Public vs. Personalities
All rulers seem to play the same tactics. The moment they sat in the seat of power, they started equating themselves with something considered sacred in the minds of the general public. This helps them to save their skin from the opposition of the public. Former dictator Musharraf chose the homeland of 163 million people to be equated with. Thus, trying to create an impression that harming his reputation; attacking his policies or criticizing his governance style is equivalent to a conspiracy against the country in actual. While, President Zardari proves to be abit smarter than Musharraf. He puts himself in equation with the sacred ideal of Democracy. This way, he not only saves himself from the inside audience but also shields himself from the expected future blows of the international community.
Rulers might get some short-term benefits from these tactics. But, one thing is for sure, countries under these rulers face alot of hardships. Government officials, in these eras, try to become more loyal to their bosses than the general public. Institutions are weakened, and poor working-class is ignored completely.
Prosperity can be achieved, and countries can be put back on the path of success. But only, if personalities are completely dropped out of all types of equations. Countries should be made dependent of the institutions rather than the individuals. Because, a country lives longer than an individual.
Individualism should be sacrificed in favor of collectivism. Collective conscious has to be built. Self-greed and self-interest should be denounced. Society has to recognize, regard & reward the collective efforts based on the collective wisdom.
Democracy is winning only if public is winning in public versus personalities.
Food for thought: Douglas rushkoff gave a brilliant talk on a topic similar to this, at PdF2008.
