While many would like to see the two top personalities leave the scene, whether for better or

for worse only time will tell, the two seem to disagree on the manner and method being employed rather than the spirit behind the idea.

But they seem to be convinced that they have been anointed for the posts by virtue of their links with the founders of their parties. They have been holding the job for close to a quarter of a century, and as time passes they seem ever more convinced that it is theirs to hold till eternity.

One wonders whether they have ever contemplated on the fact that their being put in the top party post was really making a virtue out of a necessity. It was really the surnames they were carrying that their partymen wanted to exploit. That is something not unique to us and, looking around at the countries of the region, the two ladies should feel happy to find themselves in equally illustrious company.

But leadership is not all about being put in a place of authority. While one may be put in a high office, becoming a true leader, particularly in the realm of politics, is quite another matter. Leadership is quite like greatness; some are born leaders, some acquire the essential qualities, and some are thrust into the position.

But being thrust into the position does not automatically invest one with all the leadership traits. Leadership has also to be underpinned by ethics and morality in order to make it legitimate and acceptable.

Today, politics and politicians, particularly the two top leaders, are under public scrutiny, ever more so after the incredible revelations appearing in the media about the scope and level of corruption that some of the politicians have been allegedly involved in, and the moral turpitude that some of them had sunk into.

And while it would be unfair to indict both of them in equal measure for the ills that pervade our politics today, they must, nonetheless, share the responsibility in proportion to the time they were in office, as they must also be given plaudits in the same proportion for all that they were able to achieve.

If our leaders have failed to demonstrate the qualities of leadership, it may perhaps be because they lacked the ingredients in the first place, but what they seem to forget is that "when a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property," as Jefferson had said two hundred years ago.

Being public property by their own choice, they must not demur at public comments on their future. The choice between discarding them or retaining them is as much a public right as that of their party men or women.

And I talk as one of the public, not predisposed to the views of either those who want them go to make reform of their parties easier, or of those who think that they are indispensable. Neither do I subscribe to the view of the establishment that they have become redundant because they were unsuccessful leaders and should, therefore, consider quitting politics, without citing specifics on their failure.

However, I feel that the comment, "all political lives, unless they are cut off in mid-stream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs," merits consideration.

But quite apart from being a successful or unsuccessful leader, and one can apply all kinds of yardsticks to determine success, there is the very important aspect of the moral force of the leader or the person in command that adds to the art of leadership, and allows one to achieve more than what the science of management can ever do, as per Colin Powell. And it is the moral authority of the two that many are questioning now. Why so?

It is for everybody to see the morass that some very senior politicians belonging to both the major parties have taken themselves and the country into, with their unbridled greed and lust for money.

The very foundation of national ethos is shaken when justice is denied to the aggrieved, and murderers are allowed to flee in exchange for money. And none other than the person on whom the country reposed the trust to maintain their security, and to bring the criminals and the culprits to book, had no remorse in subverting the course of justice. Such actions need more than the slyness and cunningness of one single person.

It is difficult to believe that a deal that was settled at a sum that many in Bangladesh cannot even think of earning in several generations was not in the knowledge of the "superior."

Even if we were to give the benefit of doubt and accept the argument that the leader had no knowledge of all the dubious deals that had been carried out under his or her watch, then a cardinal task of a leader was not ensured, which is to be fully informed about what his or her charges are up to.

It was for them to keep their men or women under watch. As a US president is reported to have remarked: "Every man who takes office in Washington either grows or swells, and when I give a man office I watch him carefully to see whether he is growing or swelling."

Some people holding public office in our country have swelled beyond recognition at the expense of the country and, as things may turn out, to their general detriment too. Thus, on both counts, those of ignorance and acquiescence, a leader can be marked down as a failure. He/she may not be faulted for the acts of commission of their ministers, but, certainly, the onus of moral responsibility cannot be avoided by them.

Very few people have the moral courage to own up to their mistakes, and we are not surprised that the two leaders have not, even once, mustered enough courage to say: "I was wrong."

Since a party of order and stability, and a party of progress and reform, are both necessary elements for a healthy state of political life, to recall John Stuart Mill, anything that destabilises an established party should be avoided; but not without asking the fundamental question, which is whether the leaders under whose authority so much wrong was perpetrated have the moral authority to seek an office which needs the confidence of the party men and the people at large?

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.