Those who want to lead society must express views beyond intra-party issues

SAY what you like about US presidential candidate Donald Trump, but one thing you cannot accuse him of is not knowing what he stands for.

You might not like it, but nobody can claim to be surprised if Trump wins the elections and the first order of business is to erect a wall between the US and Mexico.

That is because Trump put his thoughts out there in the open. Those who will vote, or not vote, for him will do so on the basis of a clear vision that he stands for their values.

This is a different approach to how the governing party in South Africa operates. Here you have a fierce battle starting the moment one leader is elected, all for a position nobody admits to wanting.

Despite this, millions of rand are spent propping up the chances of what we are told is a reluctant leader who, out of loyalty to the party, will forsake their own happiness and become leader of the party and of the state.

When candidates’ names are ultimately canvassed, we hear unsatisfactory lines such as “it is time for a woman” without explaining why that particular woman, in an organisation where there are thousands of other women; or that their preferred candidate is next in line, as if the office is that of a traditional leadership house.

We have just had elections of the youth division of the party and why the individual leaders were elected has become the topic of conjecture.

It was the same after the women’s wing of the organisation had its own election processes.

Frankly the youth and women’s leagues are as interesting to me as how Bruce Jenner feels now that he is Caitlyn. Nothing hinges on knowing the answer to the question or what they are up to.

I am raising this because commentators and social media have been abuzz about these leaders being in office because they bought more votes than their opponents were able to.

One commentator even accused the party of only wanting women’s panties because there was only one woman elected to its top leadership structure.

In the absence of knowing what those elected stand for, any discussion on their suitability or otherwise would be tantamount to groping in the dark for something you do not even know exists or what it feels like.

I imagine members of the political party will say they know why they vote for those they vote for and what they stand for. That is fine if your ambitions are limited to leading a political party, but not society.

There is a huge difference between being a leader of a political party and being a leader in society.

Those who want to lead society must express their views on issues that go beyond the intra-party issues and go beyond party political questions.

Sure, politics touches every sphere of our lives, but there is more to society than just thinking about who wields political power and how they use it.

They must speak their minds on matters such as euthanasia, climate change and delve into matters considered sacred spaces such as traditional or religious practices.

They must be open about what they think of virginity testing or Charlie-Charlie, the dangerous game that is said to conjure up a group of Mexican demons.

They must introduce new think- ing and take risks that they think can move their country forward.

It is not enough to hide behind their political party views. In fact they must not just seek to convince those outside of the party, but also those within why they and not someone else should lead.

Leadership must be integrated into the entire fabric of society.

We have not even begun discussing personal integrity.

There are many times when I am convinced that the failure to speak their mind is not a handicap but a tactic.

If you are not committed to any idea, then you can deceptively appear to be everything to everybody.

It would have been inspiring if their failure to commit to a viewpoint was because they shared Ralph Waldo Emmerson’s conclusion that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines”.

Unfortunately, it is usually about self-preservation and the willingness to tell any version of truth in whatever detail those who are willing to pay prefer it.

Their own minds are a potential obstacle to their next meal and delusion of grandeur.

It is not just the media that must question those who want to lead. There is only so much that the media can do.

Ultimately, it is those whom politicians and political parties want to lead who must ask the pertinent questions.

In any event, it is they who stand to be happy or disappointed that their man and woman has become the leader they became.

If you are not committed to any idea, then you can deceptively appear to be everything to everybody