Barbara Kellerman Political Animals RSS Feed

Musharraf's Fall Shows Power Ain't What It Used to Be

10:53 AM Tuesday August 19, 2008

Tags:Leadership, Politics

Pervez Musharraf was the object of his affection, but George W. Bush could not save his skin. The president of the United States could not save the president of Pakistan because leaders of even large and powerful countries -- or, for that matter, of large and powerful companies -- ain't what they used to be.

Gone forever are the days when those at the top made the decisions and made them stick. The world has changed and those too myopic to see it pay the price.

Musharraf's fall from power was described by the Financial Times as being "swift." But it was not. For well over a year there have been clear and obvious signs -- which the Bush administration failed fully to recognize -- that Musharraf's political life was in danger. The threat came from below. It came from citizen-activists who, beginning in March 2007, took to the streets immediately after their president overreached. Arrogant and overconfident, Musharraf made the mistake of unilaterally suspending Pakistan's chief justice and firing some 60 other judges.

From that point on, it was all downhill. The Pakistani people continued to protest -- while Musharraf's support continued to dwindle. In November he declared a state of emergency, and in December his top political rival, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated. Though it took until now to get him formally to resign, by the end of last year Musharraf's reign had, in effect, come to an end.

Why was the decline and fall of his Pakistani counterpart so difficult for the American president to accept -- even after the handwriting was clear on the wall? Because George W. Bush prefers to deal with his own kind, with other men in positions of power. This is not an aberration; it's not uncommon for leaders to seek out other leaders, on the assumption that they can settle things between them.

But the incumbent president has relied on personal diplomacy more than most, a disposition that has not served him well. Even in the last few weeks it's clear he was a fool for having supported to the nth degree Georgia's careless, reckless head of state, Mikheil Saakashvili. And he was far more the fool for having declared the first time he met him that Russia's bloodless strongman, Vladimir Putin, was "straightforward and trustworthy." As Bush described it at the time, "I looked the man in the eye . . . . I was able to get a sense of his soul."

It is easy enough to understand the temptations. Not only do leaders assume that between and among them they can control the ways of the world, there's all that bonding and camaraderie, and all that pomp and circumstances whenever they meet and greet.

But the cold truth is that personal diplomacy never has been failsafe diplomacy. Moreover, at a time when leaders are more vulnerable than they were in the past, putting all your eggs in their one basket is strategically stupid.

Falling in love is easy. But breaking up is hard to do.

People who read this also read:

 
* * *
Sign up for the Weekly Hotlist, a weekly email roundup featuring the top posts from HarvardBusiness.org and HBR.org.

Never miss a new post from your favorite blogger again with the HarvardBusiness.org Daily Alert email. The Alert delivers the latest blog posts from HarvardBusiness.org and HBR.org directly to your inbox every morning at 8:00 AM ET.

  • Comments (5)
  • |
  • Join the Discussion
  • |
  • Email/Share

Trackbacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2667

No trackbacks have been made to this entry.

Comments


There is absolutely no doubt that leadership in changing political landscapes has undergone tremendous transformation. When it comes to Mushrraf or 'Mushy', as a leader, he had far more integrity as compared to his counterparts Benazir, Nawaz Sharif or even Zardari for that matter who over time have clearly conveyed their corrupt and power hunger intentions.

I would disagree with the fact that Musharaf failed as a leader. Given the political and economic crisis the country is undergoing he was the only strong pillar that could have managed to keep the country afloat. Factors which contributed to the downhill were his advisors ill-advice and the failure of the public to actually see and realize the big ditch the country is heading towards.

People complain about sacked judges. This inlcudes lawyers as well. BUT..have they ever once mentioned that these are the very judges who are corrupt to the nth degree and have absolutely no sense of responsibility towards granting justice. Not one of them is capable nor did they deserve to be given such a high place. Lets move onto the lawyers now. What should be the lawayers prime interest. To get people justice. NOT to support judges or get involved unnecessarily into political rigmaroll.

This could very well turn into a never ending discussion, debate or whatever you may wish to call it. But the truth of the matter is unless people or general public open their eyes, use their own judgement and stop getting influenced by large number of feudal factions and stop encouraging provincialism instead of nationalism - there is no way that a leader could possibly lead succesfully.

- Posted by TQ 
August 20, 2008 6:21 AM

Why would a person criticize a president for doing what a president is suppose to do? Would you rather a president not deal with the heads of state with as much diplomacy as possible and attempt to negociate with "personal diplomacy" which may not be failsafe, but what are the other options.

People love to criticize, but very seldom do I read or hear anyone offering suggestions. Are we all afraid of the the "critics" should the attempt fail? Our president should be congradulated for the attempt at peaceful "personal diplomacy". The incumbent president has had more to deal with than "most".

- Posted by Becky 
August 20, 2008 8:54 AM

The article was very shallow. What were Bush's alternatives? Throw over Musharaf at the first sign of popular discontent and support a corrupt alternative? Don't forget Musharaf has been a very valuable ally in the war on terror from 9/11 on.

With regard to Georgia, he didn't have much leverage over either party involved.

You disdain for the President came through clearly in this articcle. Very porr scholarship.

- Posted by John Moniz 
August 20, 2008 10:07 AM

I applaud the comments already posted by other colleagues. As a "high ranking leader" in the world of leadership, your disdain of our current President rang loud and clear. Isn't one of the key areas of leadership to criticize less and offer solutions more? I feel you failed in both of these areas. The issues that are currently being played out in the Middle East are following a course already predetermined. Perhaps you would do well to visit with Joel Rosenberg and discuss the current events in the political arena. Another sign of leadership is to be "well informed" so I would think you would want to avail yourself of every resource available before making such harsh statements regarding our current leadership. Or perhaps your intent was to utilize this forum to voice your political views.

- Posted by JO ANNE 
August 20, 2008 11:03 AM

I agree that at the bottom of the pyrarmid are the change factors, i.e. people. In Pakistan and Nepal (my country), it is the people that broght about the change. Those with long standing political organizations capitalized on the political need, i.e. the need for change, of the people. Good marketers (tactful political organizations and their leaders with strategic vision and GOOD implementation)were those who succeeded in winning the people. Ex-President Musharaf and Ex-King Gyanendra can be good people for the country, but as they are individuals without strong political backup of a strong political organization. In a democracy, a political organization with a political philosopy is a must. These people can be good for short term leadership, useful for crisis handling. At the end of the day, it is the system of democracy that should rule the country, not an individual. Relations between two countries should be based on democratic values, norms and practice.

- Posted by Vijay Shrestha 
September 30, 2008 7:50 PM

Join The Discussion

* Required Fields




Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Posting Guidelines

We hope the conversations that take place on HarvardBusiness.org will be energetic, constructive, free-wheeling, and provocative. To make sure we all stay on-topic, all posts will be reviewed by our editors and may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance.

We ask that you adhere to the following guidelines.

  1. No selling of products or services. Let's keep this an ad-free zone.
  2. No ad hominem attacks. These are conversations in which we debate ideas. Criticize ideas, not the people behind them.
  3. No multimedia. If you want us to know about outside sources, please point to them, Don't paste them in.
We look forward to including your voices on the site - and learning from you in the process.

The editors

Barbara Kellerman

Barbara Kellerman is the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was the Founding Executive Director of the Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, from 2000 to 2003; and from 2003 to 2006 she served as the Center’s Research Director. She is author and editor of many books and articles on leadership. She is the author of Followership: How Followers Create Change and Change Leaders and Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. For the period 2007-2008, she is ranked by Leadership Excellence 6th on the list of the 100 “best minds on leadership.”

Learn how business innovators like Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Pixar's Ed Catmull achieve breakthrough results.
Harvard Business Review

ADVERTISEMENT

Browse Our Store

Productive Business Dialogue (Simulation)

This simulation will help you learn how to craft conversations that are fact based, minimize defensiveness, and draw out the best thinking from everyone involved.

Measuring Marketing Performance

In many organizations, marketing exists far from the executive suite and the boardroom. Learn how to improve the link between high level corporate strategy and the marketing function.

Management Tip of the Day Enrollment
SPONSORED BY:  

ADVERTISEMENT

Free Downloads