Quitting is leading too

The list of presidents democratically elected then their quest to power grow stronger to the point of changing their constitution jurisdiction to self-declare themselves life president is growing. Whether disguised in a kind of democracy where they always win every consecutive election, swap between the position in roles of president to premier minister but keeping the same overarching powers in either roles, the paradox is some human beings who are not elected for lifetime mandates, have such an obsession to die in the office that is hard to comprehend. But they are good signs that democracy will never die, just because a bunch of guys are greedy and not able to lead in few countries. There are there encouraging examples whereby other human beings, while elected for lifetime position or roles such as Pope Benedict XVI shock the world with resignation just last month, that although is constitutional acceptable and expected in Vatican jurisdictions to die in office, He chosen not to. The fact that it was never practiced for more than six centuries, didn’t stop Benedict XVI in implementing it, and in doing so, as reformist as it looks likes, with his move, He did not introduce a new reform at all. There are also encouraging reforms in China, where there is change and renovation in the leadership of the country. As communist as we may label it, it’s better than Russian, Venezuela Equatorial Guinea or Angola’s of this world, with constitutional engineered disguised in fraudulent election that keeps the same guy wining all the time. Chine is better in reforms than many disguised democracies that populate our planet since the end of cold war. Some of the current leaders are so fake, that they are not even capable to promise their country and their people a younger, better person for the presidential job than getting jealous and greedy and vow to stay put until they die. They fail to understand that presidents role in a country is not marriage that is expect that one will only part company with death, but even there divorce exists for when things go wrong… it seems like for some presidents they just came back out of the blue when they realised they would regretted the decision of stepping down before even they are elected… they are not able to propose that limiting the age of serving in the office… some of the leaders they cannot face the reality that they, as human being, they would not win the day everyday… they don’t have the great humility to accepted that they are human, not superman… they fail to understand that things like, if Chavez has accepted his cancer with great humility, maybe would be alive now and beaten cancer… instead he sulked in his inglorious fight against US… sulking is not lesson in leadership… it leaves no legacy… why pick a David and Goliath fight when you cant win? Most of person who reach the presidency of a country they fool themselves to think they are any good leaders by the longest they stick to power. Knowing how to abandon a failed idea, task or relationship is often the most difficult kind of decision a leader has to make, but that’s what leaders are made of. In many ways, the Mandela's greatest legacy as President of South Africa is the way he chose to leave it…. When Mandela was elected in 1994, and the ANC since then is ruling with two third majority, Mandela probably could have pressed and engineered a constitution that would made him life President — and I don’t think that there are voices in the ANC that disagree with this view, not because there are no guys with guts to challenge Mandela’s eldership, but because there are many who feel that in return for his years in prison, that was the least South Africa could do. In the history of Africa, and other corners of the globe, there have been only a handful of democratically elected leaders who willingly stood down from office. Mandela was determined to set a precedent for all who followed him — not only in South Africa but across the rest of the world... Mandela would be today the anti-Mugabe, anti Gaddafi, anti-Chavez, anti-Putin, anti-Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anti-Mubarak, anti-Bashar al-Assad, just as he was anti-Mobuto, anti-Fidel, anti-Kim Il Sung, anti-Bokhassa, anti- Milton Obote, anti-Hastings Kamuzu Banda, anti-Saddam Hussein, anti-Pervez Musharraf, anti-Kim Jong-il, and anti-Francisco Franco, to mention few, even if he had shaken hands with them. Some of these men gave birth to their countries and chose to hold their countries hostage by ruling their countries solely by decree, via an Enabling Act or similar laws passed by a legislature allowing them to do so by military force. These men appointed themselves an absolute rulers of a sovereign state, usually by a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, especially the violent overthrow or alteration of then existing government by a small group they headed, without hereditary ascension. These men chosen to govern outside the otherwise accepted rule of law. Some of them commonly (but not necessarily) gaining power through fraud, a coup d'état, resorting to either, fraud, a coup d'état again, to continue in power, developing therefore a cult of personality. These men, once in power, became autocratic, oppressive, despotic and tyrannical… against their own people. Some of them like Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf, became known in the west as "benevolent dictators" because they were viewed as beneficial and their leadership seen as a "necessary evil" both in the global fight against terrorism as well as in the containment of Israeli-Arab conflict... Mubarak did not survive the Arab spring…Today we don’t use much the term 'dictator' but, to developed largely in response to instances of autocratic rule in republics, in some cases it’s very hard to distinguish the new and old regimes… is there really difference between Mubarak and Morsi? If "benevolent dictators" are useful for some cases for the national interests of some imperialists nations, I It's not strange for why the Ugandan Present, Yoweri Museveni continue to be darling doll for the US even with his poor track records of human rights and his grip to power through any means he deem necessary … so is Kigali Rwandan President Paul Kagame that is thought to be changing the constitution now that will allow him run for a third term and stay in office beyond 2017… while Kagame won international praise for Rwanda’s economic development since the 1994 genocide that tore the east African country apart along its ethnic seams, there is no doubt that he is more than authoritarian… utilising the Russian way of killings all his political oponents and his perceived enemies… It is hard now to realise that our hopes invested in what was expected to be "the new generation" of African leaders… are not dashed completely... Men like Mugabe, Yoweri Museveni, Meles Zenawi (late president of Ethiopia, 2012) Isaias Afewerki in Eritrea, Kabila and Paul Kagame in Rwanda were seen as ushering in a harmonious era of democracy, clean government, and peaceful inter-state relations in black Africa where the gathered enthusiastic support from the West… now these western government realise that these men only aliened their governments as reliably pro-western for their own political survival… with china in chase play, it become more and more difficulty to handle them, when they crack down basic human rights issues as gay rights, as if this could represent anything against the national interest of those countries… For some its nearly two decades of disappointment leaderships … and the more they still put in power more will disappoint mightily... there is no exception of leaders who are in power more than a decade who did not become dictators… the more years in power the more sensitive and detached they become… any criticism of their government's tight control domestically and of their foreign policies are being muted, and there has been, by world standards, a very generous flow of aid for these countries… What is not understandably is why continue supporting life presidents such as Musseveni, Kagame who held absolute power during their national emergencies yes, but never restored the rule of law soon thereafter? Why are these leaders failing to understand that "their job was to set the course of their countries, and not to steer the ship?" why are they failing to acknowledge that leaders lead as much by what they choose not to do as what they do? Ultimately, the response can be maybe in immaturity of these leaders if one compare most them still emotional, headstrong, easily stung to the balanced and disciplined maturity of Mandela who emerged after 27 years in prison… its pity that most of thses leaders they will reach their maturity when they are removed from power by force… and it will then be too late for them to realise that there is nothing so rare — or so valuable — as a mature man… The best gloss on these failed leaders are their domestic policies where they intent on establishing a flourishing economy and nurturing social changes before bringing about a wider political opening… The best gloss on their foreign policies are that they reckons the country must remain a player in the global and regional affairs and developments that could threaten their stability at home (like Chavez fighting US, something that strained his energy and brought his fall or Kagame in DRCongo, Musseveni in Sudan or even Morsi in Syria). The worst gloss on both is that the formula of "bread today, freedom tomorrow" is one that has led many previous fake leaders, and in many countries, to ruin. All presidents described above are impressive men who almost certainly knows that they should slacken their too-tight grip… before it’s too late… before they reach a no return point, where they left are enemies who want to kill them… before they are left with no other safe option than forced to die in office… The problem of Mugabes, Kagame, Mubarakis, Assads of these world is the limitation of human imagination on knowing something and doing it are two different things…. In acknowledging that quitting is also leadership…