A military general has been sworn in as the president of Gabon in September. It is the result of a far more expiditious process unhindered or threatened by military intervention like Niger. The central African nation transfers power to a man widely believed to be the cousin of the ousted leader, Ali Bongo. These belong to the Bongo family that was installed by Paris, over half a centry past, to continues their "democratic" reign.
African states are not alone in the ouster of long-standing and short-lived presidents and prime ministers. We've seen the likes of similar events in Sri Lanka and Pakistan among others. What perhaps remains a mystery for most of these countries is the lack of leadership that actually advances more than ideals and promises.
This is where the conversations on leadership must evolve. They must evolve from theory to form. Democracy as a theory sounds very nice, but has yielded far fewer results in the developing world. Perhaps we are forcing the democratic glass slipper on the wrong foot. What is a democracy that offers no benefit to the people or remains culturally irrelevant?
Africa has had the most coup d'etats, yet it has never tried to institute a traditional, more culturally relavant council of elders. And in countries with different cultural traditions, there has been no attempts to create systems that fit those traditions in the hope of better outcomes.
Leadership is the ability to adequately lead, and to do so in such a manner as to benefit everyone in the society. But for many, leadership is often shoe-horned onto society. While there can be no perfect society, those allowed to engineer their own governance systems tend to have more stable societies. While it is easy to argue over Democracy vs. Socialism vs. Communism we would be overlooking the basic premise of all governance models: To ably govern people to their benefit and happiness.
Leadership is at the heart of good governance and it is perhaps the most lacking in the present day. The will of citizens from the USA to Pakistan and France are being vastly overlooked by "appointed" leadership. Millions march in the street, protest and strike because the lost art of appropriate, culturally relevant leadership is missing.
Surprisingly, not everyone wamts to rule the world. Some people want a successful business, others want a healthy family and still more want a comfortable job doing what they enjoy. Many just want to send their children to good schools and retire. Society and government should offer some level of stability to ensure that happens.
It depends on how one sees leadership and government. If government/leadership is seen from a paternalistic standpoint, it becomes a rule maker which must be unquestioningly obeyed. If for example, it is seen as a facilitator to help citizens acheive their goals, it may be used and modified often to better facilitate. If it is a partner, there may be collaborations and compromises to acheive both governmental and citizen goals. But there are many models. The trouble is thay far too often leadership is only defined in narrow terms that do not fit all societies or traditions.
Leaders and locals must ask themselves realistic questions. What is the goal of leadership? How does our constitution, founding documents, pacts or treaties actualize the growth and goals of society? Often, the global south is more concerned with leadership--and to a degree that is understandable (Colonialism and neocolonialism has decapitated quite a few heads of state). However, what is perhaps of greater importance is determining the goal of leadership and the action plan to attain those goals. For more diverse societies, objectives may also address how to reinstate disenfranchised tribes or ethnic groups to create a shared future.
The neglect of such contingencies result in the weaponization of tribes, ethnic groups and the economically disenfranchised against leadership or the state. Without addressing these issues, states often set themselves up for coup d'etats, insurgencies and militant groups forged by external and internal intrigue. Leadership that does not empower, leaves the disempowered to find their own power externally, often destabilizing regions, institutions or alliances.
The aftermath of coup d'etats are fascinating case studies because of the pessure exerted by the international world to maintain order, constititional compliance and assert a leader. Often a mandate for a constitution, that not even the ousted leader or public servants followed in the administration of their duties. The farce is that, while the leader changes, the leadership does not.
People are still led off of a cliff into an abyss of poverty, poorly run public institutions and inequity. The same leadership playbook leads to the same abysmal conclusions. What good is an election or a new leader, if he leads you to the same demise as the first? The question must be asked in such cases, "Does anyone know how to get us where we want to go?"
Likely, what citizens want more than new faces, are new directions. New opportunities and alliances that provide upward mobility, growth, producyion and a prosperous future. But that comes with having a plan and having a team to help you do it and engaging the public at every level.
Perhaps the real problem is that we've become far too leader-focused and not goal-focused. Ironically, i has been the regional institutions and international actors, and not the three-fingered aliens that have demanded, "Take me to your leader." So we've grown fixated on charismatic leaders, hardline leaders, paternal leaders and many that don't produce results for the people. The developing world roils in this kind of leadership that fails to lead, but instead drags its population by the hair to the same destination its always does.
We must reevaluate leadership and find culturally acceptable models that focus on leadership deliverables and not just the leader. Leadership then must be both people and objective focused to produce good results, reduce poverty, increase literacy, stimulate business growth and reinforce production. These things don't just happen on their own--they require diligent and deliberate thought coupled with consistent execution to succeed. Leadership needs a goal, it needs cultural relevance, it needs execution and it needs substantial buy-in at every level to succeed. Otherwise, we are only changing our shoes, on the same path, to the same destination. In many ways, rhe leader must be secondary to the plan.
Leaders often naturally evolve from goal-oriented teams where the directive is the impetus for action and cooperation. Much like the teams created in college and highschool classes, the objective of the team is foremost. Team.members are organized according to conyributions to the project. It is during the initial phases of determining how to acheive the objective, that
a leader emerges or is nominated by the group. In some cases the leader is not the same as the group representative or spokesperson. The leader is the one that executes best the collective strategies that accomplish the team goal. In this way, the goal is the true lead. Since everyone wants a good mark/grade for the project, it benefits everyone to advance the most capable leader.
People and goal-centered leaders must be the future of competent leadership in government. Particularly for developing economies, the objective of leadership must be to support people with a concrete plan, that vreates tangibke progress. And this must be done in an organic, culturally relevant way that allows both leaders and citizens to succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment