It is a time of change and renewal – or, at the very least, a time of upheaval - in the continent and the country.
These are times when intellectuals – however defined – need to take stock of the role they will play. Their role in change processes is not an exclusive role – there are other forces at play, including class forces, popular forces, economic factors and shifts in global power relations. But given their role in mobilising new ideas – organizing interests, mobilizing consensus and, as Edward Said put it, changing minds and expanding markets – their potentially have a substantial part to play in moving things in positive and hopeful directions.
Intellectuals are active on many fronts, and operate extensively beyond the ‘traditional’ spheres of intellectual activity. They are used and deployed by all kinds of interests – in roles as consultants, journalists, professionals, policy advisors, marketers, makers of cultural products, and so on – and it is high time they reviewed what it means to be an intellectual and what responsibility necessarily accompanies this function.
From the progressive viewpoint, intellectuals should side with what is right, should be part of making a better world and should strive, as Said has noted, to combat prejudice, to advance justice and to be free of double standards as regards their attitudes to treatment of human beings.
Various voices have commented on the role of intellectuals in South Africa during its complicated transition process. President Thabo Mbeki has lamented that intellectuals are not playing their role and wept, so to speak, for black intellectuals. Xolela Mangcu hit back, arguing that the ruling party muzzled intellectuals, and has used its powers to restrict intellectual activity. Mangcu rails against (to lift from a chapter title in his recent book) "Mbeki's assault on black intellectuals". The dispute aside, there is agreement that, going forward, the country needs more vibrant debate, more open discussion of options and alternatives and more evidence-based engagement around burning issues.
There is now much more open space for discussion and debate in South Africa. This is so for various reasons. There has been a dramatic change in leadership at the ANC’s Polokwane conference last December – and it seems that since then, we regularly witness divergent positions emanating from within the ruling party on key policy matters. Leading up to Polokwane, a surge of grassroots pressure has thrown wide open the debate about the pace and the methods of social change.
Furthermore, the winds of change battering Zimbabwe seems to be good for the democratic climate in other regional countries. We in South Africa must face up to the possibility of a second transformation in recently-liberated countries; and we must discuss under what conditions that may occur (or should occur), and what the political goals of such a change should be. Also in the present period, various societal issues – resurgence of racism, service delivery crises – are coming to the boil and a range of governance issues demand attention – the role of parastatals; the relationship between parliament(s) and the executive.
It is a good time for intellectuals. They can be in the fray as South Africa’s precious democracy – so robust in many ways and yet so fragile in parts – gets reengineered.
They can play a much more prominent role. They can be much more vocal, they can, to a greater extent, stand up for generally recognized human rights, eschew narrow interests, transgress when blind compliance is required; they can debate and ask questions, speak with/for the marginalized and – most of all – encourage democratic debate.
Intellectuals can play a dynamic role in fanning the democratic participation that seems to be a prerequisite for the economically vibrant, well-functioning, just and winning society we are building.
For intellectuals, the moment is ripe to be in the forefront of generating ideas and options to sustain/improve our democracy and to vastly improve service-delivery to the poorest. To contribute to getting better policies, to ensuring better policy implementation, to strengthening accountability systems and to expansion of effective leadership in government departments.
Speaking as a progressive (and admitting my bias), intellectuals have the opportunity – more than ever – to be clear about supporting our democratic transformation as it strives to eradicate the pain and division of the past and build a prosperous and just future for all.
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Monday, 28 April 2008
Leadership lessons: finding meaning in the regional crises
There are major leadership issues in Southern Africa. This is exemplified in events in Zimbabwe, at Eskom and the recent positions taken by SADC on the Zimbabwean crisis. All these flashpoints illustrate that when leaders and leadership fail, the public gets the short end of the stick (and endure additional and unnecessary pressure, burdens and suffering).
In Zimbabwe, the main political leaders have taken advantage of the population for many years; at the same time, these leaders in the ruling party have managed to get vast numbers of Zimbabweans to continue to vote for them in successive elections. At present, the ruling party, Zanu-PF, with its controlling tentacles in all state institutions, has stifled release of election results and has for many weeks blocked the ascension of a new government into power. In the April elections, Zimbabweans have at last exercised their vote to remove Zanu-PF from office; however, ordinary Zimbabweans, by and large, still shy away from using non-violent means to restore proper functioning of democratic institutions and an to end to repression.
At Eskom, with electricity blackouts arising from a lack of planning and poor strategic management, the leadership has failed to assume responsibility in any substantial sense. The Eskom debacle raises the following: Are institutions accountable to anyone; do they subscribe to any sense of minimum performance requirements for such a strategic entity; do they subscribe to a formerly adopted notion of leadership? If they were and did, how can the organization simply concede failure without any actions – a suspension, a firing, a withholding of bonuses or (at the most limpwristed) a pro forma rebuke of a person or committee – to indicate that the parastatal subscribes to high leadership standards.
The SADC fails to take bold leadership action when a more courageous position is required in the interests of regional justice and regional stability. It would appear a kind of “club” loyalty, and sometimes a historical solidarity between heads of state, takes precedence. Certainly, we can see that regional leaders and heads of state would want to be polite and “chommie-chommie” with each other, but should they protect each other at all costs? Should they avoid speaking up during a regional crisis or in the face of a member state’s systematic viciousness against its citizens? The people of the region have expectations of SADC. These expectations will never be fulfilled if the SADC does not see itself as a body that must provide bold leadership, if it does not set membership ground rules and if the collective does not require that members be in good standing in terms of such rules.
When leaders go off the rails, especially national leaders, it is often not just leaders that are failing; in many cases it is in fact a failure of the entire leadership system.
In situations of such failure - depending on how followers react - a big question mark often hangs over followers. A good leadership culture requires followers that are active, on their toes and alert about what they are entitled to. Whether we like it or not, we as followers get the quality of leadership we deserve/ are prepared to work for/ are prepared to struggle for. We get the leadership systems that we are prepared to build and sustain. A failure of leadership may also suggest that an erosion of leadership and of leadership culture in political parties and other influential organizations. In such formations, systems of accountability and succession planning may not be functioning properly and are most likely not working to replace moribund leaders who are out of touch with the current context.
Finally, the collapse of leadership culture may mean that formal institutions are failing; institutions set norms and boundaries for what leaders may or may not do. When leadership problems take the form of excesses – attacks on human rights, corruption, misuse of powers, failure to fulfill a legal duty to act – institutions measures should kick in and ensure corrective action is taken. However, if perverse and destructive leadership hangs around for years or decades, their hands firmly on the reins of power, then key institutions urgently need rebuilding or rejuvenation.
Leadership as discussed here includes but is broader than the skills, behaviors and performance of individual leaders. Leadership should be seen as:
a system;
a set of relationships; or
a culture (in the sense of agreed norms and practices).
In this regard, leadership can be seen as the expectations we have, the consequences which follow poor leadership and the demand for good leadership.
It is necessary to refer to expectations as they refer to the standards that prevail in the community or in companies regarding leadership. However, “expectations” are still relatively passive - necessary but insufficient. Just having them says nothing about what happens when leadership expectations are disappointed. If “consequences” (e.g. that you be stripped of your leadership position in certain circumstances) as well as the “demand” for good quality leadership are part of the process, it would speak of a more vibrant leadership culture.
From this, one can see how important followership is. What are the things that make up good followership? I suggest these aspects are important: A sense that you are entitled to good leadership, being alert and critical, voting in an intelligent manner, calling on leaders to provide information and reportback, mutual accountability between leaders and followers, and openly expressing views on issues so leaders know what followers feel and think.
I hope these reflections contribute in a small way to an agenda for change in Southern Africa. To a process that moves us beyond crises and towards fulfilling the potential of the region. If we can draw out critical lessons about governance in the region, then maybe – just maybe – there will be some meaning in the crises we are experiencing.
As usual, readers comments and replies are welcomed!
In Zimbabwe, the main political leaders have taken advantage of the population for many years; at the same time, these leaders in the ruling party have managed to get vast numbers of Zimbabweans to continue to vote for them in successive elections. At present, the ruling party, Zanu-PF, with its controlling tentacles in all state institutions, has stifled release of election results and has for many weeks blocked the ascension of a new government into power. In the April elections, Zimbabweans have at last exercised their vote to remove Zanu-PF from office; however, ordinary Zimbabweans, by and large, still shy away from using non-violent means to restore proper functioning of democratic institutions and an to end to repression.
At Eskom, with electricity blackouts arising from a lack of planning and poor strategic management, the leadership has failed to assume responsibility in any substantial sense. The Eskom debacle raises the following: Are institutions accountable to anyone; do they subscribe to any sense of minimum performance requirements for such a strategic entity; do they subscribe to a formerly adopted notion of leadership? If they were and did, how can the organization simply concede failure without any actions – a suspension, a firing, a withholding of bonuses or (at the most limpwristed) a pro forma rebuke of a person or committee – to indicate that the parastatal subscribes to high leadership standards.
The SADC fails to take bold leadership action when a more courageous position is required in the interests of regional justice and regional stability. It would appear a kind of “club” loyalty, and sometimes a historical solidarity between heads of state, takes precedence. Certainly, we can see that regional leaders and heads of state would want to be polite and “chommie-chommie” with each other, but should they protect each other at all costs? Should they avoid speaking up during a regional crisis or in the face of a member state’s systematic viciousness against its citizens? The people of the region have expectations of SADC. These expectations will never be fulfilled if the SADC does not see itself as a body that must provide bold leadership, if it does not set membership ground rules and if the collective does not require that members be in good standing in terms of such rules.
When leaders go off the rails, especially national leaders, it is often not just leaders that are failing; in many cases it is in fact a failure of the entire leadership system.
In situations of such failure - depending on how followers react - a big question mark often hangs over followers. A good leadership culture requires followers that are active, on their toes and alert about what they are entitled to. Whether we like it or not, we as followers get the quality of leadership we deserve/ are prepared to work for/ are prepared to struggle for. We get the leadership systems that we are prepared to build and sustain. A failure of leadership may also suggest that an erosion of leadership and of leadership culture in political parties and other influential organizations. In such formations, systems of accountability and succession planning may not be functioning properly and are most likely not working to replace moribund leaders who are out of touch with the current context.
Finally, the collapse of leadership culture may mean that formal institutions are failing; institutions set norms and boundaries for what leaders may or may not do. When leadership problems take the form of excesses – attacks on human rights, corruption, misuse of powers, failure to fulfill a legal duty to act – institutions measures should kick in and ensure corrective action is taken. However, if perverse and destructive leadership hangs around for years or decades, their hands firmly on the reins of power, then key institutions urgently need rebuilding or rejuvenation.
Leadership as discussed here includes but is broader than the skills, behaviors and performance of individual leaders. Leadership should be seen as:
a system;
a set of relationships; or
a culture (in the sense of agreed norms and practices).
In this regard, leadership can be seen as the expectations we have, the consequences which follow poor leadership and the demand for good leadership.
It is necessary to refer to expectations as they refer to the standards that prevail in the community or in companies regarding leadership. However, “expectations” are still relatively passive - necessary but insufficient. Just having them says nothing about what happens when leadership expectations are disappointed. If “consequences” (e.g. that you be stripped of your leadership position in certain circumstances) as well as the “demand” for good quality leadership are part of the process, it would speak of a more vibrant leadership culture.
From this, one can see how important followership is. What are the things that make up good followership? I suggest these aspects are important: A sense that you are entitled to good leadership, being alert and critical, voting in an intelligent manner, calling on leaders to provide information and reportback, mutual accountability between leaders and followers, and openly expressing views on issues so leaders know what followers feel and think.
I hope these reflections contribute in a small way to an agenda for change in Southern Africa. To a process that moves us beyond crises and towards fulfilling the potential of the region. If we can draw out critical lessons about governance in the region, then maybe – just maybe – there will be some meaning in the crises we are experiencing.
As usual, readers comments and replies are welcomed!
Saturday, 19 May 2007
Time to do something about Zim
It is now high time we did something about Zim. With hyperinflation, iron-fist action by police and the apparent free rein of mysterious "third force"-type squads, it is time we say "enough is enough".
I have heard the arguments that go some way to helping us understand the tolerance of many South Africans to the situation up there.
I even relate to some of these viewpoints. Remember Bob (the man that fought bravely in the Rhodesian liberation war) who in 1980 inaugurated the new country with that other Bob (Marley) whose music was a veritable soundtrack to anti-colonisation and anti-oppression struggles everywhere. That inauguration was a golden moment, one hard to remember now. Recall also that many promises were made to Mugabe by the West - how they would assist with loads of dollars and pounds (especially pounds, given who the colonising party was) to help the new state, inter alia with land reform. Of course (and this is what shapes the South African government's official view) the West reneged. The upshot was major fiscal problems (by then Zimbabwe, counting on the injection of these "reparation" or transitional funds, had begun to roll out major social delivery programmes). When the cutbacks on social spending began (as they had to, and as the World Bank and IMF dictated), civil society organisations and trade unions - responding to community and worker discontent - began to organise and mobilise against the government. The MDC was thus born out of such realities obtaining in the second decade of Zim independence. While the story is only complete if we also grapple with aspects such as the Matabeleland Massacre, the dictator-style control of Zanu PF, and the scandalous "farms-for-pals" practice (none imposed by, or linked to, macro pressures), we must take seriously this reference to the role of key Western governments and the ultra-powerful global bodies in Zimbabwe's crisis.
But valid as these perspectives are, it is now time to say "enough" to the way that that troubled country is run and to the battering of human rights there. We cannot remain stuck in the mode of "understanding" Mugabe. He has failed utterly as a leader and has absolutely no vision about where to take his country from here. Leaders seldom get ideal situations; they are supposed to provide insight, inspiration and a capacity to unite people precisely at a time of greatest hardship and adversity. Furthermore, Mugabe has overseen a string of injustices and human rights abuses - and the list of violations will grow the longer he remains in power. Thus I say: as valid as the understanding of the historical context is, millions of ordinary people are suffering in the present, and the imperative is to end the distress and torment sooner rather than later.
Of course, although I plead for us to stop being so passive and noncommittal, I do recognise that there are limits to what we can do, especially given that Zimbabwe has a democratically elected government. As South Africans, we are generally not advocates of effecting regime change in other people's countries. As government has said repeatedly since 1994, we have no fantasies of being the continents' bully boys, the USA of Africa, nor the Sheriff of the SADCC region. Consequently, it would be folly to campaign for our government to launch some spectacular military invasion.
But we can act; we can "be there" for the people of Zimbabwe; we can ensure that we do not - by our neutrality and disinterest - help to prolong Bad Bob's stay.
I believe we should support the progressive and democratic forces and the people of Zim. There should be regular on-site visits from SA - so that we undermine attempts to filter news and to cast a blanket of secrecy over the actions of Mugabe's stormtroopers. Such visits should be ongoing and should involve different groups - civil society, the "tripartite" alliance, parliamentarians, faith groups, etc.
Through such actions, ordinary Zimbabweans should get to know that their neighbours in the region care and that they are not forgotten. The ruling party and government in Zimbabwe will be made aware that other people are on hand to see for themselves what is happening and to disseminate accurate information.
In addition, such delegations should, wherever possible, work to create a conducive climate for reasonable and truthful deliberation in Zimbabwe about a way forward. Delegations from SA could encourage dialogue between key groups in Zimbabwe about a credible, realistic and meaningful change process that involves all stakeholders. We should be acting as a catalyst for real engagement, and - using our own experience of democratic and inclusive consultations of major political change - tackle and expose excuses by any party opposed to such a negotiated solution.
Put differently, South Africans must have a presence (there), and through such a presence be a voice of reason and a source of moral support to democratic groups seeking an urgent and decisive way forward out of the crisis. It is to be hoped that having good emissaries visiting Zimbabwe would reduce the space for the Zimbabwean government to act brutally and provide some protection for civil society groups who are organising for change. Also, being there will be a mechanism for giving South Africans up-to-date feedback - lest we have forgetful spells - about the harsh and repressive realities of Zimbabwean life.
I have heard the arguments that go some way to helping us understand the tolerance of many South Africans to the situation up there.
I even relate to some of these viewpoints. Remember Bob (the man that fought bravely in the Rhodesian liberation war) who in 1980 inaugurated the new country with that other Bob (Marley) whose music was a veritable soundtrack to anti-colonisation and anti-oppression struggles everywhere. That inauguration was a golden moment, one hard to remember now. Recall also that many promises were made to Mugabe by the West - how they would assist with loads of dollars and pounds (especially pounds, given who the colonising party was) to help the new state, inter alia with land reform. Of course (and this is what shapes the South African government's official view) the West reneged. The upshot was major fiscal problems (by then Zimbabwe, counting on the injection of these "reparation" or transitional funds, had begun to roll out major social delivery programmes). When the cutbacks on social spending began (as they had to, and as the World Bank and IMF dictated), civil society organisations and trade unions - responding to community and worker discontent - began to organise and mobilise against the government. The MDC was thus born out of such realities obtaining in the second decade of Zim independence. While the story is only complete if we also grapple with aspects such as the Matabeleland Massacre, the dictator-style control of Zanu PF, and the scandalous "farms-for-pals" practice (none imposed by, or linked to, macro pressures), we must take seriously this reference to the role of key Western governments and the ultra-powerful global bodies in Zimbabwe's crisis.
But valid as these perspectives are, it is now time to say "enough" to the way that that troubled country is run and to the battering of human rights there. We cannot remain stuck in the mode of "understanding" Mugabe. He has failed utterly as a leader and has absolutely no vision about where to take his country from here. Leaders seldom get ideal situations; they are supposed to provide insight, inspiration and a capacity to unite people precisely at a time of greatest hardship and adversity. Furthermore, Mugabe has overseen a string of injustices and human rights abuses - and the list of violations will grow the longer he remains in power. Thus I say: as valid as the understanding of the historical context is, millions of ordinary people are suffering in the present, and the imperative is to end the distress and torment sooner rather than later.
Of course, although I plead for us to stop being so passive and noncommittal, I do recognise that there are limits to what we can do, especially given that Zimbabwe has a democratically elected government. As South Africans, we are generally not advocates of effecting regime change in other people's countries. As government has said repeatedly since 1994, we have no fantasies of being the continents' bully boys, the USA of Africa, nor the Sheriff of the SADCC region. Consequently, it would be folly to campaign for our government to launch some spectacular military invasion.
But we can act; we can "be there" for the people of Zimbabwe; we can ensure that we do not - by our neutrality and disinterest - help to prolong Bad Bob's stay.
I believe we should support the progressive and democratic forces and the people of Zim. There should be regular on-site visits from SA - so that we undermine attempts to filter news and to cast a blanket of secrecy over the actions of Mugabe's stormtroopers. Such visits should be ongoing and should involve different groups - civil society, the "tripartite" alliance, parliamentarians, faith groups, etc.
Through such actions, ordinary Zimbabweans should get to know that their neighbours in the region care and that they are not forgotten. The ruling party and government in Zimbabwe will be made aware that other people are on hand to see for themselves what is happening and to disseminate accurate information.
In addition, such delegations should, wherever possible, work to create a conducive climate for reasonable and truthful deliberation in Zimbabwe about a way forward. Delegations from SA could encourage dialogue between key groups in Zimbabwe about a credible, realistic and meaningful change process that involves all stakeholders. We should be acting as a catalyst for real engagement, and - using our own experience of democratic and inclusive consultations of major political change - tackle and expose excuses by any party opposed to such a negotiated solution.
Put differently, South Africans must have a presence (there), and through such a presence be a voice of reason and a source of moral support to democratic groups seeking an urgent and decisive way forward out of the crisis. It is to be hoped that having good emissaries visiting Zimbabwe would reduce the space for the Zimbabwean government to act brutally and provide some protection for civil society groups who are organising for change. Also, being there will be a mechanism for giving South Africans up-to-date feedback - lest we have forgetful spells - about the harsh and repressive realities of Zimbabwean life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)