Born not to rule... but to serve

In God we trust... in leadership we offer trust. Yet the qualities of leadership are many; so are we asking too much of those whom we choose ‘democratically’ to lead us?
It is difficult to sustain that perspective, given that as we look around us, we see how few of the current crop of heads of government demonstrate appropriate levels of respect, dignity, and decorum... minimum requirements, one would think. So, let’s check out, in no particular order, to see what history, scholars and societies value as leadership qualities, and whether they are sustainable in today’s grasping political environment.
Humility is one of the first to come to mind. Not of the ‘bowing and scraping', but that of which the Holy Quran (17:37) reminds us that “You should not walk on the Earth in a haughty style. You can neither tear the Earth apart, nor match its mountains in height,” while J M Barrie simply wrote of life being “one long lesson in humility.” Nor is humility a sign of meekness or weakness; after all, it is well-chronicled, in the ‘other’ book, that “the meek shall inherit the Earth.”
Humility is a strength of character, the ability to recognise the qualities of others, and to be sufficiently self-aware to appreciate them.
Leaders should be, in fact, on a perpetual journey of self-discovery, as the children of their societies, reverse-engineering societal need, not want. As such, the best of them should be tagged humanist... ethical, compassionate, and empathetic... because they should inspire people to both do, and be, better, and continuously encourage them to be so! Yet, those qualities appear rare, though, as the scholar and poet Abu Al Tayyib Al Mutanabbi wrote, of those who, while living in an environment created through the good graces of those who came before, cannot hide their envy for, or scorn of them.
Maybe in the past, there was little thought of accountability as a quality of leadership; however, if one is to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions, they must also be accountable, therefore measurable for them, in the same way. Academics often disagree, saying that responsibility is the imperative towards action in leadership, while accountability is where one stands alone, answering to the cost of that action: “uncomfortable,” writes Minaa, “but worth the discomfort,” while Thomas Paine wrote, “Men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not be trusted.”
Societies need leaders, and not everybody is putting their hand up! They want role models to be creative, innovative and visionary; to be collaborative and communicative, as agile, strong, and courageous as a warrior, to have the wisdom of ages, confident, and decisive. But mostly, societies need their leaders to be resilient, not petulant, and for arrogance to be a memory of something left behind, along with nappies, skinned knees and elbows, crocodile tears, and teen angst.
Genuine leaders are born, not made, but during their perpetual tenures are educated and trained to be wiser and more compassionate, and significantly less full of their own importance. If only for this reason, we can look towards the established historical orders of monarchy and sovereignty for the best examples today’s world can offer. For example, the title of ‘Sultan’ refers to wisdom and authority; ‘Shaikh’ to their elders, respected and beyond reproach; ‘Kings’ and ‘Queens,’ are hereditary monarchs with life tenure; ‘Pharaoh,’ refers to the lineage of their great houses; ‘Khan’ is symbolic of authority, even power; ‘Tsars’ held claim to entire Byzantine civilisations; ‘Emperor,’ was once the definition of supremacy and victory; ‘Shah’ is King of Kings; even ‘Ayatollah’ as a sign of God has an allusion to greatness.
And there, only by any other name, can today’s chosen democrats, as if by design and demand, appear and be, and behave with petulance, arrogance, and entitlement, lacking the dignity, grace, and gravitas of the older orders. Give me a king, or a shaikh, any day of the week.