Many veterans in Bangladesh demonstrate their enthusiasm in erecting appraisal on 'Leadership Trend and Tendency' in which Prof. Dr. Ataur Rahman, outstanding in this field ubiquitous world landscape, amongst them, extraordinarily elucidates leadership approach which shakes not only the concentration of Bangladeshi scholars or leaders but outer countries also. Likewise an academician, his valor in this pitch daringly strokes the leaderships of Bangladesh and in most cases; leaders didn't apprehend it eagerly although Prof. Rahman's annunciations might be the catalyst in transforming their misappropriations triggered by themselves in the past history of Bangladesh .

Generally, leaders are whoever led a particular affair. For their payment well to the members/people of that affair bestows their entity as charisma or charismatic leaders. Dr. Ataur Rahman said, 'What is at the core of their power or influence is often described as charisma---an exceptional quality to influence people-galvanizing them into action". And members/people based on their charisma moves to fulfill the appeal of leaders' call in this concern. In this context, Prof. Rahman said, 'When they speak, we find ourselves mesmerized by their words and drawn by their sense of urgency. They seem to posses a certain indescribable energy that inspires and motivates-we are moved to follow them'.

The implication of Dr. Rahman's words was located when AL workers showed their arrogance on October 28, 2006 for their naked dance on dead body that was done with the call made by a party head of a party in Bangladesh . In the travel of state leadership of Bangladesh, Dr. Rahman finds out two charismatic leaders and he states, 'we can identify only two leaders-Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman-who can be termed as truly charismatic leaders, and whose ideals and institutions continue to inspire the country's political, economic and social agenda'.

In the journey of Bangladesh, leaders who came to the state scenario as ruler are discussed by Dr. Rahman and he notes some of their lacks along with their good governing system in various periods of Bangladesh. Basically, my write-up will find out the state backwardness caused by leaders' unskilled leading procedure that is widely called the 'Leadership Decay' in reference with the Dr. Ataur Rahman's scholarly annunciation about the leadership of Bangladesh.

Mujib's Regime: Charismatic but backfiring: Unfortunately, in the aftermath of independence, the populist regime of the country's founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, could not realize the expectations of the people against the insatiable demands of narrow elite propped up by the regime. Mujib's decision to create a single party system "BAKSAL" as "Second Revolution" might be inspired by his perception of political condition of that time and complex motives, but it backfired.

The failures of political leadership in terms of creation a value-framework and durable state structure to administer economic and social programs led to the alienation of the regime form the masses and eroded its legitimacy to the point of being subjected to violent change. Thus, Mujib's regimes were signed as an inefficient in its nature although problems in surviving state were more vehemently located. Later, Mujibur Rahman was assassinated with the atrocious move originated with elitist conspiracy and some scholars stated it (Mujib's assassination) was the consequence of framing BAKSHAL

Zia Regime: Charismatic but fewer spread: We all know that Ziaur Rahman came from the military background and he faced enormous dilemmas in making transition from military rule to multi-party democracy in Bangladesh. But his commitment was unwavering, and he made it possible despite jostling for power within the military and opposition from interested quarters as stated by Prof. Rahman.

But in the present perspective of Bangladesh, army's ingress in politics wouldn't be tolerated by the people along with its (People) so-called psyche branded with civil society workers, intellectuals etc. Zia's deep commitment to the cause of bigger developments of the country has taken him under a well heeled entity-'patriot' despite his root from the military. Prof. Ataur Rahman, from the rational point of view, is admiring Ziaur Rahman whereas Abdul Gaffer Chowdhury, a renowned writer in spite of having his intellectual identity not only in Bangladesh but all over the world, considered Ziaur Rahman one of the autocratic rulers in the Bangladeshi scenario. Probably, Chowdhury's argument is from partisan line.

Ershad Regime: Impulsive but Eroding-

A bloodless take over of the government by the military under Lt. General H.M. Ershad in March 1982 changes the political process in Bangladesh. Many people appreciated Ershad's leadership ability to improve economic performances of Bangladesh and the 'tolerant' nature of Ershad's long years of authoritarian rule. According to Dr. Rahman, '..his personal pitfalls, some serious miscalculations and volatile nature of Bangladesh politics led to negative perception of his leadership and collapse of the regime'.

Sheikh Hasina Regime: Populist but haughty: The downbeat points of Hasina regime is revealed by Professor Rahman in the way that 'the governance record, as evidenced in the successive Human Development Reports, was not satisfactory. The operation of Public Safety Act illustrated the Awami League government's conscious policy of muzzling the opposition.

The Awami League could not resolve any serious problem with inefficient leadership at various levels. The older generation of leaders could not deliver. The younger could not get any guidance or motivation. In the end, Sheikh Hasina's leadership degenerated into non-performing, less inclusive, and more flamboyant regime that was defeated by BNP-Jote government in 2001 parliamentary election'. Besides, AL leaders' arrogance, in most cases, chucks the nation into grave inconsistency.

Khaleda Regime: Strategic but mishandling : Mr. Ataur Rahman's annunciation on Khaleda's term is concerned with the defeat of election in 1996. He, in this regard, stated 'the defeat of her party in 1996 was mainly due to her inability to resolve the dilemma of democratic politics: how to contain a desperate opposition without restoring to violence and coercion.

In the second phase of Khaleda Zia's leadership faced enormous challenges. In this context, Prof. Rahman stated 'these came mainly from the context of governance and conduction a parliamentary system of democracy in an atmosphere of mistrust that continued in Bangladesh politics since the inception of the country'. Besides these, in this era of her regime, Begum Zia's associates were highly mishandled by indoor or outdoor explicit and tacit forces. So, leaders are in jeopardy i.e custody.

It seems to me, Prof. Ataur Rahman's realization and his wise-crack uttering truly carries the leadership's exact approach located in various ages in Bangladeshi politics. Concisely, according to Mr. Rahman, this leadership decay took place based on elitist conspiracy, propaganda war, audacious and capricious move of leaders and immoral disposition of leadership etc.

So, it might be the magnetic learn for the Bangladeshi leadership for the prospective governance of the country that by which they will erect a potential Bangladesh for its people. Ethics of leadership, in this concern, is very imperative. Only this tool may bestow the tangible statesmanship for the country. My today's effort would be ended with the judicious annunciation of Prof. Rahman-t'engaging in the deep moral reflection required to ensure that one's actions do respond to the public interest and do aim at creating a peaceful and just society'.