Africa’s leadership bright spots, dark blots and fading stars (1)

DEFINING ISSUES and causes of underdevelopment in Africa in many cases of public discourse, debates and academic exercises often revolves around infrastructure, human capital, types of governments – democracy or not – and sometimes colonial history and contemporary ties to the colonialists. These are often garbed in flamboyant attires of neo-colonialism, market economies, infrastructural deficits, institutions and globalism. What is often omitted, given limited attention or eliciting passing interest is the subject of leadership that should be at the core. Viewed in a broad context of its relevance and centrality, the leadership subject has either been glossed over or treated with less attention than it deserves. Considering how leadership affects other things in the various countries of Africa, efforts are hereby made to take a look at some contemporary African leaders of note and what impacts they have made, or are currently making, on their respective countries and on the continent of Africa as a whole.

The wide contrasts in the development histories of many African countries are clearly traceable to the leadership that steered the affairs of such countries at some points in time. Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia would appear relevant here. Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe at independence in 1980, when Robert Gabriel Mugabe, an educated and urbane school teacher who became a radical guerrilla,  revolutionary and politician took over the leadership of the country. In retrospect, it didn’t matter much that he served first as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 1987 and later as President from 1987 to 2017. The argument about parliamentary or democratic system becomes irrelevant here as the same Mugabe, during his long rule, transformed from being a liberator to an oppressor, later turning Zimbabwe’s political system into a one-party rule. Before delving into the Northern Rhodesia story, a parallel to Mugabe can be found in the current leader of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, who fought his way into power in 1986 through guerrilla warfare, first with aid of then current military General Tito Okello and General Bale Travor that toppled Ugandan presidents Milton Obote and Idi Amin, thus ending their years of tyranny before he later captured power in 1986. Up to the 1990s, he was celebrated by the Western world as part of a new generation of African leaders. Sadly, however, he has had 37 unbroken years of rule since he took over power and still shows no sign of retiring anytime soon.

The Northern Rhodesia that became Zambia got independence in 1964, with Kenneth David Kaunda emerging as the first and only post-independence Prime Minister when his United National Independence Party (UNIP) won the 1964 general election ahead of independence. He was later to become the President that same year. With the benefit of hindsight, and considering his famed involvement at the forefront of the struggle for independence from British rule, how does his 1962 autobiography titled, “Zambia Shall Be Free” – a critique of colonial rule, and the power of democracy in liberating the varied people ruled in the new Zambia – stand in comparison with his political career as Zambia’s president for 25 years in a row?  The man who succeeded in leading Zambia through independence began with a political ideology he referred to as “African socialism” similar to that of Julius Nyerere. His political economy involved state capitalism, the form in which the government had nationalised many local enterprises and acquired significant stakes in foreign-owned enterprises as part of his national response to foreign exploitation by multinational corporations, a programme that was implemented in form of  Africanisation of management, without necessarily embarking on real ownership of such enterprises.

This was considered compatible with state capitalism in which parastatal institutions, such as copper mines, were identified as the commercial types. Many changes became inevitable originating from within and outside Zambia that weakened Kaunda’s hold on power and paved the way for his eventual ouster. Kaunda was to later embrace reforms in the form of commercialisation of public enterprises and liberal democracy. The latter came with a referendum that forced Kaunda to open the field to multiparty democracy that gave Frederick Chiluba the opportunity to defeat Kaunda in a 1991 election in addition to pressure from foreign powers that prompted Kaunda to step down as president in 1991, thus ending his UNIP’s 25 years of dominance. These coincided with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, but afforded him the opportunity to become the second African head of state to cede power to a democratically elected successor in November, after Mathieu Kérékou of Benin Republic did the same earlier in March of the same year.

The foregoing stories represent the first and second generations of African political leaders and their political experimentations with their various countries post-independence. A distinct specimen of leadership that went through a different set of experiences was Nelson Mandela. His route to power was not only more tortuous, but was more excruciating. Mandela, who ruled his country for a single term of five years from 1994 to 1999 as the first black president of South Africa but declined to go for a second term, was one of the world’s longest-detained political prisoners who was in confinement for 27 years. In 1990, after his release, he led the movement of resistance against the injustice of apartheid and later became the president. His regime was marked by a peaceful transition from the Apartheid rule to black majority rule that set the tone for hope and great expectations for the people of South Africa as he led the push towards peaceful conciliation, forgiveness and an inclusive society founded on democratic principles and the rule of law. He set an example for all in South Africa. In 1993, before he became president, Mandela became a global icon and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize alongside Frederik Willem de Klerk for working together to peacefully end the Apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa. Unlike Mandela, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who received same Nobel Peace Prize later in 2019 for his work in ending the 20-year post-war territorial stalemate between Ethiopia and Eritrea, later turned round to initiate a two-year war between his government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), beginning from November 3, 2020, in which thousands of Tigray people died and millions were displaced. With that attack on the Tigray people, Abiy Ahmed devalued the Nobel prize he earlier received. Mandela, who was opposed to violence, managed to calm down the restive countrymen of diverse tribes and races during and after his presidential term, until he died in December 2013 at the age of 95. Today, Mandela has become a reference point in global discourse on leadership.

Rwanda is a country of interest in the study of national leadership for all the contrasting features it presents. It is a small country with two main tribes that had gone through a period of bitter war and mass killings. Since the end of the war, only one single man has been ruling and there is no immediate sign that power would be transmitted to another person soon. For over two decades under Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, various observers have described him in different ways. While some refer to him as a ‘benevolent dictator,’ others point out with diplomatic finesse, just as Tibor Nagy, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs did on his first visit to Rwanda in 2019, that “Rwanda has reimagined itself as a strong state that invests in good governance and the success of its people,” adding that, “in many ways, Rwanda is demonstrating the true potential of Africa.” Not too many people or findings on Rwanda would agree with Nagi as the US State Department, in a 2021 report, identified “significant human rights issues” in Rwanda, ranging from “unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government” to “forced disappearance by the government,” among others. On this side of observation, some insist that his iron fist authoritarian rule has come at the expense of human rights in the country. To some, Kagame is a liberator. But some say Rwanda is only safe for those who toe the line. As he perpetuates self in office, it is pertinent to ask how much longer is he planning to hold on to power and if he is building any institution that will ensure that his present achievements outlast him and if he has any seamless succession plan in case he dies before the 2034 exit date he has set for himself, a date that he may change for whatever reasons – stated or unstated – before or after that time.

Despite its transformation into what many consider “Africa’s tech hub” and the rapid economic growth it has achieved, Rwanda has struggled to leave its dark past behind as the history of the genocide still haunts the country till now as he tries to rebuild the country he inherited as president in 2000, which has been torn apart by the genocide. Notwithstanding all these, many still consider Kagame as a threat to democracy even while there are those who regard him as a visionary leader. His style of leadership and the manner in which he conducts elections only favour him alone as could be seen from his third term electoral victory in 2017 with nearly 99 percent of the vote. His clampdown upon and restriction of press and political freedoms are indicative of his intolerance for opposition as he has changed the constitution to enable him remain president beyond his legal term. However, the stability, prosperity, unity and reconciliation of the Rwanda people remain as major areas of tasks that must be accomplished as the government depends – to a significant extent – on Western allies who hail Rwanda as the model for growth in Africa. In this case, the US and the UK have been supporting Rwanda with aid donations for many years. Rwanda also depends on a financially rewarding alliance with China, the Asian powerhouse – also infamous for its authoritarian rule – for social services, such as education, healthcare and housing.

In all of these, Kagame has managed to get the sympathy of rich and industrialised countries, who have obviously chosen to overlook his dictatorial tendencies in their diplomatic relations. He hosted the 2022 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in the capital Kigali, with the heir apparent then Prince Charles, now the British monarch, in attendance, in addition to many Commonwealth member countries’ heads of governments. Can the leadership of Kagame serve as a model for other African countries? In an ethnically and religiously diverse country such as Nigeria, can a leader afford to adopt Kagame style without an immediate and sustained backlash? Under what circumstances can such type of leadership be applied in Africa? Is there any inspiration for contemporary times from that of the late Robert Mugabe, Kaunda or even the current Ugandan leader, Museveni? Where then should Africa turn to while seeking to find model leaders? What made Mandela different and larger than life –even after death – should be of interest to African leaders who think they have to stay endlessly in office in the interest of their countries. As history has shown in many cases of self-perpetuating political leaders in power in African countries, the longer they stay in office, the less they are in touch with the realities and the more authoritarian they tend to become. Is that good for Africa? The answer is anyone’s guess.

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com