IS LEADERSHIP A PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE PROGRESS OF A COUNTRY??...
I know mates everyone can write an essay,a debate and argue in favour of this topic..Now I need someone who can present sound arguments and examples AGAINST this topic..one thing in CSS that have noticed is that one shud think out of the box..Go against the tide..this usually fetches u better marks..So I put forth is topic of discussion because I have found it one of the most difficult tasks to go against it..Please everyone contribute and put ur arguments against this topic..

THE topic should be start in a way..

leader has no standing but on the body of masses.mass play a big role in nation building.middle class is pre requisite for the progress of country.nation rises due to increasing % of this particular class..

such a difficult topic to start..need food for thoughts..

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

What are ur thoughts about the role of institutions in nation building rather than personalities..

The organization of any nation is due to developed institutions.One institutions that cover all the institutions and flourish them is family institution.so family builds nation not the leader.cultural identity,economy,relations all are dependent on this.without cultural force no nation can progress.

now it is a good start.. one can wrote an immense essay on that topic

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

Well one thing is for obvious that institutions should be supreme and not personalities.
Wherever in the world or in whichever field institutions
are supreme and personalities not, progress is faster and peace and harmony is greater.
In prominent developed countries , institutions are stronger .
Yes personalities also do matter and they matter a lot.
A towering personality leads an institution towards its best,
yet institution is desired to be the supreme.
It should not be overshadowed by personality.
In fact when once an institution gets established on strong footing ,
I reckon ,
then it can resist to be overshadowed by strong personalities.
Personalities come and go, institutions stay .
Therefore institutions should be made stronger.
And then , of coerce, there needs to be a proper harmony , coordination and mutual trust among institutions .

__________________
Thanks Allah

And what do you people think..can a revolution be brought without a leader..I on't think that leadership is a prerequisite for revolution.

the abrupt changes often yield good result but violence and bloodshed.i will go against to fulfill the asked requirement.
Revolution comes only when all state institutions are damaged.Revolution has mass level appeal.

One who ignites fire that enroached all around.Revolution always come when masses came outside.only a news/source ignite revolution.leader is merely a puppet.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

Institutional strength is more important than leadership.This is so as strong institutions provide confidence and path to even mediocre leadership.Take the example of pak army.It has capitalised its institutional strength over the years on the dictum"power flows from the barrel of the Gun".On the contrary political parties have to failed to incultate a strong political culture over the years,resulantly even brave leaders like JAVED HASMI are unable to bring about a paradigm shift in the current state of affairs.Without institutional backing great leaders with few exceptions like ZAB are merely a blip in terms of real change. AS far as revolutionary ferment is concerned,Pakistan is a country with a free media at least from government control and religious parties who give give a call for shutter down first and later explain the reason behind it. AS saleem safi point ed out with such a wide range of avenues for catharsis including suicide bombings make Pakistan is a different case in terms of revoutionary potential.

one can not deny the fact that leader change a nation destiny.Institution can't work without proper leader ship.it is very difficult to revert the arguments in the favor of nation/history.we can quote many examples how leader have shaped the nation's fate.

My first point is creativity and awareness that lead to particular nation development.Sir syed was a political thinker and leader,Allama iqbal was a philosopher and poet. What flame the masses of sub continent is awareness not a proper leadership.And renaissance of nation is what we called intellectuality and awareness to creativity.

It is oft-quoted "old is gold" but it is not true to each time.culture(the soul of civilization)needs something innovative to sustain the changes of its age.So Inertia of creativity deemed to darkness of civilization.

If political leader ship is so much important than i will quote an example of ummayad time.All the caliphs except few were corrupt and their moves were un-islamic.they were despotic and cruel.
But muslim civilization vehicled via the creative works of Jabar bin hayan,bu ali seena, imam jafar,malik,hanfia, and others.the same is true with euro history when Renaissance came and culture re-gained.

The philosophers destined the nation's prosperity but they are not leader.They are the person which bring innovations according to the suits of age.Imam abu Hanfia to Imam ahmed Hanbal,one can see how they change the laws and legislated it according to modern terms.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

Leaders like iqbal and sir syed were institutions in themselves.I dont think such a thing in within the realm of possibilty today