Recent global events have reignited debates over the nature of leadership and its role in shaping history. From Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s battle for the US presidency, followed by Biden’s abrupt withdrawal from the race under the weight of private and public pressure, to Sheikh Hasina’s exit in Bangladesh and the entrenchment of leaders like Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu in wartime governance-all these events compel us to ask: what defines historic leadership? As leaders face unprecedented challenges, ranging from political upheavals to coups sweeping through West and Central Africa, are they shaping history, or is history shaping them?

This fundamental question was explored decades ago by Henry Kissinger, an elder statesman and former US Secretary of State, in his book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy. He analyzed six prominent leaders of the 20th century-Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew, Margaret Thatcher, Konrad Adenauer, and Charles de Gaulle-offering deep insights into how they navigated crises and uncertainty to lead their nations to prominence. In the context of today’s political climate, Kissinger’s analysis raises crucial points about how history-making leadership is conditioned by decisions, trust, and promises, as well as how circumstances inherited by leaders determine their capacity to transcend challenges.

The essential question-what makes a leader and leadership “historic”?-continues to provoke discussion. Is it the leader’s personality? The times they are in? Or is it simply the result of opportunity and circumstance? While there may not be a definitive answer, the unfolding political drama worldwide makes it timely to revisit Kissinger’s perspective, contrasting it with today’s complex leadership landscape.

In his book, Kissinger discusses the “strategy of equilibrium” followed by Nixon, a man who sought to balance the power dynamics of the Cold War. Similarly, he examines how Anwar Sadat’s “strategy of transcendence” reshaped Egypt’s regional role through diplomatic breakthroughs, including the peace accord with Israel. Leaders like Thatcher, with her “strategy of conviction,” used their personal beliefs to drive national policy, while Adenauer’s “strategy of humility” helped to rebuild post-war Germany. These leaders represent the rare type that transcends circumstance through willpower, strategic brilliance, and a keen understanding of their times.

But does this model still apply? The rapid succession of crises and leadership changes in the 21st century challenges these notions. Kissinger’s work invites reflection on whether leadership today is equipped to deal with the increasingly complex and volatile global arena. Political survival, rather than strategic foresight, seems to dominate the motivations of contemporary leaders.

Broadly, leaders and leadership can be categorized into three distinct types. First, there are those born to create history. Alexander the Great is the archetype here. Despite living for only 32 years, Alexander’s conquests left an indelible mark on the ancient world, earning him the title “Great.” He is remembered as both a conqueror and a visionary, albeit one whose methods were violent and expansionist.

The second category comprises leaders who seize the opportunity to create history. These individuals often find themselves in the right place at the right time, using their vision and courage to mold events to their favor. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi are just a few examples of this leadership style. They were not born into leadership but became icons by responding to their historical moment with bravery and conviction. In today’s context, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky might fit into this category, though his leadership has drawn criticism. Once a comedian, Zelensky’s resolve amid the Russian invasion has reframed the conversation about his place in history. His “strategy of stubbornness” -a term that has emerged due to his refusal to surrender or negotiate-may earn him a legacy of defiance against overwhelming odds, whether or not he ultimately succeeds.

Finally, there are leaders who are created by history. These individuals may not have intended to be leaders, nor did they necessarily show an extraordinary knack for it. Instead, they were thrust into leadership roles by dynastic lineage, circumstance, or chance. Prime ministers like Rajiv Gandhi of India and Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan belong to this category. While their leadership was initially a product of family legacy rather than personal ambition, they both paid with their lives for entering the political arena. They were, in a sense, passive participants in history rather than active creators of it.

How does this framework apply to today’s world? The crises facing modern leaders seem more complex than ever before. Whether it’s the long-running conflict in Ukraine, political instability in Africa, or economic challenges spurred by global inflation and the aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic, today’s leaders are grappling with a volatile and uncertain landscape. This has led to a political environment in which few leaders have emerged with the kind of clear, decisive strategies that Kissinger attributes to the great leaders of the 20th century.

Instead, the focus seems to be on mere survival. Consider Putin and Netanyahu-both embroiled in military conflicts but firmly holding on to power. Neither has emerged with a transformative or forward-looking strategy. Rather, their leadership appears aimed at maintaining the status quo, protecting their positions, and managing crises rather than resolving them. In a similar vein, the persistent call for Nicolás Maduro’s reelection in Venezuela after contested elections showcases how leadership today is more about weathering immediate storms than building a long-term vision.

So, why does today’s world seem bereft of the historic leadership that Kissinger describes? One answer might be found in the shifting nature of global politics itself. As the historian Andrew Roberts notes, leadership in itself is morally neutral. It can lead humanity toward destruction as easily as toward progress. In an era where the electorate demands quick results, leaders face unprecedented pressures. The complexity of modern issues-from climate change to globalized trade to endless warfare-might be too great for any one leader to transcend. Alternatively, it could be that the democratic process itself is failing to produce leaders with the vision necessary to rise above these challenges.

Moreover, as philosopher Oswald Spengler suggested, the leaders of the future may need to be “valuers” – individuals with an innate ability to understand and navigate complex systems without necessarily having explicit knowledge of how to do so. Perhaps modern leadership’s failure stems from the fact that the skills required to manage today’s crises do not align with the traditional models of leadership that we’ve inherited.

As the world continues to face crises on multiple fronts, the question remains whether leaders today will rise to the occasion or whether history will simply sweep them along. If Kissinger is right, then leadership is a combination of character and circumstance, but one wonders whether current leaders possess either in the necessary measure. More importantly, do we-the people who put them in power-have the patience for the slow, strategic decision-making required to navigate these turbulent times? If we are to emerge from this era with leaders worthy of historical recognition, it will require both a change in the way leaders approach their roles and a shift in how societies evaluate success.