Do leaders need to have ‘vision’?
Is it kosher to talk about vision without understanding what we mean by it? Especially, what do we demand of our political leader when we insist that he have a vision? Is it just another name for ‘programme’ or ‘party manifesto’?
We know that party manifestoes and programmes are more honoured in breach than in observance. If we are no longer enthusiastic about manifestoes, why do we insist on vision? Why does vision at times become the difference for us between a great leader and an ordinary one?
One thing is certain. Vision relates to the future. It is embedded in human memory. It recalls the prophets and seers of ancient history. At some level in our subconscious, we attach the divine with the great leader. Do we want a Gilgamesh?
But the desire for a greatly manipulative leader representing the power of good is there. Before the world became interdependent and free trade made it subservient to the same laws handed down by the World Bank, the IMF, WTO and other lending institutions, the vision was essentially a map of conquest and domination.
Vision is the undying longing for utopia. A great leader has to promise utopia to persuade the masses to submit to his leadership. In India, Nehru’s vision was a left-wing controlled economy making things easy for the poor masses. It didn’t work.
What worked was the non-utopian non-vision of Manmohan Singh, who came from an international organisation actually set up to kill visions. The truth is, all the laws are in place for the internal and external management of the state. The economist is now found everywhere trundling out his macroeconomic prescriptions that no one can question.
Vision is dead. So if the PPP says it will give roti, kapra and makan, no one takes it seriously. But when Bhutto gave us this vision we swallowed it. His follow-up was nationalisation, which went badly wrong.
Muslims have to be utopian because of the vision of the city-state which is a part of their sharia. The irreducible programme that emerges from it is the welfare (falahi) state that Imran Khan, too, is presenting as his vision. On ground, it means a lot of subsidising that the IMF will not allow or your trading partners will not accept.
Vision is either followed by regimentation and tyranny, or economic disaster. The big leader is more likely to unleash this tyranny — which could be actually consensual because of his charisma — while the ordinary forgettable leader will accept safe prescriptions and leave behind a viable state.
After the emergence of an interdependent world with an agreed template of laws about economic behaviour, the West is not supposed to have great ‘visionary’ leaders. The nation-state with its warrior leaders is no longer required. Populism based on vision is dead too. Paunchy central bankers growling over public spending are more acceptable.
Let’s not demand vision. Let’s demand that prosaic recipes like law and order and writ of the state be applied, that taxation be taken seriously and impunity, either on the basis of religion or sheer extra-legal power, is removed. Follow Lee Kuan Yew, the non-visionary model ruler of today.
For Pakistan, no vision is required. In fact, some of the vision that we embraced at independence about what kind of state we would build should be modified. Let’s not demand vision from our leaders.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 20th, 2011.
COMMENTS (26)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Khalid:
To get to the top floor you have to climb the stairs. You cannot fly up there.
$2 in India per day is Rs.100. That makes it Rs.3000. That number is only decreasing.
I can show you reports from WB and statements from officials belonging to WB and IMF who say poverty is increasing in Pakistan. And, also that it is decreasing in India.
http://business.rediff.com/report/2010/jun/23/india-poverty-rate-may-fall-to-24-percent-by-2015.htm
@Khalid: Sorry but I don't think you read the comments properly. Without growth there is not chance in hell for a government to attack poverty. No country in the world eradicated poverty without growing fast. Growth generates employment opportunities, revenue goes up and suddenly you find that government has lots to spend on social sector and people have better avenues for employment. I suggest you read about NREGS, Mid-day meal schemes, Rural health mission, PDS etc. Believe me a lot is being spent. Do you also know Ministry of rural development has a 20 billion dollar budget and is headed by one of the most efficient and honest minister in the government. Statistics at time seem to dehumanise suffering but that is only scientic way to track progress. I repeat there is no magic wand, it will take time but we will get there.
@BruteForce: Just shows the callousness of even the mildly privileged when poverty is reduced to just figures. In the first place please read up on the meaning of poverty and $1/day or $2/day become meaningless in the face of reality. India has the largest number of poor in the world surpassing all the African nations combined! The great Caliph Umar is on record stating that he will be accountable by the Almighty even if a single dog goes hungry in the areas under his control. He ensured that such a thing could never happen in a just society and that is what a visionary leader is. The hunger index in India has actually increased contrary to Pakistan. Are the starving people supposed to wait for the fallout of economic growth become they can become alive? Maybe they should just disappear. Try to understand what Rabbi Hillel meant when he distilled the truth: If I am not for myself; who will be for me. And if I am only for myself; what am I? And if not now, when?
I do not agree with the author that every country has to have leader with a vision/Messiah. What's going to happen to the country once the leader is gone? Stable development of a country depends building strong institutions that will facilitate growth. In Pakistan, the only institution that exist is the military and rest of them either do not exist or remains spectators. A strong country relies on strong institutional framework.
@Khalid:
80% poor? Then, you must go and tell this to the UN! UN says that the poverty in India is decreasing from 51% 1991 to 21% 2015. So, thats more than a percent a year. Not bad, dont you think?
To be brutally frank with you, India is removing people out of poverty, while Pakistan is compensating for the decrease in the number of poor in South Asia by pushing some of its own into it.
@Amar:
You are absolutely right in every aspect. Nehru was going with the sentiments that was prevalent then. To his credit he did not allow a Communist takeover or even a socialist one. What he implemented could only be called India style of Socialism.
History of Pakistan has repeatedly proved, that the Utopian dreams and visions of the enlightened leaders have resulted in an absolute nightmare for the masses.
I think of the millions killed and uprooted in 1947, I think of the hideous wars and the associated crimes, I think of the thousands of trillions spent for armament, I think of acute water shortage and salinity of our land X 10000000 such problems........................
Have you ever watched closely the face and in the eyes of a drug-addict blood spender? That face depicts the map of Pakistani conscience!
@Cynical - The over all vision of self sufficiency in manufacturing, heavy industries, planned economy, huge public sector failed ultimately like in other countries. I don't fault Nehru as much as I fault his successors for continuing this. Nehru was impressed by Fabian socialists of his time and he thought that perhaps having a mixed economy for the country will power India into modernity. This failed miserably.
You are right when you say that his idea of IITs and setting up institutions of higher learning paid rich dividends when the economy opened up. But economy never took off until later with most of the best brains leaving the country for the lack of enough opportunities.
I also agree that it is too early to say Manmohan's vision is a successful one until we reach a point where we can decide one way or the other. I am hopeful.
Regards
I think it is far too simplistic to suggest that Nehru's economic vision failed while Manmohan Sing's prevailed.It will take a few pages to elaborate on it but, suffice to say that they operated in different eras (politically as well as economicaly). Also success or failure often depends on the type of benchmarks set rather than the actual result. Nehru's economic vision was aimed at self-sufficiency in heavy industrial sectors Which resulted in India having a large pool of technically skilled work force today. This paved the way for liberalisation that Manmohan Singh initiated (as Chairman of planning commission during Narsimha Rao's prime ministership).
@Khalid - Appreciate your concern about the poor in India and GNP is not the answer for everything. Yes of course we have problems but then we don't have a magic wand to sort everything in instantly (I wish all countries had one!). What I meant was that if we continue to grow fast, reduce our curruption, strengthen government institutions, spend more on socal sector we will be out of the woods in a few decades from now. What you have mentioned is right about the wealth concentrated in a few hands but this is inevitable in a growing country like ours. China too suffers from this.
I don't want to talk about Kashmir as that will open up a whole new debate! All I can say is that the Indian Army is desciplined and professional and they are not there for a picnic. The internal security demands that, similar to Pak army in insurgency prone areas.
@Khalid: Khalid Mian, yes India is on right track. Have we already reached where we want to be? Of course not but we will get there. You see, unlike Pakistanis, we Indians don't dream of a messiah like person who would appear from nowhere and turn things around instantly. You have to know the right path and you have to work hard to walk that path. So, for once, stop beating the dead horse of of that 60% or 80%. We are going through a major transition and we have long ways to go still. Thinking negatively would only hurt yourself.
Sincerely!
India on the right track? Surely you don't think so with 80% of its people living on under a dollar a day, thousands of farmers committing suicide and over half a million of its bloated army on a permanent rampage in Kashmir. The wealth is getting concentrated in the hands of a few people and the deprived can only hope for a trickle down effect-remember Reagan-which is most unlikely. Does a growing GNP justify everything?
Don't agree that leaders shouldn't be visionary! But agreed that we shouldn't demand any vision from the Pakistani lot of politicians. Actually 90 percent don't even know what the hell this word Vision is? The chunk who know the meanings don't have the exact sense of the demand!
Currently most of the young people is backing IK, not knowing the repercussions of his vision, They simply said we trust him, on what basis no one knows! If shaukat Khanum Hospital and cricket World cup are the basis of their trust then Abdulsattar Edhi and Younus Khan will be the anticipated lined up politicians!
Totally agree. As of right now, immediately, what we need is an honest, hard working, patriotic leader. If he is endowed with humility, even better. Normally someone like this has a vision, a world view, a sense of destiny, its a package deal. To say that Lee Kuan Yew lacked vision seems wrong, possibly it was his immense understanding of things (lets not call it vision) that made him the icon he his today.
Wow! too philosophical... Can't believe pakistan has writers like Khaled Saab.
right said. the vision of Jinnah is yet to be implimented. one more from Imran can be confusing.
By the way...whether to have a vision or not also requires a vision!
@author - you may be right about Nehru's economic vision but what his (and other leaders of his time) the greatest achievement was the idea or the vision of India itself - tolerant, secular, democratic, and free. He might have failed with his economic vision, but his vision for the country is still alive and kicking. India as a country may not have reached there yet but I think it is on the right track. Also Manmohan Singh's economic reforms were based on the idea that socialist policies of the past have failed and a more liberal economic regime will get India out of poverty by ensuring good growth and using the revenue windfall to spend more on the social sector. With whatever I have read and I say that I might be wrong, I feel that some of the problems that beset Pakistan are caused by no clarity on what the idea of Pakistan is. For example whether Pakistani state should be a religious state or secular one, democracy or theocracy, what sort of long term economic policy should be. The result is that there is no coherent idea as to what the country would like to emerge as in the next few decades. I apologize if any reader feels bad about the last comment. As I said I could be completely wrong with the last statement.
Interesting view!
The leaders need to have a "vision", an outlook towards the future and how to get there! A pragmatic vision would deliver the promised land, if properly implemented. By the way, it was Nehru's socialistic vision that provided healthcare and education to millions of underprivileged Indian kids and as a result we are a power house in education sector. Imagine the privatization of education achieving that goal. With time, Nehru's socialism fell out of place and was duely replaced by Manmohan Singh ji, albeit a decade or so late. I don't know much about Pakistani politics, but PPP's failure to deliver has no bearing on the vision itself.
Unless, you are implying that we, the non-elite, average citizens should stop expecting our leaders to have a foresight..... Depressing really!
Bravo! Truly visionary, no pun intended.Great food for thought.
Couldn't agree more!
Imran Khan has not given any vision, he has injected self-belief in the masses which they had lost because of the incapable governments and I strongly agree that capitalist states don't need a vision from a leader, it becomes a pure business empire so vision becomes pointless. The point is that when one's fighting against menaces like corruption, the most important thing you need is a visionary leader- BTW, I totally second you on these lines- "In fact, some of the vision that we embraced at independence about what kind of state we would build should be modified."
we need working democratic institutions after that change of people will have no effect and there will be no need for vision.
The Europeans could use a visionary leader because they are struggling to envision a new future for their Union. But in the case of the Americans the visionary Obama has indeed been a failure. So it's a mixed bag, really.
Closer to home the visionary Rajapakse has ended the civil war in Sri Lanka and set his country onto the path of prosperity.
When every rich will pay tax the falahi system of islam will run other wise same crrupt fuedal + crooks bussnismen tax chore gonna rule us for another half century. a country rich of men power and resources begging like africa shame on this roti and country.
@auther - you may be right about Nehru's economic vision but what his (and other leaders of his time) the greatest achievement was the idea or the vision of India itself - tolerant, secular, democratic, and free. He might have failed with his economic vision, but his vision for the country is still alive and kicking. India as a country may not have reached there yet but I think it is on the right track.
Also Manmohan Singh's economic reforms were based on the idea that socialist policies of the past have failed and a more liberal economic regime will get India out of poverty by ensuring good growth and using the revenue windfall to spend more on the social sector.
With whatever I have read and I say that I might be wrong, I feel that some of the problems that beset Pakistan are caused by no clarity on what the idea of Pakistan is. For example whether Pakistani state should be a religious state or secular one, democracy or theocracy, what sort of long term economic policy should be. The result is that there is no coherent idea as to what the country would like to emerge as in the next few decades. I apologize if any reader feels bad about the last comment. As I said I could be completely wrong with the last statement.