Washington is mostly seen as calm, steady and almost larger than life, a figure who helped hold a new and fragile nation together.

However, beyond all of this, there is something else that sets him apart, and that is his choice to stop leading after two terms as president. That single decision connects directly to a question that still matters today: in a world where power is often held tightly, do modern leaders know when it is time to step aside?

The most decisive judgement made by Washington was not made on the battlefield. Rather, it was made through restraint. He served two terms as president after leading the American colonies to independence and resigned gracefully in 1797.

There was no constitutional limitation on presidential terms at the time, so he could have stayed as long as he wished, as many leaders held their positions for life in the eighteenth century. However, Washington chose to step down, setting a precedent that leadership should be accountable and temporary.

For many years, that choice influenced American political culture. His example later contributed to the formal adoption of presidential term limits. More importantly, it reinforced the idea that institutions must be stronger than individuals. Leadership was not meant to become ownership. Holding a position of authority was a duty rather than a permanent privilege.

We frequently witness leaders holding positions of authority for extended periods in many nations and political systems. Some change laws, undermine institutions or rely heavily on personality politics. The longer one individual dominates the public sphere, the more difficult it becomes to separate governance from personal influence. In such situations, resignation is viewed as a loss rather than a sign of strength.

This discussion is particularly important from a Bangladeshi perspective. Bangladesh has a rich political history shaped by hardship, sacrifice and capable leadership. Our national story includes liberation, resistance and movements that demanded rights and recognition. However, we also live in a political culture where party identity often revolves around leadership continuity. Transitions can be chaotic, unclear or fiercely contested, and political organisations are often closely associated with particular individuals.

The concept of voluntary restraint may seem unusual in such an environment, where leadership is linked not with rotation and renewal but with dominance and longevity. However, Bangladesh is also experiencing a generational shift. As a young democracy with a vibrant and growing population, a large proportion of its citizens are under 35. Transparency, accountability and institutional effectiveness are becoming increasingly important to younger generations. They are asking more challenging questions about fairness, participation and governance.

Washington’s example does not offer a flawless model. It emerged from a specific cultural and historical context. Furthermore, like many historical leaders, he was a complex figure with moral blind spots that contemporary readers rightly criticise. However, the principle underlying his decision remains relevant: no leader is greater than the system they serve.

For Bangladesh, the question is not about copying foreign models. It is about reflecting on our own political culture. What does healthy leadership transition look like in our context? How can institutions be strengthened so that they function effectively regardless of who holds office? How can we create a political environment where stepping aside at the right time is seen as responsible rather than weak?

This is not merely a matter of national politics. It also applies to civil society, professional settings and student organisations. Leadership roles often serve as stepping stones in business and academic institutions. When individuals cling too tightly to authority, growth slows. When leadership changes, fresh perspectives emerge. Institutions become more resilient and dynamic.

On Washington’s birthday, the most meaningful tribute may not be admiration but reflection. Leadership is more than holding authority and power. It is about understanding its limits. It is about recognising when a country benefits from continuity and when it is strengthened by renewal.