NATIONAL AFFAIRS
…Politic, Public, Private& Poor
There are three areas that influence national affairs – no four. Three have voice the fourth cannot be ignored.
POLITICS
Events of the last 50 years have shown that though politics is a powerful force in informal organization, it often finds itself completely out of depth in formal environments. In formal environments, with structure and order, different forms of leadership are needed. Politics is a woefully inadequate and ill equipped to cope with formal environments. It seems that nations can be founded by political movements but not built or established by them.
Though the visitors can be singled out for the plunder of Africa’s resources, politicians take responsibility for the underdevelopment of the continents reserves over the last 50 years by neglecting leadership, poor resources management and neglecting the bigger task of forming the nation. However, one of the questions we must ask is - Is leadership in Africa asking politicians to do more than they are sincerely able to do? Can politics run government?
What does political leadership entail what is its maximum value contribution to society and what role should it play in writing Africa’s future. In our opinion politics has been on the center stage for too long. Africa needs a different leadership agenda to guide Africa’s affairs into the future. Over reliance on political direction will come to naught because politics by nature does not need foresight. Africa needs vision. Politics highest contribution in society is to create unity and facilitate cooperation. These are important indeed but more than this is needed to remove Africa from its present circumstances. Africa needs other forms of leadership to give balance to development and growth efforts.
Politics is still the single most influential element in social affairs and sits on top of the national pile. Politics seems to find its way into everything. How did politics arrive at this venerated position? Politicians won the hearts of the people when they delivered freedom to the nation, but politicians have not been able to feed the peoples souls. The people’s dreams remain unrealized and disillusioned by the promises of politics. Africa has come to experience that politics is not leadership and leadership is not politics.
Politics was the premier force in founding the nation but it cannot feed the nation. It cannot be the dominant force in building a nation. The role of politics needs to change to meet the new conditions. It was pivotal in the beginning it must be supportive now. Politics can foster the nation it cannot facilitate it. It is the primary force in informal organization, but plays a secondary role in formal order.
Now other forms of leadership are required to sustain nationhood. The role of politics prior to independence is not the same as the role of politics in managing national affairs. The role of politics in independent nations is to integrate and incorporate the nation through cooperation. Sadly many in politics still create division and diversion to obtain popular advantage and gain political mileage. A practice perfected by the colonialist in the closing hours of the second day divide-and- rule. A practice with depressing social returns.
To realize the nations full socio-economic potential politics needs to give way. Politics is very passionate, but does not have to show productivity or even be accountable. Politics (often driven by ethnic divides) has hampered the development of the nations and caused the destruction of many more.
PRIORITIES
Politics postpones priorities. If politics continues to prevail then priorities will be buried under papers, promises, posters, policy and poverty. Politics distracts leadership from priority issues and vision to focus on isolated matters. Leadership cannot thrive in such an environment. Vision and strategy do not see the light of day in such environments of vested interest. Is it possible for leadership in Africa to exercise leadership in national affairs without having to join or participate in politics?
A FINAL WORD ON POLITICS
The people are already far ahead of politicians. Politicians claiming the loyalty of populations are in for a few surprises. The people have been meeting in the cities and the village and intermarrying. The people are forming social networks across communities, on the continent and around the globe. These networks are providing the social support that used to be provided by community. Racial loyalties are fading. The people realize that there is no difference in races just differences in faces. They are not to be separated by history but are united by the future. The people have hopes and dreams of the future. The colonial strategy to segregate populations based on ethnicity or affiliation is unsustainable. Unless politics reforms quickly it may end up as an embarrassing exhibit in the leadership Museum.
PUBLIC SECTOR
The public sector leadership has been largely expected to reflect or mirror political leadership in Africa. This assumption calls for urgent debate. The public sector has often acted not just in support to political leadership, but in total subservience to it. Whether Leadership in the public sector, being a service and regulatory arm, has a duty to provide key services to the public bridled by political brokerage and domination is a question that begs considered answers.
Leadership in the public sector is perhaps limited to following through on legislated policy. It is of note that the public sector does not retain leadership services (capacity) within its ranks and relies on the acquisition of these services on a consultative arrangement from “specialists”, International institutions and hired technical teams brought in to chart out the way forward for the public sector. Is this a weakness? At the very least it means that the public sector lacks institutional leadership capacity and also lacks continuity in its operations, this years team of consultants will recommend a disjointed initiative from last years. Though the public sector may boast of administrative structures and coordinative capacity, the public sector lacks vision and strategy; these are singularly leadership responsibility.
Should the public sector advise political leadership, rather than take instructions from it? How can it do so without the internal (leadership) capacity to do so (if it has to rely on outside agents to develop strategy)? Is there no framework for such a relationship? The public sector is dependent on politicians for leadership and direction. This does not promote leadership development in the public sector at all because leadership is not required of it.
SERVICE
The public sector is service oriented and should engineer the aspirations of the nation. The public sector, comfortably housed in bureaucracy, and though the most influential leadership implementation agency, operates in relative isolation - out of touch with the need base and reality on the ground. This is a strange state of affairs to be in – at a loss for the future and lost for feet. The poor (service) performance of public sector organizations across Africa and the call for privatization of many national institutions is testimony of the inability of leadership in those institutions. Could we develop or empower leadership to realize effective service provision
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Administration is hardly the context for effective leadership expression, yet even here leadership can make gains for the public. Leadership’s aims may be social responsibility but administrations’ concerns are with the procedure. This is a stand off that can be worked out if goodwill can be established between all service agents for the good of the recipients. It is the loss of focus of objective that leads to conflict.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATION
Much public sector organization is based on administrative procedure, bureaucratic structure and institutional capacity. Over reliance on structure has the net effect of centralizing leadership to a point of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. To achieve a modest level of social service and accountability these leadership structures will need serious review. Because administrations tend to have heavy bureaucracy and multiple hierarchies, Exercising leadership can be seen as “insubordination”. To get a suggestion through to the correct administrator for approval and a decision obtained may take days of dedicated follow up. Many times leadership just gives up. Bureaucracy particularly in public Administration is a matter that must be addressed to free up leadership to function and free up resources for service.
THE RISE OF THE NGO
The dormancy of leadership in the public sector has given rise to a new force in the public sector that has taken leadership seriously and is developing leadership to secure its position in the public eye; the Non Governmental Organization. This new entrant in public sector space has ensured that governments are losing the initiative and further complicating governance issues. In fact the public sector is now being heartily divided up between NGOs, public associations and lobby groups. While governments are sleeping on the job and losing ground fast, NGOs have aggressively made themselves felt and now assert their leadership under various advocacy initiatives. While governments have been clinging to administration for dear life, they have been more than willing to cede leadership to these organizations. There is something wrong with this picture.
NGOs provide for specific interests and causes, their popularity, priority, principles or purposes notwithstanding. Associations on the other hand promote group interests and lobby to have them enshrined in regulatory framework. These elements point to partisan interests rather than overall social responsibility. Whether government, NGO or public association, at the core of these issues is the question of governance. Who should hold social responsibility for leadership in public service?
Do donors have the right to direct public policy because they have the funds? NGOs have actually made it to the United Nations forums claiming to represent civil society on an African platform. This points at failure of governments to represent their people. Governments are losing the service initiative in serving their people and willingly handing over leadership to other “able” groups. Government needs to reclaim leadership as custodians of the people’s interests. To do so they must double leadership competencies, capacity and commitment if they are to be taken seriously in order to achieve this without disrupting the gains made in the public sector. The failure of leadership in public administration can only lead to failure of service delivery and public disorder. Government is losing face in the public sector race.
PRIVATE SECTOR
While leadership in the public sector is charged with national interests, leadership in the private sector concerns itself with individual interests. Leadership in these two areas need not be in conflict. The private sector is often taunted, as the driver of the economy while this may not be entirely true, it is true that the private sector represents a rainbow of profit driven interests, which due to each members relative independence are able to rapidly respond to and take advantage of economic opportunities. The leadership dynamics in such an environment must of necessity be much more fluid.
The private sector actually sits under the public sector and cannot go beyond the limits set by the public sector. The private sector can do no more than they are allowed to do. If the private sector is to achieve anything it must receive support from the public sector. Bearing in mind the constraints of the public sector outlined above. The achievements of the private sector will be limited by overheads presented by the public sector. Considering the leadership hierarchy from political, public and then private sectors it immediately becomes obvious that the limitations of the first affect (are passed on to) the next and the inability of the next is burdened on the third.
Private sector organizations are made up of business units, personal enterprise, cooperative and corporate entities in both the formal and informal sectors. All these organization pursue different interests in line with their goals. These organizations are marked by distinct character and culture among themselves. But on the whole private sector culture is very different from the uniform culture found in the public sector. The private sector has a stronger sense of autonomy, control and interest in their activities. Initiative is far more visible and accountability is regularly demanded from the private sector something that often goes unnoticed in the public sector for years on end. The environment presented to leadership in the private sector is far more dynamic and prone to greater risk than the public sector.
The call for “privatization” of public corporations is really a call for the infusion of leadership into the administration of public services that is thought to be available in the private sector. Having said that we must be fair and examine leadership in the private sector in its own context.
LEADERSHIP
Leadership in the private sector does not have the comfort of guaranteed existence. Leadership has to fight for the survival of organizations. The private sector is in many ways a hostile environment that demands wit, wisdom and will to endure. This is probably what accounts for the difference in cultures of the two sectors. In the private sector the basic ingredients are work, output, profit and competition these elements drive organization performance.
Private sector is eager for progress, growth and opportunity. These present a continuous challenge to leadership and leadership development. It is not uncommon to see start up organizations setting up shop alongside established units in the belief that they have a chance to take over a market. Leadership in the private sector is characterized by optimism and opportunism. The competitive environment eggs leadership on. The private sector is a domain for conquerors
The Private sector has done something for leadership in Africa. It has shown, by using corporate leadership, that it is possible to sustain profitable business in unstable environments with consistent performance. Outside investors recognize the available local leadership potential? To its credit the private sector has emphasized leadership competence in recruitment. The private sector maintains (lean) efficient outfits that shy away from bureaucracy, minimize investor input and maximize returns on resources with the smallest outlay of reserves.
Leadership development is not very high on the private sector business agenda but leadership acquisition is critical to the success of private sector performance. The private sector is willing to pay a premium price for leadership competencies.
Leadership in the private sector focuses on short term competencies such as professionalism and productivity and performance. But sustainable leadership needs to emphasize the development of long-term vision & strategy, quality, invention and innovation. By developing leadership many local businesses could add quality, depth, range, reach and continuity to their services and products. Establishing leadership development will generate enterprise expansion.
Growth in the private sector however has been rickety perhaps because of public sector overheads and political supervision. The associated risks of expansion do not always make business sense and neither is desirable growth always a sensible, or viable option. The private sector finds itself burdened with the costs of market regulation and the punitive costs of showing initiative. A more dynamic framework that promotes innovation may be needed to buoy private sector efforts
Leadership in the private sector obviously faces different challenges from those in the public sector. The challenges are also diverse and not as centralized as in the public sector. To develop a singular strategy to align private sector development may not be practical. Growth will have to come from leadership efforts having clear vision, strategy and goals to achieve desired outcomes. In this way private sector units make independent contributions to the corporate success of the sector
THE POOR
This is the fourth sector of social significance but not necessarily influence. The poor make up for the larger part of society therefore Leadership in Africa is going nowhere without them (not poverty). Because they are significant in number they will consistently weigh down economic averages and dilute any development strategy. A separate “poverty” initiative is likely to run out of steam. The poor are not going away in a hurry. The poor need inclusion to address their long-term aspirations just like all the other sectors of social existence.
The poor need to be incorporated into National Affairs to afford balance and even distribution of social development. Though the other sectors claim to speak for the poor in times of crisis, the poor lack inclusion in organization, order and leadership initiatives in Africa.
Economic theory does not always support social advantage and majority benefit, especially if the majority is poor. Access to basic facilities and social opportunities are important measures, but harnessing and integrating the social economic participation and contribution of the population in national affairs as a whole may be the way forward. Leadership in Africa will need to take bold measures to include the poor in economic equations.
SUMMARY
The socio-economic sandwich in society places politics at the top and the poor at the bottom. Politics holding down social development and while the poor hold up economic growth. The public and private sectors are in between holding on to public affairs and driving what is left of the economy respectively. If this sandwich was inverted leadership in Africa could facilitate dramatic change in society.