A leader is the one who is accepted by people. With so much written on leadership, this was the pearl of wisdom uttered by President Zardari at the conference “Pakistan Leaders of Tomorrow” organised by the Ministry of Information on the special initiative of the president. This definition of leadership definitely reflects the president’s way of thinking but it is definitely not what gurus and wise men have propagated for years as being the hallmarks of great leadership. To be accepted is such a plain and meaningless word in one way and such a meaningful word in another, but either way it does not excite the imagination to think of leadership in a positive manner. The reason behind this understanding is that if you have the title of a president and you are working under the democratic parliamentary system, then whoever holds this office is the leader in command of the country. This explanation is correct. The system ensures that the person coming through this process is accepted as the man in charge. However, to be a president and be a leader is not necessarily the same. If leadership was defined by ranks and designations we would have a surplus of leaders all over. However, in every debate and analysis we have found that the reason our country has never really lived up to its potential is due to a deficit of leadership post-Quaid-e-Azam. A leader is defined by not what his position is and how long he is able to survive on that position but by his ability to deliver on the goals his followers are expecting him to fulfil. In President Zardari’s opinion, he has delivered on many goals. He has mentioned how he had surrendered all his major powers to parliament. Again, on paper, this looks like a truly democratic move where the parliament can reject and overrule any opposing move by the president. However, what we have seen in practice is the opposite. President Zardari is the sole authority on all decisions, rules, bills, appointments and moves. All appointments including the prime minister are just a stroke of the pen away. Moreover, all the president’s men are exonerated from all crimes and are above the law. This is leading by nepotism and cronyism and it is lethal for developing trust and respect in the people you command. Similarly, the president claimed that he was instrumental in keeping the federation together and making sure that the provinces are being given their due resources. However, what we see is that the provinces have become completely out of control as their governments are constantly blaming the federal government for their problems. Sindh has become a bigger breeding ground of blasts and killings than any other province, while Balochistan is almost a province that is politically stranded. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is suffering from the rift between the Awami National Party and the government. Punjab is too busy in proving its merit to rule the federation in future to realise that the largest province of Pakistan is a case study of a lack of governance and mixed up priorities. A true leader has the ability to share his vision with diverse stakeholders and synergise the differences to create new paths of growth and development. In President Zardari’s case, the opposite is visible. For a leader to be followed selflessly by his followers, the leader himself has to be selfless. The biggest influencing factor is leadership by example, where the leader himself becomes a beacon of simplicity and sacrifice. In President Zardari’s case, his example of using his power to make his way through to acceptance in the National Assembly and Senate has actually had a trickle-across and trickle-down effect. Many ministers, heads of major institutions, surrounding themselves with people who are their yes-men, have ended up ruining important state institutions. The old style of command and control dependent on position is the use of formal authority to get your orders through. This style has little to do with the personality and conduct of the man in charge. All acceptance and obedience of orders comes from the legal and positional authority. Thus, the retention of position becomes an end itself as the realisation dawns that as the position goes, so does the authority and power. Traditionally, most leaders in Pakistan have relied on this mode. Pervez Musharraf’s insistence on not giving up his uniform was in fear that his power would be diluted and the dubious laws he wanted to promulgate would not be possible. Similarly, the case of President Zardari holding two offices and insisting on sticking to both is also another example of the insecurity of leaders whose power does not stem from their person but from their position. True and secure leadership stems from moral authority that is based on the conduct, character and personality of the leader that makes people follow the leader not because they have to but because they want to. These leaders are secure as they know they do not have to be holding a position to make people obey them. They inspire people to follow them and create trust that makes them larger than life. Thus, they are able to command respect regardless of position and time. People like the Quaid-e-Azam and Nelson Mandela are examples where even today people would believe what they did and said with much more credibility than many leaders holding high and mighty positions. But to reach that level, selflessness of a leader is a prerequisite. With most of our leaders consumed with what serves their own interests best, the obsessive desire to retain power becomes the be-all and end-all of all the efforts of leadership. The writer is a leadership coach, columnist and a former information secretary of the PTI Punjab. She can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com