The development of political African leadership and its legacy, Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg

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 countries' 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-à-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 - 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 people's 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 - 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 Africa's 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