Where are our democratic leaders?

Fifteen years into our young democracy and democratic leadership is severely lacking and sorely needed. Across all sectors in society, from the halls of Parliament, the lawns of our academic institutions, the fertile fields of our farmlands and in company boardrooms, it seems as though democratic leaders are either lacking altogether or incredibly thinly spread.

This is indeed a tempting conclusion that is difficult to resist in a country where “leadership across all sectors lacks clarity of purpose and is increasingly self-interested, unethical and unaccountable”. The implications become even more disturbing when coupled with “a weak state with declining capacity to address our critical challenges” and a largely disengaged citizenry demonstrating “a growing dependence on the state to provide everything”¹.

With a diagnosis this severe, indubitably having far-reaching consequences, the importance of rethinking our approach to politics and the approach of politicians and administrators to those they represent becomes crucial in reshaping state-society relations. More important, however, is advocating for and adopting an alternative model of leadership that departs radically from the traditional leader-follower paradigm and the “big-man” syndrome to pro-actively combat not only dependency on state and government institutions but also effectively combat patronage networks and transform parasitic relations with the state and its resources. The question is: where are our democratic leaders?

I am equally tempted to conclude that the symptoms of undemocratic leadership are increasingly evident in the diagnosis of South African society 15 years into liberation. Particularly as the undesirable outcomes of undemocratic leadership are rearing their ugly heads, including “dependent and apathetic followers, low-quality policies coupled with inefficient implementation and constituent support, the mystification of the decision-making process, and in some cases, social strife and aggression. In addition, undemocratic leadership undermines the pursuit of ethical ideals, such as self-determination, personal development and democratic decision-making” (emphasis added). Does it at all sound familiar?

Before I am made out as a counter-revolutionary, right-wing, reactionary neo-liberal apartheid sympathiser, let me hasten to add that there is a distinction to be drawn between democratically elected leaders and democratic leadership. I do not doubt for one moment that South Africa is a democratic state with a duly, freely and fairly elected government, but democratic processes do not necessarily produce democratic leadership. The essential truth is that “democratic authorities do not necessarily serve as democratic leaders”^2, just have a look to the north and beyond our borders. There is a fundamental difference between the mode through which leaders obtain authority and the manner in which they exercise it.

Democratic leadership, then, “is behaviour that influences people in a manner consistent with and/or conducive to basic democratic principles and processes, such as self-determination, inclusiveness, equal participation and deliberation”. I do not think it is that far-fetched for us, as citizens, to demand democratic leadership in a democratic republic, especially because these core values are enshrined and protected in the founding values of the New South Africa and the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Moreover, democratic leadership does not exclusively apply to elected government representatives, it is a conscious pursuit of the ideals and exhibiting the behaviour outlined above by individuals regardless of their levels or lack of authority, primarily because “leadership is behaviour, not position” and specifically behaviour that amounts to sustaining the democratic process.

More importantly in the South African context is leadership as behaviour that consciously seeks to fulfil three basic functions of democratic leadership. If we are serious about fostering a democratic political culture, instilling the values of our Constitution in the hearts and minds of the people and reshaping an active and re-engaged citizenry, it is pivotal that attention be paid to these three functions: (1) distributing responsibility, (2) empowerment and (3) aiding deliberation.

Democratic leaders seek to evoke maximum involvement and participation, spreading responsibility instead of concentrating it and widely diffusing personal responsibility.² This function of democratic political leadership in creating an alternative South African future that is premised on a state that provides an enabling environment is pivotal in encouraging civic and individual re-engagement in addressing the socio-economic reality. The need for reopening and reconstructing avenues for civic engagement and individual responsibility, along with combating attitudes of entitlement and dependence on the state, is essential in moving beyond 10 years of highly centralised, tightly controlled and concentrated political leadership emanating from the post-Mandela presidency³.

More significantly — and invaluable in dealing with the apartheid legacy of marginalisation and oppression — is democratic leadership pursuing empowerment. Empowerment that expressly, through encouraging individual responsibility, develops “members’ decision-making capabilities”, generating an active citizenry that is “politically competent” and fully equipped to meaningfully engage in the political process.² The notion of political empowerment calls on the democratic leader to avoid “big man” behaviour, “the leadership has spoken” and the conventional leader-follower interaction. It departs from a state of dependence induced by “the transference of parental dependency, of vicarious satisfaction through unconscious identification, of reduction of guilt by the usurpation of the individual conscience by the projected image of the leader and of the wish for transformation”² in other words, it aims to facilitate rather than dictate; to enable rather than control or manipulate. Thus, essential to avoid further political enslavement of the citizenry, the democratic leader must create an environment conducive to the emancipation of consciousness. In order for state-society relations in South Africa to move beyond that of dependence, democratic leadership is required to produce, advocate and sustain a state that is not an end in achieving particular socio-economic and political goals, but rather the means or framework through which an active citizenry can formulate and pursue their individual and collective goals.

Finally, instead of actively suppressing and downplaying dissent and disagreement, democratic leaders aid deliberation by devoting the “bulk of their time and energy to ensuring productive and democratic decision-making”². This is crucial in ensuring constructive participation, specifically through the definition, analysis and solving of group problems through deliberation, essential exactly because deliberation lies at the heart of democracy. It is therefore not the axing of dissident ministers, administrators and part officials or suppression of alternative preferences but rather the active promotion of vibrant debate and discussion as a cornerstone of any democracy.

The link between this style of leadership and developing democracy is particularly noteworthy within the South African context currently grappling with issues of democratic consolidation. It is vividly captured in the following example:

The distribution of responsibility relates to notions of a citizen’s rights and duties; if a community takes responsibility for its own welfare, its members affirm their right to self-determination and simultaneously accept their duties as citizens to devote a portion of their energies to the governance of their community. Empowerment makes citizens or group members stronger — more capable of participating as equals in politics and the other spheres of their lives and a strong demos requires collective deliberation, and democratic leadership plays a crucial role in ensuring productive discussion and open debate.²

Where is our democratic leadership? More critically, where are we in demanding and accepting the distribution of responsibility? Where are we when it comes to the empowerment of ourselves and fellow South Africans? And what are we doing to press for open, frank and constructive deliberation? Reshaping state-society relations and transforming a people cannot and will not be exclusively achieved by the state and the government of the day, it requires broad-based, collective action and individual effort to build a truly democratic country that generates and embraces truly democratic leadership.

¹ The Dinokeng Scenarios Report
² Gastil, J 1994. “A definition and illustration of democratic leadership” in Human Relations 47(8): 953 – 976.
³ Mathekga, R 2008. “The ANC ‘Leadership Crisis’ and the Age of Populism in Post-apartheid South Africa” in Pretorius, J (Ed) 2008. African Politics: Beyond the Third Wave of Democratisation. Cape Town: Juta