Leo Tolstoy dedicated the last part of his classic novel War and Peace to the discussion whether a leader is made by the hand of destiny or a person makes his own destiny through sheer hard work and ability. There is no definitive answer to this question and the debate continues to this day. But it is certain that a nation is as strong as its institutions that are immune to the individual failure of its leaders. Pakistan today faces the crisis of institutional failure that can easily be traced to the failure of a handful of individuals. The questions that need to be answered are: how able leaders should be allowed to rise to the top of institutions based on their capability and merit? And how an institution can be indemnified against the failure of individuals? Catastrophic failures result from the accumulation of small errors that go unnoticed. We will limit ourselves to the most important reasons for the failure of our institutions. A strong institution is defined as one that is not dependent on an individual or a small group of people for its continuing success. This requires that a deep bench of leaders is available that are ready to take up the reins at short notice. In Pakistan it seems that all institutions are weak as whenever the time comes for replacement of leadership at the top, a debate starts whether to give an extension for a year or another full term as if the institution is dependent on that one individual for its survival. In some instances a leader occupies the top spot for many terms, further contributing to damaging the morale of others that are waiting for their turn to serve the nation. In political parties, the situation is quite severe as there is no concept of retirement and the top position becomes the inheritable property of a single family. Political leaders in Pakistan have been pushed out of powerful positions by circumstances. No leader has ever announced their retirement from active politics to assume the role of a mentor to guide the younger generation. Leaders that have already served in top positions for many years are still trying to get another chance. They are willing to go so far as to amend the constitution to become eligible without giving due consideration to the long-term consequences of this action. The other by-product of the extension of leaders’ term at the top is that, to maintain their grip on power, they start appointing people in their team that do not pose a threat to their position which usually means sacrificing talent for loyalty. Since most top positions involve some kind of political manoeuvring, this means that they have to cut deals with one another for mutual survival. This results in damaging healthy relations among institutions that are based on national interest rather than the short-term interests of a few individuals. Agreements like the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) are the result of this co-existence and have damaged the credibility and moral authority of the state and political institutions. A strong institution is one that has the ability to continuously evaluate its performance to make changes in its operating processes to stay abreast with changing technology and social environment. These changes can only happen when new leadership is allowed to rise to the top at regular intervals of time that brings with itself fresh ideas and new thinking. If this cycle is broken, the status quo starts to seep into the institution that stiffens the organisation, affecting its adaptability to change. In any society institutions cannot perform as closed systems that do not take input or feedback from other institutions. In a healthy environment institutions have to perform as open systems where they evolve together as new technologies, management practices and social changes occur. When one institution becomes too strong to start dominating others, then the delicate balance gets distorted, which ultimately results in the deterioration of the whole society. Institutions require regular inclusion of new talent to maintain their growth and effectiveness. Stringent implementation of merit and fairness in the hiring process without political, racial or sectarian bias is very important to gain the respect of the community. Unfortunately, in our public institutions there has been political interference and corrupt practices in the selection and hiring of teachers, policemen, district officers and social sector workers. This is not only an injustice to the qualified people but also provides the basis for corruption of these officials as they want to recoup the bribe paid or repay the favour incurred to get the job. On the other hand, the damage in reputation of public sector organisations becomes a disincentive for capable people to seek those positions; instead, they prefer to work in the private sector with better compensation and often merit-based promotions. Similarly, there has to be fairness in reward and punishment of performance of leaders to ensure that they do not abuse their powers or slacken in their performance. There are many solutions to correct this situation. First and foremost is the abandonment of extension in term of service. Second is hiring on merit with full transparency of the hiring process and criteria. Third is the implementation of a reward system that provides a decent living standard to public servants. Fourth is strict adherence to performance measurement standards and punishment for negligence. Fifth is adequate training for new hires, especially teachers and policemen. A nation belongs to every member of the community. It is important that all of us take ownership of our affairs and get involved through various forums and civic organisations. If nothing else, we can form mohala (local) committees that ensure that every member of the community performs their civic duty responsibly. The writer is the Chairman Council of Past Presidents, Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-USA. He can be reached at abdul.kundi@gmail.com