Leadership is one of the most inquired subjects in the modern era. The rise of most powerful nations has been directly attributed to the kind of leadership they were blessed with. And so has the failure. The Arab Spring and subsequent toppling of heads of states of countries from Libya to Egypt clearly showed us the fate of failed leaders. Leaders themselves are the differentiating factor between “well off” and “ill off” economies today.
There’s a theory in leadership studies that talks about two fundamental leadership types: transformational leaders and transactional leaders. Wikipedia defines transformational leaders as ones who work with the followers to identify the needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through inspiration and executing the change in tandem with them. Transactional leadership is that leadership style where a leader motivates his followers by way of action of rewards and punishments.
So what type of leaders do we have? The entire leadership emergence process, as opposed to what theory suggests, in our context has been completely convoluted. The process takes place from being a student leader. This also serves as an entry point to political establishment.
Once connected, there emerges a shadow “leader” or a student who is much more of a “leader” than a student. This brings him/her closer to the state. The state is suddenly accessible. The notion of extracting state resources seeps in. The resources of the state get extracted as if they are your personal resources. This enhances their position as a “resource person” and enables them to take a complete control. Then they become “leaders”.
Or at least, that is what we assume. This is the wrong notion.
The process, in fact, is called a process of emergence of acquiring positionship than developing leadership. We have had position holders but never had people who had positions and use that as a launch pad to exercise leadership.
What makes this issue pertinent is how we have been led in recent past. The highest executive position in our system is that of the prime-minister. After the deadly civil war, we have been forced to witness the emergence of yet another phenomenon, “sharing of positionships”. There have been attempts to justify the emergence of this phenomenon. As Kul Chandra Gautam states in Lost in Transition “we seem to be in a perpetual state of transition.”
The shared positionships over the years have been quite astounding. Try pondering over the names of all people who have held high office of prime minister in recent past; you will end up surprising yourself. Everyone who has held a high position of any party has occupied the office of prime minister, if not the prime-ministership, the deputies.
The recent example K P Oli’s outburst against his own officials ridicules nobody else but himself. That was a classic case of positionship sans any leadership. Leadership is a dynamic process. A leader is what leader does. Oli seems to have completely misread the concept of leader.
The fact that he went berserk against his own officials’ inactiveness in rebuilding lost hopes and homes typifies the ailment that we are faced with.
The clear lack of one’s ability to lead was demonstrated by the trade embargo recently. We, for once, realized that what ails us is totally different from what ails rest of the world. Aamir Khan, the famous Indian actor, whipped up an entire debate when he mentioned the growing intolerance in his homeland. We seem to be the exact opposite. We whip up “tolerant” debate. We could have been better off had we been intolerant. The problem with us is in our ability to tolerate. This helps us further explain the rise of positionships than leaderships. As opposed to popular beliefs, all conflicts are not bad. Conflicts help bring about changes. It helps or forces societies to come up with newer efficient systems. It forces government to mull over alternatives. It’s an irony that after so much of bloodshed and loss of lives, we have been reduced to a docile, senile society. The fact that essential fuel is in short supply even when there is no blockade reinforces our senility.
Phenomenon of positionship grows stronger in such society. The fact that Oli hammered his own people tells not only about his ineptness but also his acceptance by us. Ultimately, what government does is what the he does and vice versa. Much has been written about the signing of new treaties with China. The visit has been hailed as “historic” and “successful” by many. Just as all “successes” have been attributed to his office, so should have been the failures.
Leaders take responsibility. They are responsible for delivering on the promises. With winter gone and rains ahead, the country seems to be going nowhere vis-à-vis the rebuilding process. As a leader, Oli should have opted to step down. The fact that he does not has nothing to do with his moral or ethics. It’s shortcoming on his part and ours as well to assume him as a leader and not a position holder. As long as we have someone who is there to merely occupy a position, we as a society cannot afford to complain of person’s inability to take us anywhere.
A leader is a visionary, a dreamer. It was good to hear him declare getting rid of deadly Tuins right after assuming office. While he continued making promises, we struggled to find any hint of him trying to achieve what he had set out to do. Had he made any kind of effort to deliver on any of the promises made we would not have laughed at him. After all, which country would make fun on generating electricity from wind?
Oli is barely a symptom. There is a larger malaise—our inability to understand and identify leaders. We never had any leaders. All we had was position holders. Ultimately, be it transactional or a transformational leadership, it is a process that interacts, albeit differently, between leaders and followers, to achieve a common goal. Interestingly, the more inactive the follower, more conducive is the situation for the positionship.
Hiteshkarki@gmail.com
Related story
Why Nepal Must Complete Its WTO Obligations
-1779250876.webp)
