Democratic leadership 101: Back to Athens and down to Botswana

JOWITT MBONGWE | Friday July 31, 2009 00:00

Sparta's governance philosophy was centred on obedience and war. Whilst in Athens individuals enjoyed making choices and were provided with opportunities for education and for creativity, in Sparta all boys were forced into the military duty and girls were moulded to be mothers of warriors.

Today I could not resist the urge to draw from this lesson on democracy based on the contrast between Athens and Sparta. Athenian democracy thrived so many years ago and gave the world the only sustainable model of governance which however seems to be shunned by Africans. According to one leading advocate of the United States of Africa, the only way in which peace, unity and justice could prevail in Africa was through a benevolent dictatorship that emerges from means other than democratic.

This advocate of African Unity seems to suggest that Africans have a genetic defect that prevents them from transcending ethnic affinities and for that reason democracy can only perpetuate differences leading to permanent ethnic conflicts. Surprisingly most African dictators have embraced this view as it justifies their insatiable appetite to remain forever in power and/or to anoint their successors. The suggestion that democracy is not the ideal model for governance is certainly seductive to other leaders, particularly those who lack accountability and are afraid of accounting for their misconduct should they lose their grasp on power.

Fortunately, in Botswana, democracy has served the country well and ensured that there were equal opportunities for all to participate in elections at national and local levels. As a result the country has enjoyed unity, stability, economic development, the rule of law and respect for civil liberties.

The dictionaries commonly define democracy as 'government by the people in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected representatives under a free electoral system'. In a democracy all people have equal rights, there are equal opportunities for all and there is no social superiority or hereditary or any other arbitrary differences between people.

Whilst Athens is acclaimed as the author of democracy in the world, Botswana is unchallenged as the country with the longest experience of democracy in Africa. Not that other African nations did not embrace democracy; many actually did, but on the taste of power, many leaders chose to declare their countries or themselves anything from life presidents, one party states, supreme leaders, lions, kings of foreign lands such as Scotland, field marshals, amongst other titles that are engrained in the history of the continent.

Just a few days ago, I listened to the former President Sir Ketumile Masire (speaking at the UB Foundation Dinner) lecture his audience on the true meaning of democracy and accountable leadership, emphasising the importance of allowing differences to be the foundation of unity not division. In some articles that I have written recently, I have also on a few occasions quoted from others who have pronounced that good democratic leadership grows from allowing rebels or mavericks who tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Sir Ketumile counselled leadership in this country to allow dissenting voices. By listening to the people the leaders would avoid ending up like the 'emperor with no clothes' who was convinced by tricksters that they could create an invisible suit for him.

In any country, tricksters abound who mislead leaders for their own short term gain.

They ruthlessly remove the mirrors from around the palace and install themselves as the only true reflection of reality whilst entrenching an incurable negative co-efficient of self-delusion in the leader.

Under the influence of the tricksters near the crown, leaders develop messianic zeal as they slide irreversibly and incorrigibly into the darkness of absolute power. This trend is often irreversible until, in the language of Aristotle, 'catharsis' or some form of emotional cleansing occurs so that there is restoration, renewal and revitalisation. The costs (physical, mental, social, economic, political) paid for the insatiable binge in power accompanied by increasing levels of toxicity have far reaching impacts on the individuals, groups and the nation as whole. When self-delusion gets to ZANU proportions, the impacts know no boundaries as they begin to afflict regions and even become global.

With all the mirrors gone, the 'Bob' syndrome completely takes over and reigns supreme, menacingly rearing an ugly head with vampire eyes to devour its own people, even defying global political agreements.

The speed of moving from democracy towards the corruption of rulers and the ruled is breathtaking but the cost of the journey back to the democratic republic is beyond contemplation. After the damage of disunity, vengefulness, intolerance, injustice, tribal jingoism, getting back in order to march forward would be harshly difficult. Thus this country should openly debate so that the people can make their informed choice.

The current debate on democratic leadership is healthy and should lead to the strengthening of the bonds of national understanding (self awareness); the mortar of trust between a people who share a common past and a common future. The debate demonstrates one critical attribute of an effective democracy which is often missing in many systems - politically knowledgeable people. People should know what they want and then make conscious choices that serve their interest, the wider interests of society and be consistent with globally accepted values.

The ongoing debate should forestall the process of anocratisation of democratic governance by providing the opportunity for the nation to step back and reflect so that it does not end up with the constitutional and legislative features of democracy whilst the ruling elite is only accountable to itself. The growing negative co-efficient of self-delusion may slowly be producing what some scholars call 'narcostatization' which reinforces anocratisation by eating away all facades of democratic processes.

Over two centuries ago about Rome and America respectively, Niccolo Machiavelli and Alexis de Tocqueville discussed the need to focus on the interests of people and put in place mechanisms for fostering justice and preventing a slide into tyranny. The relationship of democracy and freedom has been compared with the relationship of fish to water. Democracy thrives in an environment where there is freedom to think and to differ and is therefore incompatible with the exercise of coercive power.

Writing on 'The State of Democracy Project' which was sponsored by the Switzerland based Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Botswana's Patrick Molutsi in 2002 called for the need for established democracies to audit their democratic arrangements. He said this after observing that there was disenchantment with the quality of democracy in all the democracies of the world. Botswana should take stock of its democracy focusing not just on where we come from on where the country is heading.

Now is also the time for the nation to take a look at the National Vision - Vision 2016 and for everyone to commit to playing a role in making it real. The Vision represents the dream of every Motswana, the dream for a strong country with strong people who give their leaders the strength to make decisions that reflect the will of the people.

This lesson on democratic leadership is in line with Vision 2016, which proclaims that by 2016 Botswana will be an open, democratic and accountable nation. The National Vision speaks of a system of decentralized democracy and political tolerance where civil society will play a part in the development of the country, alongside government; where the nation's leaders will be open and accountable to the people; and where freedom of expression as well as press freedom is fully protected.

In 2007, Steven Stein wrote on the keys to an emotionally intelligent organisation and I wish to refer our leaders to the need to undertake a journey of self-discovery to find the keys to building the emotionally intelligent nation envisaged in Vision 2016. From the definition of an emotionally intelligent organisation, it can be said that an emotionally intelligent nation would be one with the ability to successfully and efficiently cope with change and achieve its goals, whilst being responsible and sensitive to its people, neighbours, friends and society.

To unlock the barriers to building the nation envisioned by the year 2016, our leaders must empower people and promote high levels of citizen engagement. They must treat people fairly, justly and accord them dignity. Our leaders should allow people to make choices about their lives subject to constitutional, legal and ethical compliance.

The leaders must foster national cohesiveness around the national vision based on mutual trust between the people and the rulers. The leaders also have an obligation to make sure that those given positions of responsibility become role models known for high levels of accountability. Very importantly, to build an emotionally intelligent nation, the leaders must treat people with respect and leverage their divergent views and talents. They should also be proactively responsive by doing the right things to win the hearts and minds of people.

It is worth advising those in leadership positions that when debates such as this happen, they present an opportunity for learning so that where trust has been undermined it can be restored and relationship revitalized.

Jowitt Mbongwe is former journalist who currently works as management consultant. He is a Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.