Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg
11 October 2007
Session facilitator, Given Mkhari
Black Management Forum President, Jimmy Manyi
Fellow speakers
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen
Africa is a unique continent. Not only is it subdivided by the equator
almost in equal halves, it is also the cradle of humankind, it gave the world
civilisation, and every square inch of its surface was colonised and subdivided
among foreigners. Contemporary African states are the result of colonially
imposed political systems. Hence, all African states share the imposition of
artificially created nation-states and imperial state structures.
Africans had had little time to prepare for independence. And at
independence, the incoming rulers inherited alien structures. It inherited
state structures developed through coercive mechanisms, and centralised
political and economic controls such as the army, legislation, policy and the
bureaucracy. This resulted in the establishment of a political culture, largely
based on ethnicity and authoritarian patterns of governance. Hence, controlling
the state and its resources became the primary purpose of political
contestation.
I have been asked to speak about 'The Development of Political African
Leadership and its Legacy' and would like to introduce several issues into this
topic. These will include the aspect of change, and the willingness to accept,
embrace and implement it. I will also allude to the question of mistakes made,
some of them unavoidable, others definitely avoidable. I also want to talk to
why the development of our human capital is as important to our success as a
people, and the seminal role played by the political leadership in Africa's
development.
Throughout human history the question of political leaders and the quality
of leadership have been a matter of critical importance. Similarly for us
today, the need for an African political leadership that has the competence to
comprehend and respond to global threats, challenges and opportunities, and the
ability to counterbalance them against domestic challenges, needs and
aspirations, is absolutely crucial.
Clapham captures the essence of the development of African political
leadership more accurate when he argues that: "The architecture of post
colonial Africa is still unfolding, with much of it already in place. It is a
messy constructive (process), comprising of areas of effective and even
democratic statehood, areas under the control of personal rulers of one kind or
another, some of them formally recognised and others not, borderlands and zones
of shifting control; and areas altogether beyond the realm of statehood.
As inevitably happens when major transformations are afoot, this shifting
scene is subject to numerous conflicts, some of them between the embattled
adherents of the formal state order and those who are seeking to contest it,
others are between competitors for control over disparate resources that have
been left up for grabs as a result of post colonial states to maintain
effective control.
During a process of far-reaching change, the role played by the leadership
is invaluable. Political agenda setting, the distribution of resources and any
other political actions are influenced by the leadership. Political leaders are
the primary holders, controllers and distributors of power and resources. They
have the capacity to cause and sustain conflicts, they can also mitigate,
transform or resolve those conflicts, and play a decisive role in establishing
peace and reconstructing collapsed states.
In Africa, the struggle against colonialism is the best-known example of
political competition. Liberation struggles left various legacies. Struggle
credentials (or lack of them) determine access to power and resources, and
often divide liberation movements-turned governing parties into 'insiders' and
'outsiders.' The debates and contests are often heavily coloured by this
phenomenon.
In the light of the endemic problems facing our continent, much blame has
been levelled against the first generation of African political leaders, those
who inherited power from the departing colonials. Can it be said that these
politicians totally failed Africa and the Africans? I do not think so. To do so
would be insensitive, unscientific and unjust. Many of them responded to the
problems they confronted the best way they could. As in any takeover, there
were successes and failures. But times change, and in retrospect, it can be
surmised that the first generation of African political leaders, to a very
large extent, failed to respond effectively and positively to the challenges of
change.
For a variety of reasons, these first generation political leaders lacked
the capacity to fully comprehend the long-term implications of domestic and
global changes, or what impact these changes would have on the problems facing
their people. They did not have the vision or the competence to provide
sustainable solutions. And most importantly, collectively they failed to create
an environment that would promote the ongoing evolution of successive
generations of competent young African leaders of integrity, vision and
commitment.
These leaders were the products of their times. They were often both victims
and beneficiaries of the Cold War and decolonisation. So much was expected of
them; and they expected so much for themselves. They were subject to the
conventional wisdom and the buzzwords of the nascent development community of
the period. The same thing is happening today. Globally driven market forces
and privatisation are impacting on Africa, and African leaders have to respond
accordingly. They need to understand the prevailing circumstances to avoid
history repeating itself.
During the sixties, two leadership types emerged in Africa - those who were
created and supported by the colonial authorities, and those who led the
struggle for independence against colonial rule. The latter came to be
generally known as 'African nationalists.' and the former as 'colonial
collaborators or stooges.' In retrospect, however, both types of leaders lacked
the knowledge and experience required to govern a modern nation-state. And the
few who had these capabilities were unwilling to use them for a variety of
reasons. Many of them ignored their own intellectuals and scholars. Some feared
their countriesâ intellectuals and scholars and took measures to alienate,
isolate and even harass them.
Universities were regarded primarily as national status symbols, and not as
centres of intellectual power, knowledge and excellence. In many African
countries the universities were seen as the centres of opposition, and this
often led to the deliberate indoctrination of students. The perpetuation of
'oppositional' politics prevented the evolution of a succeeding generation of
young, educated, modernising, committed and visionary leaders. It also
discouraged incumbent leaders who were motivated by public service and a desire
to promote the welfare of the people. No specific measures were taken to
prepare the youth for future leadership.
Today, in some parts of the continent, no matter how many young people have
leadership potential, the socio-political and economic environments are such
that it is virtually impossible for young competent leaders to emerge, so long
as their visions differ from those of the incumbents. Changes are needed to
release and capitalise on the energies, talents and enthusiasm of the youth.
Yet these changes are unlikely to take place without the co-operation, or at
least the tacit agreement of the first generation of leaders. And these leaders
are not immovable objects, even those who are captives of the past. Some of
them have acknowledged their mistakes, and are willing to discuss and share the
experiences of their times. Viewed differently, these leaders could be a
valuable resource.
Following the departure of the colonial rulers, African nationalists took
possession of the colonial state, with all its coercive apparatus, to become
the rulers of their people. At independence, African leaders were faced with
three options. The first was continuity with some changes. This meant
'business-as-usual' but with the appropriate changes of attitudes vis-Ã -vis the
former colonial rulers.
A new relationship of 'partners in development' was assumed, however poorly
defined. The second option represented a break with the past, and for several
African countries it entailed the adoption of some kind of socialist model of
development. The third option was in effect the first window of opportunity
provided by Independence, namely, to enable Africans to reflect on the kinds of
changes and directions they wished to adopt for their emergent nations.
Therefore, the first generation of African political leaders were faced with
many challenges, which included:
* the management of the inherited colonial state machinery, the economy, and
the maintenance of law, order and stability. In many African countries there
were not enough Africans with the necessary technical and professional
knowledge and experience to run a modern nation-state. In some countries, the
so-called multi-racial societies, where European or Asian minorities were
dominant in the economic and commercial sectors of the country, the problems
were both historical and urgent.
Popular perceptions of independence implied that Africans must be seen to be
in control, occupying key positions in the economy and society. Yet
non-Africans â whether citizens or non-citizens - occupied most of the
important and sensitive positions in the private and public sectors
* the creation of a new political order of peace and stability within which
peoples from diverse racial, ethnic, regional and religious backgrounds could
work in co-operation and harmony to produce the goods and services needed by
the new nation
* the development of the human resources and institutional capacities to
meet the challenges of the rising expectations of the peoples, and the demands
of the post-colonial governance
* the formulation of an ideology or vision that would galvanise the
enthusiasm, imagination, talents, skills and energies of the ethnically,
culturally and religiously diverse peoples to build the new nation, promote its
interests and defend its sovereignty
* obtaining aid and the technical assistance needed to attract foreign
investments
* the promotion of African unity. There was an admiration for unity.
Elsewhere, the process of unifying blocks of neighbouring states had resulted
in regional strengths. Although unity was obtained in the form of the
Organisation of African Unity Charter in 1963, the price for this was the
confirmation of colonial boundaries, thus reinforcing the artificiality of
African states, and perpetuating the fractious nature of their societies. The
ensuing boundary disputes were to engulf leaders in numerous political and
armed conflicts, which consumed their energies, time, talents and resources
* the promotion of the decolonisation of the rest of Africa. This was the
logical imperative of Pan-Africanism. If the rest of Africa was to be freed,
then the anti-colonial movements and their liberation armies were to be
supported.
Born and bred under colonial rule, the first generation of independent
African leaders was acutely conscious of racial domination, oppression and
discrimination, and their debilitating impact on Africans' self-esteem and
self-confidence. Once independence was achieved, these leaders were determined
to ensure that succeeding generations of Africans would not suffer the same
fate.
Yet centuries of Arab slave trading, followed by years of European
domination, had left Africans with grave doubts about their own abilities. This
was no exception. All dominating groups seek to destroy the confidence of those
they dominate because this helps them to maintain their position. Julius
Mwalimu Nyerere, in Uhuru Na Umoja, writes: "Indeed, it can be argued that the
biggest crime of oppression and foreign domination is the psychological effect
it has on the people who experience it. A vital task for any liberation
movement must, therefore, be to restore the peopleâs self-confidence." At the
same time, the resistance by the Portuguese colonial authorities to orderly
decolonisation, and the reluctance of major western governments to provide
material support for African independence movements, converted decolonisation
from an essentially legitimate political process into a military confrontation
in which the big powers were ultimately involved.
The Soviet Union and its allies supported any liberation movement that
appeared to be anti-West or critical of China. China supported any movement
that appeared to them to be either anti-West or critical of the Soviet Union.
And the West generally supported any movement that appeared, or could be
persuaded, to be anti communist. Africa then became a new arena of proxy wars,
a boxing ring for ideological competition between the big powers.
This further complicated African domestic and external politics and
economics. It also involved African leaders in unnecessary global ideological
struggles that consumed a considerable amount of their time and talents.
The pursuit of these and other concerns demanded, from the as yet untested
African leaders, a combination of talents and abilities ranging from
statesmanship and consensus building, to diplomatic shrewdness, skills in
political manipulation, coercion and repression. The attractiveness, and in
some cases the presumed relevance, of a one-party democracy in Africa must be
viewed largely within the context of these problems and tasks confronting the
first generation of African leaders.
Confronted by the endemic problems of African development, many critics have
tended to ignore or belittle the genuine achievements of the first generation
of African leaders. It must be remembered that the odds against these leaders
were colossal. And there were successes as well as failures. One of the success
stories is that this first generation of African leaders was able to hold their
countries and economies together for the period they did. There is a tendency
to forget that virtually all the leaders were totally inexperienced in
statecraft or economic management.
They had no managerial apprenticeship of any kind, political leadership
experience or even decent exposure to the workings of democracy. The colonial
rulers held tight to the reigns and rules of their colonies, and were, for the
most part, extremely reluctant to relinquish their rule. Grooming African
successors was not on the agenda. Thus the first generation of African leaders
were perhaps most successful in the provision and extension of social services,
particularly education and health facilities. They built schools, colleges and
universities where none had existed before.
They substantially increased the numbers entering schools and colleges. They
built hospitals, dispensaries, and health stations of various sizes, and
trained doctors, nurses and hospital support staff. They raised the levels of
adult literacy, and gave pride and self-respect to those who, for the first
time in their lives could read the newspapers for themselves, or reply to the
letters they received from their families.
They brought piped water to isolated towns, and improved the quality of
drinking water to villagers. They extended electric power to a much wider
circle of users. They built impressive transport and communication networks.
They improved the postal services. In their enthusiasm to serve their peoples,
post-colonial governments moved into manufacturing and the supply of basic
consumer goods, like soft drinks, beer, textile, detergents, cereals, and so
on. In short, they introduced elements of achievement and enjoyment into what,
prior to this, had been a pretty austere and boring lifestyle.
Generally, the first decade of independence was in many ways exhilarating,
partly because independence itself was a novelty and partly because there were
many things Africans could now have or do, which in the colonial period they
could not. Nation-building and economic developments were the major
pre-occupations of the first generation of African political leaders.
They were preoccupied with the fears of ethnic and racial conflicts, and the
loss of the mobilisation momentum achieved during the anti-colonial struggles.
In the process, and due to a variety of other factors, many problems were
created. These were incrementally accumulated and became visible towards the
end of the second decade of independence. By then, the novelty of independence
had worn off, the crudities and hardships of the real world, the abuse of power
and mismanagement had come clearly into focus.
In that context, it is worth recalling that some of these leaders were
educated and trained in the West. It was thus inevitable that they carried into
power positions preconceptions of the then prevailing Western conventional
wisdom on issues like economics and politics. Some of them, for instance,
espoused Fabian socialism and others Keynesianism, and a scattered few were
intrigued, though never altogether convinced by Marxism-Leninism.
But all of them, without exception, believed in the primacy of
industrialisation as a means of import-substitution, in a strong central
political authority, and in the state as the engine of economic growth. And,
let us never forget, that in all of these theories, the leaders enjoyed the
full support and backing of the leading development economists and
modernisation theorists of the times â including the World Bank.
We can argue that the first generation of African leaders failed to respond
appropriately and effectively in areas related to:
* domestic and global changes that had taken place since independence
* the utilisation of inherited colonial state as an engine of economic growth.
The colonial state per se was not an obstacle to growth. Utilised creatively
and purposefully, the inherited colonial state could be a very efficient
intermediate engine of economic growth. However, in the hands of dictators and
tyrants it could be an effective instrument of regimentation, coercion,
repression and exploitation. And this is what took place in many African
countries
* the creation of modern economic institutions relevant to African conditions,
adaptable to changing global patterns of production, technology and markets,
which could facilitate and promote sustainable human development
* the creation of democratic political systems relevant to African traditions,
with structures and patterns of governance that are effective, pragmatic,
accountable and transparent
* the creation of enabling environments for grooming succeeding generations of
young African leaders with the capabilities, integrity, vision and commitment
to respond to modern challenges and opportunities.
We live in a world of continuous change. Change is a fact of life. Changes
create fears and insecurity, but also challenges and possibilities. What
distinguishes successful countries from the others is the ability of their
leaders to anticipate change and to respond to it effectively. Problems
confronting Africa are complex and deep-rooted. But Africa's burden of poverty
and underdevelopment can also be attributed to our failure to respond
effectively and appropriately to changes, challenges and opportunities in the
domestic and global market-places.
Certainly, the way we are presently dealing with the opportunities offered
by computers is a typical example. Computers can be of immense help in the
creation of communications facilities serving a system of education for all.
But, unless Africans can learn to handle the necessary maintenance, train and
encourage programmers to develop the type of software tailored to Africaâs
specific needs, our entry into the computer age will only mean more of the same
old dependence on external reference points.
In his book, Educate or Perish: Africa's impasse and prospects, Joseph
Ki-Zerbo writes: It is just not possible to cash a cheque drawn on someone
else's cultural bank account. Such cheques are sure to bounce. Only an
authentic education will enable us to draw on the capital of knowledge and
values stored up by all humanity, thus equipping ourselves to put even future
time to good use. A couple of hundred Africans here, a few thousand there, may
become computer wizards, but unless all sectors of national life, in particular
those using state-of-the-art technology, are resolutely focused on the
recognised needs of those majority groups of most the disadvantaged in the
distribution of past, present and future knowledge, their expertise will have
no impact whatever on the process of education for all.
To reiterate the questions posed by Professor Ahmed Mohiddin, we may also
ask: "What kind of prospects are before us? Is it to be an Africa that is
progressively isolated, an Africa that continues to be an inactive participant
in the global market place and a victim or casualty of the global changes and
challenges, in effect, a recipient of other peoples' ideas and ways of doing
things, and a secondary market for their excess goods and services?
Or can Africans be involved and participate as free agents in the global
market place?" The survival of Africans as a distinct people with their own
cultures and civilisation, their own values to enjoy, nourish, promote and
defend, will depend on their ability to respond, first, to the challenges
facing them, and secondly, to the global changes, challenges, possibilities and
opportunities. We are now well into the 21st Century, and several things are
clear. Globalisation is inescapable. A new breed of leaders is needed in
Africa. The leaders we need should be reasonably educated, and respect
knowledge, its acquisition and utilisation.
They should understand the critical importance of good governance,
accountability and transparency in both democratic and development processes,
have honesty, integrity, and a vision of a better future for all. Our leaders
should be able to recognise the importance of generational linkages, and commit
to the development and sustenance of the synergy between the generations.
Africa needs leaders who respect and are respected, who trust and are trusted
by those who elected them, and are thus secure and confident in their
leadership. Africa needs leaders who have reason to take pride in their
accomplishments.
I have no doubt that many of you present here today would like to think of
themselves as the leaders of the future. All I ask is for you to ponder the
question of the type of leadership you could provide to make a contribution to
the progress of the people of Africa.
I thank you
Issued by: Department of Science and Technology
11 October 2007
Source: Department of Science and Technology (http://www.dst.gov.za)
