INTERVAL
In the first millennium internal organization of the continent was based on independent governance systems focused on community and cultural dynamics. Interaction frameworks between ethnic groupings remained cautious, physically challenged by distance and environmental conditions. This is the environment in which leadership operated. In terms of organization continuity we learn that isolation guarantees neither safety, security nor superiority. Neither does it guarantee survival, success or long-term existence. Intrusion or competition could be its undoing
The second millennium posed profound changes to the foundations of leadership dynamics on the continent. The second millennium brought external influences and intrusions that brought tidal waves upon leadership frameworks in Africa. The waves eroded beliefs, cultural systems of government, traditional practices and other leadership paradigms. Social values were thrown into flux and society descended into disarray as external intrusion began to influence social organization and order. The continent was ravaged by confusing, independent, separate, repeated and sometimes simultaneous attack by multiple interest groups. Rebutting these attacks was both distressing and draining. Distressing because dealing with a different enemy each time rendered coordinative strategy impossible. Draining because with each successive attack society and leadership was progressively weakened. Though the influences and intrusions of the millennium carved up the land they never accessed the heart of the continent.
If leadership was standing in the first millennium it was completely disoriented and remained in a state of disorder until the later part of the second millennium when formal structures introduced by the intruders began to (re) order the environment. Leadership was able to learn, adjust to and evaluate the new conditions. Leadership in Africa regrouped. Reorienting contributors such as the missionary efforts, which enabled the understanding of the world context, values systems, beliefs and practices cannot be understated. The colonizers in the meantime introduced (visible) administrative structures that could be understood and mastered. The order and regulation of the formal environment gave opportunity for the informal growth and development of leadership in Africa.
The scattered, disorganized resistance in Africa was galvanized into a formidable movement by the formalization of colonialism as the one common combined enemy. It would now take a relatively short time to do what leadership in Africa had been unable to do for centuries. There are multiple lessons here for leadership in Africa.
At the turn of the century leadership in Africa gained a frame of reference to re-launch itself in the 1900s with a call for self- determination. It would take leadership just 50 years to stand bravely on its feet again. It was a heady feeling but it would take some time to gain the confidence of centuries past and pursue the challenges of the future. The village had changed. It was a new village. A world village with new themes and paradigms producing a new set of leadership dynamics, organization and order that would need to be mastered.
Within the context of the world events, it is clear that by the middle of the 1900s Africa was riding the crest of a wave making its first triumphant entry on to the world stage and what a victory it was for leadership! It is also important to note that Africa was propelled onto the world stage by political events.
Political leadership is still considered as leadership in many different spheres of Africa’s existence today. Politics pervades leadership in business, social life, science, education almost every thing is politicized where leadership is required. But leadership is not politics and politics is not leadership. Leadership influences the quality of politics. In fact leadership influences the quality of any endeavor.
Now we will turn our attention to the intense period leading up to Africa today: The period of nationhood from 1950 to the close of the second millennium. The turn of this period was handled by the Great Ones. Were leaders and more so was leadership prepared for the challenges ahead? Nationhood would make a new set of demands of leadership in Africa under a completely new set of village dynamics.
The challenges leadership would face would be totally removed from oppression or opposition – two terms that drive politics. Was there sufficient leadership to manage a State? Leadership in Africa having very recently shown the world its remarkable capability at organization and strategy was to enter the unfamiliar terrain of institutional leadership. In the new state Africa was in need of leadership in the context of multiple divergent legitimate interests. Leadership in Africa was about to be ambushed by victory.
We need a leadership model that will set the new challenges in context to help us understand the dilemma faced by leadership in Africa shortly after independence. We also need to inaugurate a museum of relics and passing conditions of leadership to remind us of the genesis and perhaps where we cannot return.