The myth of political leadership

THE role and importance of leadership in a society’s development and transformation has historically been overplayed to an extent that any blame about lack of development in any country is necessarily targeted at the person who has the misfortune of being the leader while the citizens who in any event are responsible for electing or succumbing to the whims of the leader never take the time to reflect on their culpability.
Many societies get the monsters they actually deserve. One can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by a political class of dictators, gangsters, looters, marauders, and liars. It is generally accepted that Africa has been the beneficiary of this kind of fate and even the most honest and well-intended among its leaders appear powerless to improve the continent in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the independence of Ghana, an event that not only marked the foundation of the modern day post-colonial Africa but was critical in engendering a renewed sense of a common destiny for the continent. A lot has happened over the last 50 years and post-colonial Africa can now boast of half a century of institutional memory of African leadership and its challenges and promises.
While it is generally accepted that leaders should come from the people, Africa has been a football ground of externally imposed leaders. A critical assessment of the people who have come to lead the continent will show that most of them were invited by political institutions that were not capable of organically creating their own leaders.
To a large extent, the more articulate and educate the would be aspirant was the more likely he/she was perceived to be a good leader. Most of the pioneer African leaders were educated in the very imperialist countries that they sought to demonize using the language and skills acquired from the colonial countries. Yes, some of the leaders in Africa never used a colonial address but their minds and appetites were no different from what they regarded as the oppressors.
As a consequence, Africa is well endowed with educated leaders and yet the poverty trap remains a defining feature of the continent. Yes, some may say that good leaders are made not born but it appears that Africa has not been capable of creating an atmosphere and environment conducive of accountable and responsive leaders. The old adage that says if you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader does not necessarily work in our continent.
Good leaders should develop through a never-ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience and yet many of Africa’s deputy President and Prime Ministers are easily excluded from succession debates as if to suggest that the closer you are to the incumbent, the less qualified you are. In as much as the best leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills, it has been accepted by African analysts and observers that experience that has been acquired by Africans as Ministers or Vice Presidents is not necessarily sufficient for them to be successors.
In fact, a culture has been created where incumbents are expected to unconstitutionally announce their successors are a measure of good governance thereby undermining their own political organisation and paralyzing their own administrations by creating lame duck leaders.
I think it is important that we enhance our conversations by attempting to examine and critically analyze the multifaceted phenomenon known as "political leadership". While sharing a number of traits with leadership in any aspect of life, exercising leadership in politics has widely been acknowledged as an art and a skill all on its own.
In as much as citizens are generally sceptical of politicians, it is important for us to invest in a better understanding of the kind of arts and skills required by politicians and then attempt to assess their proper role in a democratic political system. The tensions between democracy and leadership should be central themes discussed by Africans. A good leader is not necessarily democratic and yet many have attempted to create a causal link between democracy and good leadership.
Many of us who come from the private sector know fully well that there are few CEOs who willingly give up power in preference to other people even when they know that their continued presence in the organisation may be detrimental to the health and success of the organisation. I believe that it is important that we focus on the kind of questions that African leaders must face across political systems, and the varied answers that the continent needs to hear. There exists a number of conflicting theories of effective leadership, and learning about leadership, like leadership itself, should not be a passive process; we need to approach it critically in the knowledge that there are no easy answers.
In many African countries even those that purport to be democratic, leaders are not often subjected to any interrogation with respect to their record, capabilities and trustworthiness but the decision about who should be a leader ends up being taken by a cabal of individuals who see in the candidate an instrument to perpetuate and sustain their interests that many be in conflict with the interests of the nation. Most leaders end up being lonely in power because they invariably will be surrounded by self serving cowards who cannot stand their own ground even if given an opportunity.
I always laugh when I read and listen from well informed African analysts and journalists who have a limited understanding of leadership and the extent of the culpability of the governed in creating systems that produce leaders who appear to be unaccountable and a law unto themselves. Some have made it the habit to target individuals who are leaders while seeking to ignore the institutional base where they originate from. We need to go beyond individuals and seek to interrogate the proposition that many of these institutions i.e. political parties have not lived up to the ideals on which they were founded and remained responsive to the aspirations of people as well as those of the continent.
In seeking to isolate leaders and ask them to identify and select their successor, is there no risk that Africa may be shooting itself in the foot. Should we not focus on creating a framework in Africa that allows average citizens to be Presidents underpinned by a smart culture, conventions and programs informed by a value system that respects human and property rights? Should Africa not focus about policies of political institutions than leaders who owe their legitimacy from the same institutions? Yes, ultimately the leader must accept responsibility but I submit that it is dangerous for citizens to believe in democracy and appear leaders to be appointed by the same people that we daily demonise.
In the case of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, we have seen wasted energy being devoted to succession matters and in many of the African countries it is customary to discuss the issue while ignoring the structures of the parties the leadership comes from. Most if not all the African parties have deputy Presidents and yet we have come to accept that succession debate must be located outside the aspirations of these people.
We have also come to accept for instance that the same leaders who remain silent when property and human rights are being undermined by their Presidents will miraculously emerge after the death or overthrow of the disgraced leader as good successors. In the case of Zimbabwe, if it is accepted that Zanu PF policies are unacceptable and its leader must go, then surely it falls to reason that anyone in the leadership of the party must be excluded from succession at the national and not party level.