Zimpapers Logo

Tichaona Zindoga Political Editor
Servant leadership. Philosopher king. Godly (or God-fearing) leadership, etc. These are some of the terms we are hearing a lot these days. Zimbabwe is preparing to hold historic elections in less than two months and the countdown is surely on. The elections, held in accordance with the laws of the land, represent a quinquennial ritual when Zimbabwe chooses leaders from the lower levels of State administration – at council or local Government level – to the highest level of State President.

No doubt, all eyes are on the higher value. Zimbabwe’s system allows the electorate to choose their representatives, including the State President, directly. As such, there is a lot of interest on who wins the lottery at least on July 30, 2018, the day of the election.

What kind of leader are Zimbabweans looking for? What kind of leader do they deserve? What are the traits of the ideal leader? Can the nation trust its eventual choice and live with it? These are some key questions regarding July’s Battle Royale.

This fourth and penultimate instalment of the series of articles in which we are trying to re-imagine Zimbabwe in relation to its modest past glories, focuses on the leadership question. It also aims to link the question of leadership to institutions created by the same. In the end it asks, are people able to trust the institutions that are created by the leadership they choose? The paper looks at four sub-themes namely, the constitutional framework for choosing leaders in Zimbabwe; philosophical reflections on leadership; present examplars of leadership and the building of institutions and trust in the same.

Who qualifies to be a leader?
In the context of the forthcoming election – which is the most important barometer – the Constitution provides a comprehensive answer as to who qualifies to occupy the highest office in the land.

The Constitution, the supreme law, charges whoever occupies the position of President with executive authority in Zimbabwe, which power the person shall exercise, subject to and through Cabinet.

According to Section 89 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the President is the Head of State and Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces and his duties include upholding, defending, obeying and respecting the Constitution as the supreme law of the nation and must ensure that this Constitution and all the other laws are faithfully observed. The President must: (a) promote unity and peace in the nation for the benefit and well-being of all the people of Zimbabwe;(b) recognise and respect the ideals and values of the liberation struggle; (c) ensure protection of the fundamental human rights and freedoms and the rule of law; and (d) respect the diversity of the people and communities of Zimbabwe.

On to the important question of who qualifies to be leader, the Constitution stipulates that he or she (a) is a Zimbabwean citizen by birth or descent;
(b) has attained the age of 40 years;
(c) is ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe; and
(d) is registered as a voter.

The bar is pretty low, one could say, except that one has to navigate the political jungle from the very bottom to the apex of the political ladder. And it is then that we realise that many are called, but few are chosen. Even then, a July 30 ought to produce one winner: if the field fails to produce an outright winner who garners 50 percent+1, then the lotto called “run-off” is necessitated. In this year’s case, if July 30 fails to produce a winner, there will be a rerun – another term for run-off – on September 8. There are hundreds of aspiring candidates in Zimbabwe, as many as there are hundreds of political parties.

To separate serious leaders from jesters, a Nomination Court will sit in a week’s time to receive the credentials of candidates who should receive 10 nominations and have the nominal sum of $1 000 to spare. At that point, the world will know the men and women who meet the minimum requirements of the law to stand as leaders. And when July 30 comes, they shall be put to test.

Theoretical and philosophical reflections on political leadership: The fox, the lion and the power seeker
Leon Dion (1968) contends that political leadership represents but one of the many categories of leadership and that it is the most elusive one. Dion, however, delimits the question to two central aspects of the phenomenon: first, that leadership is a relationship between one or more persons exercising influence (i.e., the leader) and one or more persons submitting to that influence (followers); and secondly, that leadership is a relationship best studied within the framework of the group process.

He further seeks to explore leadership as an interpersonal and social phenomenon, and the conditions necessary for the exercise of leadership, particularly in relation to political leadership.

Dion explains that leadership encompasses “large action patterns” which involves the roles of many people and of all levels, sometimes devolved or with competing centres. If a leader loses support and control, it results in crisis of leadership.

Personal traits of the political leader are also at the centre of the conceptual arguments on leadership, whether one is “born a leader”, or acquires traits through personal discipline or special training.

“Perhaps Machiavelli’s characterisation of the leader as both fox and lion is still the most accurate. If this is so, perhaps it is because the author of ‘The Prince’ concentrated on the most enduring type of political leader, namely the power seeker,” says Dion, delving into the interesting philosophical field.

Hence, he brings forth Herbert Spencer, who remarks of the great man: “Before he can remake his society, his society must make him”; and Hegel, who contends that, “The real motor of history is the objective will, transformed into Zeitgeist”.

The great man is he who perceives the needs of his time and who succeeds in translating them into political action, explains

Dion of this Hegelian dictum.
The great man does not create conditions which permit him to prove his superior capacities. On the contrary, he is created by them and great men are the necessary products of great historical moments. (Perhaps better explained in the “dramatisation” of leadership where a leader acts as saviour in times of distress). Interesting! Dion further exposes other three political leadership types namely, patriarchal, based on tradition; charismatic, based on the possession by a person of a special gift and bureaucratic leadership based on law and rationality. There are further characteristics and functions that will not be discussed here. In all this maze (we have not exhausted everything), one could add Aristotle’s philosophy of the so-called philosopher-king based on the thinking that, “Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide . . . cities will have no rest from evils . . . there can be no happiness, either public or private, in any other city.”

Servant leadership
It would be remiss not to talk of the concept of servant leadership, a term that is in vogue these days — to the point of banality, almost. A 2008 paper by Ginny Boyum of the University of Minnesota is useful in explaining the concept. Boyum attributes the concept to Robert Greenleaf, who wrote an essay to fellow managers in 1966, which was a deduction of Greenleaf’s personal reflection, experience and observation concerning the current state of leadership in organisations and the reading of one metaphorical story.

Greenleaf concluded that the nature of a true leader is the willingness to be first and primarily a servant to others and it is this very desire to serve others that makes one a great leader. Boyum traces the term servant leader to Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, where Jesus gives instruction on the qualities of a leader, the role of the leader and the issue of power or (authority) of a leader who “has an innate desire to lead by serving, serves to align with own beliefs and strives to meet the highest priorities of others”.

Many kinds of leader – and long live trust!
The above discussion begins to give one ideas as to the kind of leaders we have in Zimbabwe based on those who are participating on the field. We may be witnessing the lion and the fox. We may be witnessing a prince. We may be witnessing a great man who has been created by history. We may be witnessing a servant leader – which many are claiming to be. Just as yet, we could be witnessing charismatic and bureaucratic leadership in the tradition outlined by Dion. There is incumbent President Emmerson Mnangagwa and Nelson Chamisa on one hand who tick different boxes as they contend as the two leading race horses. On the other end of the spectrum, we have a person like Nkosana Moyo, who is bringing in a different philosophy to the game.

It’s interesting. Zimbabweans will have to make choices and live with them. The history of the country may have taught a few lessons. It is often remarked that people get the leadership they deserve.

Just as well, many people have been remarking just how, over some lengthy period of close to four decades, Zimbabweans were able to live with one leader and the kind of man (or monster) they created.

Conclusively, this installment sought to ask whether Zimbabwe would be able to restore trust in leadership and institutions.
A new dispensation is possible in which citizens can trust their leaders, institutions and processes. With the benefit of hindsight, Zimbabweans would better pray for good leadership and strong institutions to live long, rather than man.