Why 'Bye bye' seems to be the hardest word

With no disrespect to Elton John or Tom Rice 'Sorry' isn't the hardest word... 'bye bye' seems to be.

There has been a lot of the trouble in the middle east since the beginning of the last year – all because the nations' leaders (dictators, actually in democrat clothing) refuse to step down. Countless of people have been killed and countless lives shattered over the years because autocratic leaders cannot see beyond their self-convictions (thanks equally to ego-stroking by corrupt cronies) that they are best for the people they rule.

In fact to find such leaders one would not have to look just at the middle east but all most anywhere in the world where the checks and balances of democracy have not been fully realised (i.e. places where the constitution is as pliable as putty and can be amended or bent at will, thanks to an opposition that is debate-boycotting, in some cases, or impotent or non-existent, in others).

My homeland Bangladesh would be as good an example as any. Currently we have two women leaders at the helm of the two major political parties – both leaders have inherited the post. One after the assassination of her father (perpetuated to be the 'Father of the Nation') and the other after the assassination of her husband (perpetuated to be the 'Declarer of Independence').



These two women have been at the helm of their respective parties since they took over almost 20 years ago – and seem to think nothing of continuing to hold on to the post till their passing. Upon which their son or daughter will have to take on the leadership 'for the love of the people'. If anything our system of government may be parliamentary (with a capital 'L' for 'Lame;), but our system of party is a monarchy (with a capital 'D' for pseudo-Democratic).

However, to be fair to one of the party leaders – the current prime minister had made headlines some years ago declaring that she would retire from politics when she turned 57. Thankfully for her supporters (and the nation that ONLY she can save) she promptly stopped ageing after that. Besides, even her detractors know that social etiquette deems is impolite to ask a lady her age. I'd imagine our opposition leader herself is not too fair behind (ahead?) of that mark, to put a fine point to it.

Like all good leaders ours refuse to ask of another what they themselves cannot do.

Actually, all our esteemed leaders have a mantra that resonates with the classic line from Yes Minister: “While I do not seek a second term, I have dedicated my life to the service of this country and its people, and should the people persuade me that that is the best way I can serve, I might reluctantly have to accept the responsibility, whatever my personal wishes might be.”

I suppose its a bit arrogant to presume that 'I' and 'only I' can save a nation, but that is the folly of politicians who see their position as a platform of honour and a ticket to their own privilege rather an opportunity to empower others. Such politicians automatically become suspicious of anyone who can see through their charade. Thankfully it is so easy to label anyone a 'traitor' when you hold the reins and can decree life or death, metaphysically speaking.

Sort of like the Caesars of lore – thumbs up or thumbs down.

I came across an extract of a report by a professor of leadership development at INSEAD, the French business school, that offers an explanation as to why people find it difficult to voluntarily step down from office, which I include in this post.

In his paper, “The Retirement Syndrome, The Psychology of Letting Go”, Manfred Kets de Vries writes: “Public recognition that has accompanied their position at the top has been a major dimension of their lives. Just as trees need water and sunshine, many leaders need admiration of their subordinates to feel truly alive. They crave an endless supply of narcissistic stimuli.”

Kets de Vries continues that the prospect of retirement would mean suddenly be deprived of what to them are “essential nutrients: identification with an institution of great power, influence over individuals, policies, finances, and the community; and constant affirmation of their importance as individuals and so their role as leaders to others. The prospect of climbing down off the top of the heap and becoming a nobody holds little attraction for them”.

That and the fact that as many leaders who cling onto power are men, and behind every formidable man is an even more formidable woman, many probably stick it out, despite the effect on their national economy and the every heightening security threats, because it is the only way to put off reporting to the wife.

Ask Zimbabwe's Mugabe, Syria's Assad, Senegal's Abdoulaye Wade, or South Africa's Zuma (he has three!). It is purported that these defiant men fear the wrath of the 'petticoat government' more than the wrath of the people or the international community.

By that definition our ladies do it just for the attention and the unrelenting privileges.