Good leaders express their views
Fikile Moya is the editor of the Mercury. Follow him on
@fikelelom
SAY WHAT you like about American 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 no one can claim to be surprised if Trump wins the election 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 vote or don’t vote for him will do so on the basis of the clear vision that he stands for their values.
This is a very different approach to the governing party in South Africa.
Here, you have a fierce battle starting the moment one leader is elected, all for a position no one admits 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 of a traditional leadership house.
We have just had elections in the youth division of the ruling party, and why the individual leaders were elected has become a topic of conjecture. It was the same after the women’s wing of the organisation had its election processes.
Frankly, the youth and the women’s league 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 don’t even know exists or feels like.
I imagine that members of the party will say they know why they voted for those they voted 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 of society. Those who want to lead society must express their views on issues
Our leaders must speak their minds, just liked US presidential candidate Donald Trump, so we know what they stand for
that go beyond the intra-party issues and 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.
Leaders must speak their minds on matters such as euthanasia and climate change, and delve into matters considered sacred spaces, such as traditional or religious practices. They must be open about what they think about virginity testing or Charlie-Charlie, a dangerous new game that is said to conjure up a group of Mexican demons. They must introduce new thinking and take risks that they think can move their country forward.
It isn’t enough to hide behind the political-party views. In fact, they must not just seek to convince those outside the party; they must also convince those within why they and not someone else must lead.
Leadership must be integrated into the entire fabric of society. We haven’t even begun discussing personal integrity.
There are many times when I am convinced that the failure to speak their mind isn’t a handicap but a tactic. If you aren’t committed to any idea, then you can deceptively appear to be everything to everyone.
It would have been inspiring if their failure to commit to a viewpoint was because they shared Ralph Waldo Emerson’s conclusion that “a foolish consistency is the hob- goblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines”.
Unfortunately, it is usually about selfpreservation and the willingness to tell any version of the 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 isn’t just the media that must question those who want to lead. There is only so much the media can do.
Ultimately, it is those who politicians and political parties want to lead who must ask the pertinent questions. In any case, they are the ones who stand to be happy or disappointed that their man or woman has become the leader he or she became.