If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader - John Quincy Adams, 6th US President
Leadership is an amorphous concept.
The oxford dictionary defined leadership as, “The action of leading a group of
people or an organization, or the ability to do this.” The concept of
leadership has been oft debated in recorded history from Plato’s Republic to
modern day research. And, given its enduring importance I set out to discuss it
once more.
The Prime Minister of India governs
by the force of the mandate given by the people of India. This social contract
is based on the evolutionary need of the populace on the time, which in a
democracy evolves and finds representation much faster. But different states
differ in the manner they provide legitimacy to their leadership to govern. For
example in Saudi Arabia, the power is shared between the Al-Saud and Al Shayk
family (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab founder of Wahhabi form of
Sunni Islam). The Al-Saud family governs the country politically while
religious institutions owe their allegiance to the Al Shaykh family. "This oasis is yours, do not fear your
enemies. By the name of God, if all Nejd was summoned to throw you out, we will
never agree to expel you" said Ibn Saud. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
replied, "You are the settlement's chief and wise man. I want you to grant
me an oath that you will perform jihad (holy war) against the unbelievers. In
return you will be imam, leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in
religious matters." The ulema (Muslim law scholars) exert wide spread
influence in turn reinforcing the legitimacy of the Al Saud family. When the Soviet
Union collapsed, Eastern European states which were governed by Moscow without
their ‘will’ splintered. Similarly, Iraq or Syria having a population with
divided identities will struggle for decades to produce a legitimate leader. These
countries have and will with their current geographies be governed by force
alone thus producing cycles of instability – force will define legitimacy. Consequently,
legitimacy of leadership is the first leg of the Great Leader Chair.
All politics, from organizational
to international, is a struggle for power. The accomplishment of ultimate aims
of leader is determined by the power he individually and the state he governs
possesses. “Of the gods we know,” to
quote Thucydides, “and of men we believe it is a necessary law of their nature
that they rule wherever they can.” Mughals established their rein over
India, the Nazis wanted to colonize the world or Wilson wanted make the world
conducive to democracy. Finally, the efficacy of the power possessed defined
the outcomes. One of the critical goals of the Chinese state is to avoid
general dissent in the core Han population or in restive provinces of Xinjiang,
Tibet or Inner Mongolia, thus, keeping the state as one. The Communist Party (and
currently Xi Jinping) maintains this order through the power wielded by the People’s
Liberation Army. Narendra Modi through his personal charisma won the BJP a
majority in parliament thus giving the country a majority government after 30
years. This gives him immense personal power over this party, therefore,
governing India and in turn the ability to project that power internationally. At
the Potsdam conference in 1945, Churchill, Stalin and Truman entered the room
from 3 different doors at the same time to emphasize equality of their power
and prestige! Power, thus, is the second leg of the Chair.
In 1813 in Dresden, after the
disastrous defeat of Napoleon in Russia, Napoleon was threatened by a coalition
of all of Europe. In a discussion which is estimated to have lasted 9 hours
Napoleon, acting like the emperor of Europe, tried to restrain Austrian
Chancellor Metternich from joining the coalition against him. After a stormy
session, Napoleon dropped his hat expecting Metternich to pick it up.
Metternich pretended not to see it; at that point it should have been clear to
the Napoleon, who had earlier had a decisive victory against Austria in
Austerlitz, the situation had changed. He was decisively defeated in Leipzig. When
China entered the nuclear club, India went to the UN asking for abolishment of
nuclear weapons, as a non-nuclear state its bargaining ability was zero and the
international conflict between the US and USSR ensured that this would never
come to pass. Good intentions give assurance against bad policies but they are
no guarantee of political success, similar has been India’s action vis a vis
Pakistan time and again. Great leaders understand the advantage of timing
and use it to ensure successful outcomes.
Abraham Lincoln had a moral end when
he wanted to abolish slavery. To this extent he dealt with the southern states
making compromises and in the last year of the civil war accelerated the
bombing of civilians to bring a quick end to the war. In the short term, it
meant killing people but in the longer run saved more lives by ending the
conflict. Similarly, Churchill and Roosevelt engaged with Stalin to end the
Nazi terror. In his acclaimed book “The
Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties,” Anglo-American historian Robert
Conquest said: “We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is
almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so.”
When Bangladesh was liberated, while it violated the principles of honouring
the sovereignty of Pakistan and against significant international opposition,
it was a moral project of liberating an oppressed populace. Moral Compass,
thus, is the fourth and final leg of the Chair. The examples I have outlined
are international in nature where gap is the widest as there are no rules that
govern the behavior of nations except constraints (behavior of other nations,
geography, military power etc) and history. At the microcosm of an organization,
the distance between action and morality is minimal, as not only an ethical and
moral code has evolved between participants but there are codified rules which
govern behavior (i.e. equality of opportunity or hazardous employment).
In my view ultimately it’s a
delicate dance between these four critical attributes – Legitimacy, Power,
Timing and a Moral Compass – that defines a great leader and statesman. Konrad
Adenauer was 73 when he became the first chancellor of West Germany post WWII
and then led it for 14 years. He had opposed the Nazis and then went on to set
up the CDU party post the war to unify Catholics and Protestants. His views on
Germany’s role in Europe were strongly influenced by the two world wars and the
century-long animosity between Germany and France. He, therefore, focused his
attention on promoting pan-European cooperation leading to European Coal and Steel
Community in 1950 and also the later treaty for the European Economic Community
in 1957 which laid the foundation for the European Union, thus, embedding
German success in European success. While he is blamed for cementing the
division of Germany, he understood that it was the unification of Germany eight
decades back under the genius of Bismarck that became the key cause for the
wars. It demanded incredible courage and statesmanship to guide a stricken
nation. Similarly, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did post the breakdown of the Ottoman
Empire guiding Turkey to its independence and modernity.
A
statesman acts based on constraints imposed on his action and by the burden
history imposes upon him. But it is only post outcomes that people begin to
attribute foresight; he simply doesn’t know at that point in time, given the
multiplicity of influences, the consequences of his action. Thus, I have excluded
foresight as a critical attribute. Lincoln
admitted, “I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to
keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said
against me won’t amount to nothing. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels
swearing I was right would make no difference.”
