It is important to consider the type of leadership needed to rebuild South Africa. It is important to name our current political experience as representing a crisis for that is not what it is always called. It is said that South Africa cannot be in crisis because its press is vibrant; there are opposition political parties operating with little restriction and independent institutions like the judiciary and the Public Protector; it has a healthy civil society, including citizen-based organisations, social movements, faith-based organisations and a range of individuals in communities who take brave stands in defence of their beliefs.

This may be exaggerated.  Civil society reveals a range of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) engaging in various social causes, but many social movements, that is, organisations with a membership base are often weak and regrettably do not enjoy support from organisations of the left or many NGOs. 

Institutions like the judiciary and the Public Protector have come under attack from the ANC, SACP and government, threatening their capacity to perform their independent, constitutionally defined roles.

The crisis in South Africa does not lie in the absence of constitutional institutions and openings for democratic activities but a range of factors that lead to the negating of routes that ought to be open to remedy problems or achieve democratic and transformatory goals. 

The character of the problems lies precisely in the steps that have been taken or not taken by organs of government.  These undermine paths that ought to provide remedies for various social problems. This is not peculiar to ANC-run authorities but is also found in aspects of governance under DA rule. 

In other words, if there were due performance of obligations many more people would be living in conditions fit for human existence.

No problem of government and much else in social life can be put at the door of a single individual and these need to be located within the context of the functioning of a range of institutions and relationships, including the role of opposition political parties in the political arena, the extent to which they too contribute towards a democratic environment.

But the question of leadership, considered as a relationship between office bearers and institutions, office bearers and various institutions and the public, is crucial. Where there is a breakdown in leadership or a failure of leadership to perform in a manner that serves the interests of democracy, clean government and transformation, then one has a crisis. The crisis lies in an erosion of integrity, insofar as there is conscious evasion of duties to advance democratic goals or aspirations that are injunctions under the constitution.

It is not intended to revisit the array of well-known attacks on constitutionalism currently experienced. Instead, this article unpacks the leadership qualities that will be required, when we surface from this period of crime and decay, a leadership that can manage a process of transformatory democracy, and will embody qualities that evoke respect.

Good leaders listen. If one looks at the giants of South African liberation history they were all distinguished by their willingness to listen. It is said that Chief Albert Luthuli would listen for hours whether at national meetings or as an elected chief in Groutville. He would only offer advice once he understood precisely what the problem was, not only from his own observations but also through hearing it from the mouth of the person who experience the problem.

This is a very important distinction, that a democratic leader understands that no matter how wise s/he may be that cannot encompass understanding of a problem, in the terms understood by those who experience it.  One may have a very clear idea of what the problem is and how it needs to be resolved.  But one still needs to hear people out.  In current politics one has the impression, that it is not only the ANC but also almost all political parties who are reluctant to do this listening¹.

Where those burdened by the problem make a request, if they are to be satisfied with the answer it is important that the problem is addressed not only in the professionally most efficient way but also in the terms in which they experience and understand it. Or if it is not possible to accede to their request they must see that the process leading to the decision has nevertheless incorporated or taken adequate account of their understanding of the problem.

Consistency is a conditional virtue. In a situation of leadership disarray many long for consistency. It is a virtue to be consistent, to treat like cases in the same way and not offer special treatment to family or friends or engage in other irregularities. But consistency is not a virtue if one sticks to a way of doing things even where conditions have changed. What stands out with Nelson Mandela is that he repeatedly changed his political understanding over time. This was notably in his attitude to the use of force, taking up arms when it was necessary and when the opportunity presented itself, working to build peace. A leader must have the capacity for introspection and consequently be able to re-evaluate modes of operation.

Leadership does not necessarily mean acting speedily. One may have to postpone the moment of action until the time is ripe in the sense that those who form one’s support or organisational base also see that it is necessary or that one has demonstrated that alternative ways of dealing with a problem have failed.  This can be illustrated with regard to armed struggle. Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Raymond Mhlaba, Flag Boshielo amongst others recognised in the early 1950s that the apartheid regime would not relinquish power voluntarily, that the people would have to “fight back”, that they would in the end have to take up arms.

But they did not act on this until 1961.  Logically the reasons for taking up arms were there in 1951 but abstract logic alone does not determine how one relates to a situation

One may “see” that factors make some or other action the only viable way to resolve a problematic situation but one needs, as a leader, to act with one’s followers or with comrades/colleagues in an organisation, and take them with one. 

There are many who “always knew” that there had to be armed struggle or “always knew” that the struggle would result in negotiations and had “told people this for years” before either of these courses of actions was carried out.  But it is no virtue to know something at a purely abstract level in politics.  An idea can only be viable if one has a body of people willing to implement it.

Against this, one has to confront the part of Mandela’s life where he engaged “the enemy” and consciously chose not to consult because he saw the possibility through such actions of paving the way for a negotiated settlement.  He was proved right in the sense that his actions were crucial in unlocking the deadlocked situation.

But does that justify his acting, consciously, without seeking approval of his organisation, even saying that he knew that had he asked he would have been stopped?  Personally, it took me long to accept that Mandela was justified, for I do believe in acting collectively and that was what Mandela commended to others. But one has to ask whether collectivity has to be absolutised, especially where it may, in a specific situation, be a barrier to resolving a problem.  Can this episode not perhaps be best understood as Mandela risking his own reputation in order to put the needs of the country, for peace, before that of his collective responsibility to the ANC?

Leadership and service. The notion of public service being associated with leadership is widely discredited, not only in South Africa but also in other countries.  But it is necessary that every effort be made to revive it. A culture of service is not simply an ethical question that people should serve according to the duties of the office they hold and not for personal benefit or to provide patronage. It is required in order to have effective government.  Government cannot be effective where goals other than those prescribed for the office are served. Irregular tenders enrich some but also deny duties owed to the poorest of the poor, thus obviously rupturing a relationship of trust between leaders and “followers”.

Leadership and dialogue. Democratic leadership entails dialogue. This is not simply taking questions from an audience or informing them of this or that. It refers to politics as a continuous engagement between leaders and their constituency.  

It also affects bureaucratic action, insofar as performing the tasks needs to entail a dialogic element. Providing a particular service needs to have input from those who are the recipients of state action. They need to be consulted on where water taps will be located because they may have reason to suggest alternatives. They need to hear how problems are resolved because they may have reason to suggest alternative priorities

Democratic leadership is relational. Democratic leadership has a relational basis, that is, it depends on mutuality, on an interaction between leaders and followers, embedding the aspirations of followers in the vision and actions of leaders.  It is precisely that notion of relationality that has been ruptured and needs to be recaptured in any emancipatory path that may be developed in order to rekindle the democratic prospects that have been displaced.