Rwanda is at a turning point. After more than a decade of remarkable progress, we are faced by a stark challenge – identifying the next generation of leadership that would uphold the current virtues and values that define modern Rwanda come 2017. This raises a fundamental question; are there lessons on leadership, and can they be transferredfrom generation to generation?You see, it is easier to recognise a man who is already a leader than to identify a man before he becomes one. For example, by studying the first generation of anti-colonial leaders in African countries, I came to one conclusion that they all shared; they all had strong nationalist, anti-colonial convictions and wanted to prove that their peoples could measure up to their rulers. Unhappily, many African leaders who had successfully demolished the old order, failed to build a new one.Building a new order demanded different and more complex capabilities. Economic decision-making to achieve the highest returns on capital was not their forte. To enthuse their followers and keep up the fight against the old regime, they had over simplified what needed to be done after the colonisers handed over power. Many leaders actually believed their own rhetoric, that once they were rid of their exploiters there would be wealth aplenty to go around.So, how can we ensure that Rwanda does not fall into this trap? I believe the solution lies in succession planning. It is critical that our political parties unite in planning and preparing for succession, and not leave it to chance- of course, Rwandans will have a final say in the ballot. The old guard set high standards; the new guard has to maintain this self discipline and integrity in the midst of growing affluence. Otherwise the Rwanda story will not have a happy ending.The differences between the old guard and the new guard leaders are stark, reflecting the differences between the old society and the new.The old society was in a revolutionary situation. People felt that everything, including their lives, was at stake. It was an inspired generation who fought against great odds to succeed in liberating the country. The new society is secure, comfortable and confident.These raise another question, are great leaders born or are they the result of revolutionary situations? From my observation, I think it is both, but more because of circumstances. It is indeed true that the needs of a country vary with the times.Just to illustrate this: the difference in mood between America and Europe, both under threat during WW2 and their comfortable consumer societies of the 1990s, explains the absence of towering leaders.Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Charles de Gaulle, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dean Acheson, were strong leaders their people needed in times of crisis. Neville Chamberlain gave way to Churchill who promised them "blood, sweat and tears”.The difference between Winston Churchill and Tony Blair is the difference between their two societies, the first caught in a titanic struggle; the other comfortable and secure, facing no external threats, was reluctant to join the Euro or have its accustomed way oflife upset in a federal Europe. Revolutionary situations throw up great leaders who demand blood, sweat and tears; comfortable circumstances produce leaders who promise people an even easier life.Arnold Toynbee in his Study of History argues that if the challenge is too great for a people, they will fail however great the leader. If there is no challenge, a people will not achieve much. Fortunately for Rwanda the challenge was not beyond the ability of its leaders to draw out the best from their people. If Rwanda has once again to face daunting circumstances in terms of weak leadership, I am confident as a people, Rwandans will rise to the occasion so as to ensure survival and prosperity of our motherland.