Crisis of leadership: A nation will only have the leaders it deserves...
Man is born first with a basic reflex: to defend himself. To protect his body, his immediate territory, his survival. This instinct is ancient, almost animal. With social and intellectual evolution, that horizon widens. Man becomes capable of defending his family, his clan, and sometimes a community. But few are able to conceive of and sustain the defense of an entire nation’s interest. Yet it is precisely this capacity that distinguishes a true statesman from a mere political actor or a follower citizen.
This reality sheds light on a major difficulty modern systems face in producing real leaders, especially in developing regions where the standard of living often correlates with the level of consciousness and clarity of vision.
Most individuals naturally reason from their immediate interests. Even in the most advanced democracies, many political leaders put their careers first, their electoral clientele, their regional, ethnic, economic or ideological group. Few manage to break free from that logic and adopt a long-term national vision.
World political history is full of examples illustrating this fundamental difference between a manager and a leader. A manager administers what exists. A leader transforms a society by carrying a vision that transcends his own interest.
When General Charles de Gaulle returned to power in 1958, France was deeply divided by the Algerian War. He could have chosen the easy political path by aligning with the most powerful groups of the moment. Instead he chose a painful course he considered consonant with France’s strategic interest. That ability to think of the nation before immediate passions precisely defines historic leadership.
Similarly, Nelson Mandela could have governed South Africa in a spirit of revenge after twenty-seven years in prison. He chose national reconciliation. Again, he no longer defended a group, but a higher idea of the nation. His successors squandered the capital he had built.
Many countries today suffer from permanent political fragmentation. Parties become electoral machines focused on internal balances, personal ambitions, or short-term calculations. Political debate is then reduced to a quantitative competition: how many seats, how many votes, which coalitions.
This is precisely where the theoretical role of political parties comes in.
In modern democracies, parties should not be mere instruments for electoral conquest. Their fundamental mission is much nobler and more difficult: to identify, train, and promote personalities capable of rising above particular interests to embody the general interest.
Yet this mission has become extremely complex.
Mass media, the dominance of social networks and the politics of buzz often favor the most visible profiles rather than the most visionary. The ability to produce a viral line is rewarded more than the ability to build a national strategy for twenty years. Media time has become faster than political time.
This drift explains why so many societies now experience a leadership crisis. Leaders are sometimes elected by statistical mechanism more than by genuine adherence to a vision. Universal suffrage remains essential, but it does not automatically guarantee the emergence of the best. It mainly makes it possible to designate those most capable of winning a majority.
Between being elected and being a historic leader, however, there is a vast difference.
A true leader possesses several rare characteristics: the capacity for personal sacrifice, long-term vision, the courage to accept temporary unpopularity, and above all the aptitude to reconcile conflicting interests around a national project.
That is why great nations invest heavily in training their political, administrative and intellectual elites. Universities, grandes écoles, military or diplomatic institutions often play a major role in shaping leaders. The United States has Harvard University, Yale University or Stanford; France has Sciences Po or the former ENA; the United Kingdom has relied for centuries on the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge.
These institutions do not automatically produce political geniuses. But they create spaces where a culture of the State and the nation is built.
In developing countries, the difficulty is even greater. The weight of local, tribal, economic or clientelist affiliations can sometimes prevent the emergence of a genuine national consciousness. The political leader then becomes the defender of a segment of society or an interest group rather than the servant of the whole nation.
Yet no nation can sustainably progress without leaders able to elevate collective debate above immediate interests.
The great political challenge of the 21st century is therefore not only economic or technological. It is human. How do we train men and women capable of thinking beyond themselves? How do we produce leaders who sometimes accept political loss in order to make their country win historically?
In this respect, the situation unfolding in Morocco starkly illustrates this leadership crisis, with exhausted parties unable to renew their elites and discourses, while the political field oscillates between the noisy populism of some, the silence or assumed incompetence of others, and the proliferation of specialists in lies and hollow promises, with less than three months to go before crucial legislative elections for the country's future. Where do we stand with personalities such as Allal El Fassi, Abderrahim Bouabid, Abdelkhalek Torres, Mohamed Hassan El Ouazani and others? They were all products of a consciousness and a historical context. What then of the real challenges, of conscience and responsibility? What of the context that leaves us no choice? Where to move forward: consolidate the country's upward trajectory or, conversely, miss the technological turn as we missed the mechanization turn. The consequences are known to all: the Sherifian Empire eventually ended up placed under a protectorate and dismembered.
Many citizens today are convinced that the answer cannot come solely from the ballot box. It also depends on education, political culture, the quality of institutions, citizens' honesty and the maturity of society.
For at bottom, a nation often gets the leaders it prepares, values... and deserves.
