"Who is our leader" is a question easier asked than answered in today's world. Nations are not led by leaders any more. Countries, including those considered mothers and champions of democracies are no longer governed by moral imperatives. Misfortunes of our world today come not from an excess but from total absence of leadership at national and global levels. Look what Bush and Blair have done to their people and to the world. Both defied the popular will in embarking upon a military adventure in Iraq and then circumscribing the liberties of their own people on the pretext of curbing terrorism. They have put the whole world upside down. Might always considered wrong has never been claimed so right. There is a different "raison d'etat" altogether now. State is once again, for all citizens and in all matters, the highest arbiter of conduct and opinion, and is entitled to choose its own means of asserting its supremacy. Ends now justify the means no matter what happens to democratic norms and fundamental values and freedoms. Modern patterns of power and leadership now represent a curious convergence of Machiavellian "doctrine of necessity" and Hegelian "philosophy of the state." Historically, different social arrangements and legal structures have warranted different forms and styles of leadership. Leadership is almost always a complicated amalgam of an individual personality, the needs and expectations of a community and the exigencies of the age. In imperial China for example, Han Fei Tzu idealised the leader as a "distant" figure of enlightened subtlety who kept very close counsel and ruled not by virtue but by law. The legendary Lycurgus, depicted by Plutarch, inaugurated in Sparta a systematic society in which the good of the community so dominated the will of individual citizens that virtue and law were one and there was no need for strong personalities among subsequent leaders. Lycurgus would have been rejected by Ibn Khaldun, the great fourteenth century Arab social scientist, who believed that social forces, not individuals, generated history; consequently Ibn Khaldun's ideal leader is a gentle person whose mission is to promote the interests of his subjects. Machiavelli stands out for his radical views on what a ruler whom he describes as "prince" needs to do to maintain his full personal power. His description of leadership derived from close observation of Cesare Borgia and an almost visionary desire for a strong, pragmatic "prince" charismatic and ruthless enough to unite the city states of Italy. His philosophy of government is premised on his assumption that in the absence of virtuous citizens, there are only "corrupt masses" and since the end justifies the means, they can be controlled only by a "prince" through his "deceitful and vicious behaviour." For Machiavelli's "prince" it is necessary to be "the child of fortune and be born into power" or to "acquire power through deceit and conquest." He must have a "hypocritical and vacillating" personality wearing the face of "mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion" to create a public image, but often acting contrary to those very ideals. Rousseau in his "Social Contract" presents his ideal of a state simple and small enough to answer a citizen's needs and to let him take active part in its government. He believed that there was no substitute to a democratic system in which the sovereign power rests with the people, for they alone are in possession of an inalienable will and all other power is dependent upon this fundamental sovereign power. He also concluded, "If there existed a people of gods, it would govern itself democratically." Hegel glorified the state power beyond limits and considered its authority as inevitably embodied in an "autocratic and powerful" government. He recognised sovereignty of the general will but according to him, only "wise rulers" knew what that will was. To Hegel, the state as an organic whole is in constant process of development and growth. A sick state is comparable to a sick human body which may exist, yet cannot function as a real entity; it is comparable, for example, to a severed hand which still appears to be a hand, but is devoid of significant reality as such. With different thoughts and concepts influencing human minds since the emergence of "nation state," the world has experienced all forms of political systems ranging from monarchies to republics; from aristocracies to oligarchies and from tyranny to democracy. After centuries of trial and error, democracy emerged as the universally preferred choice. Yet, history is also replete with tales of political figures who not only equated themselves with the state but also viewed their reign as a mere extension of their own egos and idiosyncrasies. Even today, there is no dearth of "wilful rulers" of all sorts, elected or unelected, civilian or military, casting their shadows across the world. Our country suffers them most. We in Pakistan have been experimenting with different systems at different times and some times all at the same time. Constitutions, parliaments, independent courts and other institutions representing popular political opinion have been trampled and disparaged. Elections have been used as the means of serving only selfish group interests or the interests of opportunistic feudal, moneyed, law-evading, land-grabbing and privileged elite classes. Our country today is an archetypal example of the Machiavellian "princedom" in which sovereignty does not resides in the people and which is premised on the infamous "doctrine of necessity." In fact, this doctrine has been used repeatedly by our successive military dictators to circumscribe the supremacy and integrity of our constitution. In this ignoble task, they always have had a readily available servile judiciary to help them and to swear by their "personal constitutional orders" most familiarly known as PCOs. Our present "neither-parliamentary-nor-presidential" system under invisible military "straps" has no parallel in political philosophy or contemporary history. For decades, we have had a semblance of parliamentary system without our parliament ever functioning as a "full sovereign body" or playing any role in the country's decision-making. The only laws they are good at making are those that preserve their privilege and perquisite. The new parliament is neither free nor sovereign. Like its predecessor, the present parliament is also being held hostage by the same "wilful ruler" who is either the "child of fortune" or "was born into power" or who "acquired power and wealth through deceit and force." The unlimited authority inherent in our one-man-rule smacks of France's Louis XIV's famous dictum: "L'etat, c'est moi" - "I am the state." Last eight years have indeed been a painful period of our crisis-ridden history. We now figure prominently in the top global lists of most corrupt, most violent and most undemocratic countries. The constitution and the law have become the property of one man who has been changing them at will. The federation is at risk. Governance is at its worst. Corruption is rampant. The country's economy is in shambles. There are no signs of the new government anywhere. The plunderers, profiteers, and the looters, murderer and the killers could not have a safer haven anywhere else in the world. No other country is familiar with the normatic practice of forgiving as a matter of rule the elite loan-defaulters and the known highly placed plunderers of national exchequer. Double Shah is a character that now epitomises Pakistan's new identity. What disappoints the people of Pakistan is that today, a government they elected so enthusiastically on February 18 is using the same doctrine to justify its externally dictated and expediency based reconciliation with the same system that the people had rejected so overwhelmingly. The country remains possessed by the same invisible power that has destroyed its constitutional structure and ruined its institutional integrity. Pakistan has just had its second independence. We must not squander it through the same old policies and "institutional aberrations." Real democracy rooted in the genuine will of the people, not externally-dictated real politic or self-serving deals and compromises, will produce a leader sincere enough to come up to the aspirations of the people of Pakistan and capable enough to fulfil their mandate for a change in our system, and for an end to military, paramilitary or civil dictatorship in all its forms and manifestations. Disillusionment is growing rapidly with the government as it loses touch with the mind and mood of the people and shows helplessness in fixing the fundamentals of the state and addressing the food and fuel crises afflicting the common man. On judges' issue, the people feel irreparably let down. One only hopes that there is no new Queue League in the making. Meanwhile, the question, "who is our leader" remains unanswered.