the Chaudhrys of Gujrat is a proven fact when it comes to staying in power.

“It is possible to negotiate with Musharraf; but he must first account for his performance”, retorts Mian Nawaz Sharif. Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, ex-chief justice enjoins by saying, “The current crisis of the judges and courts is the creation of Mian Nawaz Sharif”.

The words of London based peer of Karachi politics need special attention, “MQM has its genesis in poverty, and is an enemy of feudalism”. Brain-washing and blind obedience are the two traits of feudalism. Is his brand of politics any different? He has created a new cult in politics in his effort to destroy another.

The President, Pervez Musharraf, lately has also intoned on the topic. “The deposed judges would not be restored in any circumstances”. He is right because the current crisis emanates from that action of his, and continuity of it is the main thing.

“We will abrogate the national reconciliation ordnance with the PPP once we assume power”, says the hopeful for the seat of the prime minister, Mr. Pervez Elahi. The question is since when the Chaudhrys were out of power? Not that I know of in my 50 years of understanding of Pakistani politics.

“I am the only the PM…” Mian Nawaz Sharif often begins his statements with this phrase. My past articles tell me that he squandered away his two-term premiership, (1990-1993, and 1997-1999) by horn-locking himself with Ms. Benazir; chief justice; army chiefs and the president. His attempt to liberalize the economy resulted in cronyism which prospered through the shady deals of 1991; law and order remained as bad if not worse as is today; Pakistan came to be put on the State Department’s watch list for terrorist states, and it did stun the people of Pakistan. His landslide victory in the 1997 elections became a hay-day for the current defectors. He could not announce his cabinet even after one month of his taking of the oath. Sheikh Rashid and Ejaz Ul Haque and Chaudhry Shujaat contended fiercely for powerful portfolios, and finally got what each wanted.

Mian Sahib’s confusion is obvious than ever before. He wants to contest the elections, but on his terms. “Musharraf must resign, and the Senate chairman should form a consensus government after consulting with all the politicians”. Did he not learn anything from his London conference experience?

“People should boycott the elections”, is the stand of Qazi Hussain Ahmad. And the assemblage of several hundred retired generals, admirals and air marshals in Islamabad has confirmed one thing. No one in Pakistan repents for his past mistakes. The cardinal point of their agenda: no talks about the past; only the future will be discussed, and it mainly remained ineffective because they all had a share in the mess that Pakistan is in.

Where is the vision; the program; the agenda, and the grandeur of the Quaid which these leaders can be heard promising to the people if elected. Seven years spent outside Pakistan or eleven years in prison are no qualifications for being in the seat of the prime minister. And such credentials hardly offer any solution to the social and economic problems confronting people. Asif Ali Zardari is right when he says, “The future of PPP will determine the future of Pakistan”. At least his designs are naked.

The political blather orchestrated by other contenders is as vague as ever. No political or religious party has the audacity to come forward with one agenda, which is: terrorists have no place in Pakistan. The extremists are blowing off the houses and are eliminating those who show intention to contest the elections. They want a clear passage to power, which appears to be becoming a possibility the way these future leaders-in-power are seen engaged in meaningless bickering. As the Time of June 25, 2007 wrote, “In 2000 Bush ran without knowing the name of the President of Pakistan. The next President will have to known everything about Waziristan”. In the year 2008, both Hillary Clinton and McCain and Obama know more about what is happening in Pakistan than these leaders of ours.

------------------------------------------------------------------------