The strong state or the strong official?

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Sometimes the choice between a strong state and a strong official is presented, as if the existence of one negates the other. The truth is that a strong state needs, especially in the stages of establishment, reform and crises, strong officials.

The powerful official is not the one who is most tightly in control of details, nor is he the one whose office passes through every paper, small or large. These may be signs of the centralization of the decision more than they are evidence of the strength of leadership. The official in whom the institution does not move except in his presence may appear strong, but he is building a weak institution that depends on him and is disrupted by his absence.

True power begins with clarity of vision and the ability to make decisions and bear responsibility for them. It also appears in selecting competent people, protecting them from interference, granting them real powers, and then holding them accountable for the results. A strong official is not afraid of having strong people around him; Because he does not see their competence as a threat to his position, but rather as an addition to his success.

The role of this official may be decisive in preparing a strong state, as tired institutions do not automatically repair themselves, and the bureaucracy does not easily give up its habits and interests. The reform process sometimes requires a personality who possesses the will, dedication, and ability to break stagnation, and who can turn ideas into decisions. But the test begins after that: Does he use this power to build rules and systems, or is he satisfied with imposing his will? Here his power becomes a bridge to the power of the state, neither a temporary alternative nor a permanent burden on it.

There is a big difference between an official who uses his powers to strengthen the institution, and another who uses the institution to expand his powers. The first organizes work, documents knowledge, sets criteria for selection and promotion, and builds a second class capable of continuing. As for the second, he monopolizes information, weakens alternatives, and makes loyalty to him more important than competence, so the institution appears strong in his presence, but then its fragility is revealed after his departure.

A strong state is not a state without leadership, nor a bureaucratic apparatus that works alone. They are institutions led by capable people who move within the law. Rules without leadership may turn into stagnation, and leadership without rules may turn into personal rule. The combination of the two is what creates effectiveness and continuity.

A strong official knows when to intervene and when to let others work, when to stick to his decision and when to review it... and that an achievement that is attributed to him alone is less valuable than an achievement that becomes part of the institution’s capacity. A successful leader does not create followers, but rather creates leaders. He does not leave a vacuum behind him, but rather leaves a system that works.

The history of countries is full of officials who accomplished a lot in short periods, then what they did was dissipated. Because achievement is linked to their people, not to institutions. It is also full of leaders whose greatest contributions were to transform individual initiatives into stable policies, personal experience into institutional memory, and exceptional decisions into a viable rule.

The trade-off is not between a strong state and a strong official. What is required is an official strong enough to build a state that does not need his permanent presence. The value of an official is not measured by the amount of power he has amassed in his hand, but rather by the amount of power he distributed within the institution, and by its ability to succeed after he leaves it.

Quoted from Al-Masry Al-Youm