Never one to pretend to be a master of the oblique angle, two weeks to the day Spencer Mogapi in his weekly column The Watchdog raised a very serious matter indeed. It is this: “Botswana has failed to groom people fit enough to become Heads of State”. The sobering reality is that the weakness of the leadership supply chain in Botswana seems to be broader than in the one instance pointed out by Mogapi. This is both a complex conundrum and an embedded contradiction especially because some like to dream that Botswana is replete with solid leaders across all institutions. If it is any consolation, looks have nothing to do with the quality of one’s leadership!
Seriously though, what are we not doing right to produce a sufficient pool of leaders across segments of society? How do we expect a leader to conduct him or herself whether it is in the home, in a private or public enterprise and in public office? Where and when does “training” for leadership begin? Of course, it is impossible to create perfect leaders but society must try, starting within the family. Statistics indicate that the majority of households are female led. While women are trying their best in the circumstances, men have abdicated helping raise children to enable them to be as complete a package as possible in understanding and navigating the ways of the world. The quality of leadership, which sadly seems to be outweighed by weaknesses, can be traced back to families.
Since human behaviours and conditions are universal, lessons on what constitutes desirable and undesirable leadership can also be learnt from global sources and circumstances. Shakespeare, who considered human behaviour a rich laboratory for his creative works, presents us with a number of intriguing lessons on leadership. In our own settings, examples of leadership successes and inadequacies are replete within families and other social settings.
The qualities of a good or competent leader, while not exhaustive and in no particular order, exist in a continuum that is learned over time. They include magnanimity and Nelson Mandela comes to mind here. Not taking things personally, sticking to principle even to your disadvantage, respecting process and procedure too are important. On the latter point, Stephen Greenblatt in his book Tyrant: Shakespeare on Power says of Elizabeth I: “Though she could be on occasion be prickly, difficult, and imperious, her fundamental respect for the sanctity of the realm’s political institutions was not generally in doubt”. The converse is where “to consolidate power, would-be authoritarians must capture the referees, side-line at least some of the other side’s star players, and re-write the rules of the game to lock in their advantage, in effect tilting the playing field against their opponents… Most often, the capture of the referees is done by quietly firing civil servants and other non-partisan officials and replacing them with loyalists”, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt say this in the book How democracies die: What History Reveals About Our Future.
A leader should genuinely speak truth to power, lead from the front, listen, and know when to keep quiet, be decisive, be patient, resist temptation to pilfer, not demand praise, have emotional intelligence or self-awareness plus exhibit a strong moral compass like Uruguay’s Jose Mujica and Burkina Faso’s Thomas Isidore Sankara. He or she should have a thick skin, have creativity of thought, exhibit bravery which does not border on recklessness, possess pragmatic intelligence and eschew populist tendencies, have a sense of shame, take responsibility when things go array the converse of which is not claiming sole credit for team work, be honest so that lessons can be learnt, respect other people’s rights, not entertain gossip or hold grudges, surround him or herself with the right people and allow them to do their jobs. In the play Henry IV, there is a principled civil servant, Duke Humphrey, whom the King describes as “The map of honour, truth, and loyalty”. However, history teaches us that principled people have it tough because, as Shakespeare puts it, “There’s daggers in men’s smiles”.
Shakespeare’s King Lear also finds himself pitied against his daughter and the Earl of Kent “who are the only ones to warn him out of his tyrannical conduct”, as observed by Greenblatt. King Lear, spurred on by Cordelia’s nasty siblings Goneril and Regan, actually disinherits Cordelia only because she is brave enough to tell him what he does not want to hear.
Imbibing the value of defending principle and picking necessary battles, accepting defeat with grace, ideally be even tempered are also important because “rage generates insults, and insults generate outrageous actions and outrageous actions, in turn, heighten the intensity of the rage. It all begins to spiral out of control”, warns Greenblatt. A leader should also have the integrity to decline a position if he or she knows that they are inadequate or would not have the time to execute duties fully because of other commitments. A leader should know when to bow out and so on and so forth. Mastering the art of leadership comes about having seen predecessors or other members of society act in a desirable manner and avoiding mimicking undesirable conduct.
I can hear someone whispering, “maybe a dash of arrogance as well” is useful for a leader to have. Well, my view is that a leader who embodies a significant number of positive attributes will automatically attract good fortune, adulation, and build in them tolerable self-confidence. All the above qualities require one to have led a full life, no matter how one defines such, not “a make it up as you go along” type of “leader”. Critically, those that select leaders must also have been exposed to the totality of the human experience, or as much of it as possible, especially its redeeming features. They must be brave and objective in selecting the best candidates to work with them.
There must be a deliberate effort by those who are exemplary, including in families, to groom good future leaders. Germany’s Angela Merkel is probably the current gold standard in leadership. Maybe Paul Kagame of Rwanda as well. “We expect leaders to have achieved at least a minimal level of adult self-control, and we hope as well for thoughtfulness, decency, respect for others, regard for institutions” states Greenblatt. The default is that common sense should enable a leader to act in a decent manner if they have not experienced model behaviour growing up.
Of course, humanity more often than not finds itself saddled with problematic leaders such as Donald Trump of the United States, RG Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Spain’s Francisco Franco, Idi Amin of Uganda, Alberto Fujimori of Peru, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The traits of such leaders are deftly exposed in Shakespearean tragedies like Richard III, Macbeth, and Coriolanus. The implication of Mogapi’s concern is that Botswana could find itself in a similar situation in future if society does not actively groom generally sound leaders. The dangerous ascendence of despots “Shakespeare suggested could not happen without widespread complicity” according to Greenblatt. This means that all of society is responsible for generating leaders. It is not the preserve of the elite as was the case in feudal societies where the chief, aided by a small class, was the end and be all when it came to the law, religious and cultural matters. Thus, society should, strictly speaking, be creating the ruling class and reconfigure it as circumstances require. Quite correctly, however, “Shakespeare did not believe that the common people could be counted upon as a bulwark against tyranny. They were, he thought, too easily manipulated by slogans, cowed by threats, or bribed by trivial gifts to serve as reliable defenders of freedom,” Greenblatt argues.
Levitsky and Ziblatt are convincing when they say that “the responsibility for filtering out authoritarians lies rather with political parties and party leaders: democracy’s gatekeepers… We like to believe that the fate of a government lies in the hands of its citizens… This view is wrong. It assumes too much of democracy- that ‘the people’ can shape at will the kind of government they possess”. This effectively means that citizens have to rely on political party activists to protect them from aspiring leaders who do not meet the grade when the parties hold their primaries, colloquially known as “bulela ditswe”. Our hope as the general public is that at vetting stage, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 68, men and women with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” would not make it to the national ballot paper. During national elections, the rest of the public can only choose from candidates passed down to us by ordinary political party activists, barring the odd independent candidate here and there. So, there is a leader in all of us. You don’t need a title to be one.
It used to be that a community raises a child. There was infinite wisdom in this arrangement. The collective abdication of the practice is manifesting itself in society. Therefore, all of us, regardless of standing in society, must take stock. If the answer to the question whether you would agree to be led by yourself is negative, then that is how urgent the crisis is. Think about the work you need to do on yourself.
*These are Sipho Showa’s personal reflections.
