On Leadership in Zimbabwe: We Cannot Lead People Backward

 By Takura Zhangazha*

I like motivational speakers and people that are in the profession of advising others how to better themselves.  I also like prophets, traditional healers and mainstream church leaders that help all of us improve our personal and professional lives.  This also includes those that write books on motivation, leadership and well-being in our contemporary social and economic context.  I must however confess to not listening or following them that much.  This is mainly because of their ideological pretexts that do not tally with my left leaning proclivities.

But leadership as a concept is very important in Zimbabwean society. It is one that we rarely explore to its fullest meaning in our local context.  Including questions such as, “What is it?”. “Why does one want to lead?” “What is its purpose?” “What does it result in?” 

Such questions may appear to be abstract because in our Zimbabwean context we assume in most instances, that leadership is about money and political power at varying levels.  Be it in churches, associations and political parties. 

We also assume that education is the sine qua non of acquiring any political leadership role.  While education (including our ability to be proficient in the English language) was important during our liberation struggles and in order to learn the ways of the coloniser, it remains inadequate for a new future.

Hence most of our political leaders in and outside of government acquire or are in the process of doing so, PhDs, masters degrees or law degrees.  All mainly for the title and not the academic prowess the academic qualifications are originally intended to signify. Education cannot now be the sole signifier of leadership acceptance. Values matter more.

But more prevalent is the assumption that material wealth is what makes one eligible for leadership.  Something that young Zimbabweans now consider as the ‘mbinga’ culture or wanting to be “chilling with the big boys”. This being a basic wrong assumption that materialism and wealth, no matter how it was acquired, gives one a mandate not only to lead but to be chosen to lead.  Or at worst to choose those that would lead.

What is perhaps important is a discussion on the three questions I raised. These being, “Why lead?” “What is leadership?” and “What should it result in?”

There are multiple answers to these questions and a greater number of them stem from a very corporatist understanding of leadership. This being an assumption that leadership connotes profit for a company or for oneself. And demonstrating wealth thereafter.

But the reality of the matter is that a personal decision to lead is very much straightforward.  It is to better the circumstances of those you choose and are chosen to lead.  This may seem to be an abstract point but it talks to the heart of individual ambitions of many among us.  You cannot lead for yourself no matter how big your ego. Nor should you lead because you feel you are some sort of messiah because messianic tendencies end in tragedy or coups.  And you lead in order for the organisation or entity that you lead to survive beyond your tenure or your life.  But more fundamentally one should desire to lead based on their own progressive and people centred values.  Such values are not by default but must be evidently apparent to those that you seek to lead. 

Where we look at the ‘purpose’ or the ‘why’ of leadership, we must understand that it is to enable others to learn how to lead.  It is also to enable a progressive understanding of the change that is required in a society or organisation.  While values remain fundamental they are not dogma. If you are a president or chairperson it is advisable that you focus on enabling others to eventually lead.  And to strengthen the internal and external organic understanding of the democratic values of those that you lead and will be led by others after your inevitable departure.  Including a clear understanding of inter-generational consciousness (praxis). 

In the third instance where we ask what should leadership result in? The answer cannot be more apparent. Leadership must always result in majority people-centered progress.  It’s as simple as that.  Anyone who desires leadership and the recognition that comes with it cannot lead their people backwards.  Even if they concoct excuses it is in no way progressive that by the time they leave those that they led are worse off than they were before your arrival.  Not just materially but more importantly in relation to progressive, people-centered values and principles. 

Finally, where we think about leadership in Zimbabwe, we must remember that we cannot all be presidents. And no one was predestined to become a president. Leadership is in our homes, our churches, our sports clubs, our workspaces, our unions and our companies. Moreover, progressive leadership is a value that looks more to the future than represents a contemporary fad. We must learn to lead for posterity.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)