African political processes incapable of producing development-oriented leaders

By The NewsDay | Mar. 16, 2020 | 4 Min read

THERE is a common narrative that African leaders have failed to turn around various economies after several decades of independence. In fact, African leaders are painted with the same brush, including those whose ascendence to high positions was seen as promising, but faded upon securing power.

Develop me :Tapiwa Gomo

Leaders such as Uhuru Kenyatta the current President of Kenya, Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete former President of Tanzania, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf former President of Liberia, Cyril Ramaphosa the current President of South Africa, Levy Mwanawasa the late President of Zambia and many others who I have not mentioned here are in this category of promising leaders who failed to deliver. Is it that difficult to effectively lead an African country?

Most of them were seen as promising because they had successful careers in business, academic and organisational leadership. But once they got into positions of national leadership, their promising prowess fizzled out before they became subjects of criticism. It is for this reason that the narrative that African leaders have failed the continent holds some measure of credibility. However, this generalised narrative has failed to provide a profound analysis of the processes and structures that produce and deliver an African leaders.

The same narrative holds more credence when drawn alongside the colonial administrations, mainly those that established vibrant economies in Africa in a short space of time. There is no excuse for failure and, therefore, the few reasons that I am going to discuss here are not justification why the continent is lagging behind in terms of development. I attempt to elaborate that the processes and structures that produce an African leader are not designed to deliver development-oriented leaders.

First, an African leader is born out of dirty political processes that are replete with numerous domestic and external interests. To become a successful politician in Africa, one has to start by mobilising the rural voters, who constitute the majority. In most cases, this requires riding on emotive subjects such as tribe, race and religion and by the time one becomes president of a country, he or she would have torn the nation apart and created many enemies along the way. At inauguration, they would have already polarised the nation with the rest of the years ahead spent defending and protecting themselves from the angry and marginalised sides of the nation.

Second, to establish a solid political career and party in Africa is both expensive and an insurmountable project. In developed countries, politicians mobilise resources from individual and institutional donations, a scenario that is still weak in Africa. It is actually the opposite in Africa where a contesting candidate is expected to provide ”food for votes” or violence if they expect to win. This has created an opportunity for external economic interests to infiltrate African politics and sponsor politicians which in turn mortgages the future of a country or sponsor conflict in several African countries. External funding is given to political parties in exchange for promises of business opportunities such as mining, farming and exploitation of other natural resources. If the candidate fails to secure victory, the same sponsors will provide resources to protest the election results and this leads to instability or civil war; another scenario which allows the sponsor to pursue their economic goals. The process of ascendency to the high office generally does not allow one to make objective leadership decisions, but to serve the interests that facilitated one’s rise to power, failure of which power is withdrawn through various means, including protests and coups.

It is within this context that the development agenda is lost because pursuing it is both counterproductive to the interests of the sponsors whose motive is to maximise profit-making.

Keep Reading

Meanwhile, both the leader and his or her handlers are motivated to make the best of their time in office before the next election. With that, looting and plunder of national resources begin and become a priority. And once again, the development cause is lost and whatever development that remains is neglected only to feature in the next election campaign as part of the promises to repair the damage. The only way out is for the African politician to wean themselves from the network of various interests and be in charge, the Paul Kagame way.

Third, in my previous instalment I argued that politicians do not develop countries because technically they come with nothing other than political promises. In a thriving economy, the role of an elected politician is to regulate — through policy — the relationship between capital interests and people power and to deliver on people’s needs which is why democracy requires that politicians are voted for by the people. In our case, politicians are seen as both omniscient and omnipotent. This is where the previous and current generation of Africa leaders differ from their colonial counterparts. During the colonial period, politics was not open to everyone and anyone. The political arena was occupied and controlled by entrepreneurs drawn from farming, mining, manufacturing, transport, communication and other industrial sectors. Decisions made by those who owned the means of production were financially backed in the form of taxes and direct funding to the government or development projects. For example, a councillor in a farming area would mobilise farmers to fundraise for the construction of a road or dam and this would be done through local contributions and with less government involvement. Today’s councillor typifies abject poverty and looks forward to a broke government for resources. Whoever took a leadership role during the colonial period feared to lose the financial support to sustain government operations and implement development projects than to lose the influence of non-productive handlers and voters like in today’s African politics. It also meant that politicians would face the economic and political consequences if they made silly decisions, a situation that does not obtain in today’s African politics.