The buzzword in business today is “disruption”, a concept whereby an entrenched dominant product is unseated in the market by a smaller rival offering better solutions, often through use of technology. WhatsApp, for example, has shocked the established telecoms industry.
By HOPEWELL MAUWA
Closer to home, the electric vehicle revolution is set to all but destroy the platinum industry!
That concept is not unique to business. It also applies in other fields, politics included. Disruptive trends sweeping the global political scene expose important strategic deficits hindering Zimbabwe from ground-breaking changes in leadership seen in other nations.
But are Zimbabweans capable of “collectively learning” fast enough to adapt to new world realities in addressing the current leadership/succession issues?
Competitively, a key strength of developed nations is their “collectively educated” populace; citizens are capable of factually comprehending problems, critically evaluating options and crucially, they apply insights to act. This is complemented by a well-informed and vigilant media, which is very effective in changing attitudes on issues of “national interest”. Technological advances have made these countries realise that in the information age, the most adaptable will survive, not necessarily the fittest.
Zimbabwe, on the other hand, has an impressive literacy rate of close to 90%. However, such “literacy” appears to have only succeeded in equipping citizens with basics of reading and writing (the definition of literacy!), but not the value-added complex capabilities of critically evaluating options and practically applying insights to solve problems. Arguably, this is an uncorrected colonial legacy whereby “native” education was designed to produce obedient functional workers.
Add to that, despite fast adaptation of technology, information media is still largely State-controlled, all of which hinders understanding of “real” national challenges and consequently change of attitudes. Of-course, national culture plays a role too. That said, today four major global disruptive political trends stand out as relevant to solving the Zimbabwean leadership/succession conundrum.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Shift towards younger (and healthy!) leaders
In France, 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron romped to victory, entrusted to run not only a $2,5 trillion economy, but also a nuclear-armed, veto-wielding United Nations Security Council member State. In Austria, 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, is incoming leader. Most recently, 37-year-old Jacinda Ardern was elected Prime Minister of New Zealand. Where older candidates are elected, such as 71-year-old Donald Trump, they appear stuck in the past with “old ways” of doing business.
Young leaders bring fresh ideas and innovation. Despite being trusted with far bigger economies and responsibilities, these leaders would not be eligible in Zimbabwe until they reach 40 years. Many countries have reduced or ditched age restrictions; eligibility to vote is enough to hold any office.
Of-course in practice one has to have some experience, but the shift recognises exceptional candidates. The world has changed. There are young self-made billionaires in their 20s! Needless, also, to mention that a verifiable sound healthy record is a must for prospective leaders in successful nations. Surely, crafters of the new Constitution ought to bury their heads in shame!
Preference for accomplished executives/businesspersons
Dependence on “career politicians” is waning, with prospective leaders now required to demonstrate their own achievements outside politics. While it is a norm in developed countries, this trend is now penetrating Africa too. The current President of Benin, Patrice Talon, is an accomplished businessman who ran and won as an independent candidate in 2016.
In South Africa, businessman and Vice-President, Cyril Ramaphosa, is one of the leading candidates to succeed President Jacob Zuma. In Liberia, former Coca-Cola vice-president, Alexander Cummings, was endorsed as a Presidential candidate for a fledgling party after only joining politics in 2016.
Personal achievements demonstrate a verifiable track record upon which competence can be assessed and trust bestowed. Leaders in developed nations are normally millionaires educated at top universities. That said, educational qualifications alone mean nothing if unsubstantiated with real expertise/influence in a specific field (often also measured by relative financial success). The Zimbabwean electorate is still widely blind to self-made financial achievements, with people actually known to get rich from participating in politics.
Substance not seniority
In progressive nations, simply being a card-carrying member is enough to challenge for party leader position. Bernie Saunders, who ran against Hilary Clinton for Democratic Party nomination did not even have a party card. In the United Kingdom, to run for any major political party one just needs nomination from 15% of the party’s MPs, regardless of age or party position. All that matters is one’s ability, the match between their values and party ideology and of course their acceptance by ordinary party members.
In Zimbabwe, “succession” has become synonymous with chieftainship coronation. The two main parties, Zanu PF and the MDC-T are stuck with “seniority” where the “next-in-line” does not go beyond vice-presidents.
In addition to perpetuating the big man syndrome, “seniority” destroys democracy as much as it encourages formation of break-away parties by other quality candidates. In an ideal world, Zanu PF and MDC-T would openly invite nominations from all members and set up a minimum threshold support from sitting MPs to be put on leadership contest ballot, determined by party members.
Of course, this sounds idealistic for now only due to “cowardice and entitlement” by current senior leaders, but such a model would guarantee quality leaders. It would also establish a two-party political system, which is healthy for national stability.
Leaders matched to task at hand
If there is one thing developed nations’ citizens understand, it’s the fact that the right leadership at each juncture depends on context of issues faced at that point in time. Perhaps an excellent precedent was set in 1945; despite Second World War victory (arguably the world’s most prized military victory) and extremely high wartime approval ratings, Winston Churchill went on to lose the general election. The electorate understood that Churchill was a heroic wartime leader, but the new priority of fixing the post-war United Kingdom economy was better served by someone else.
Today political novices are being elected in Western countries, provided they articulate the best policies to address national challenges.
With all due respect to war veterans, Zanu PF today is stuck on “liberation war credentials” when the biggest challenge the nation faces is the economy. Similarly, the MDC-T is stuck on Morgan Tsvangirai because he bears the “wounds of the struggle” and, therefore, deserves his turn on presidency. Perhaps in both cases, it is time to pass the baton to individuals best capable of addressing the pressing need at this juncture — fixing the economy!
Conclusion
Embracing these disruptive game changers will deliver exactly the kind of leadership required at this juncture. As it stands, political party leaders’ interests are steaming ahead of national development.
Let’s be under no illusion, Zimbabwe’s current circumstances call for leaders (ruling party and opposition!) driven by long-term legacy and not simply the short-term facade of perks and prestige that accompany high office. One thing is clear, though, sticking to “business-as-usual” will be at voters’ own peril!
l Hopewell Mauwa is a UK-based strategic analyst. He writes in his personal capacity and can be contacted on [email protected]
