LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA

LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA IN COMPARISON TO LEADERSHIP IN THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Leadership in Africa as compared to leadership in other parts of the world is a thorny and contested matter. Many at times, arguments on what ails Africa revolve around the leadership of the continent which more often than not is mired in controversy. When talking about African leadership, a lot of focus is given to the political leadership of the continent and other spheres like leadership in business, media and the civil society are ignored. This is a worrying trend because these spheres too have played an integral role in Africa. Africa as a continent has had very many false starts, the attainment of independence signaled a new hope, but the activities that followed in the immediate post-independence era took Africa miles back. Such included the numerous coups and counter coups, ideological differences pitting the capitalists and the communists, corruption and kleptocracy, personal rule, nepotism and a myriad of other problems. The African dream has remained just that, a dream or worse still a mirage.
So really what ails Africa? Why has African leadership not been able to be as successful and as transformative as in other parts of the globe? Lee Kuan Yew was able to transform Singapore within one generation to a first world country, why aren't such cases replicated across Africa despite the goodwill and commitment of African leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and Thomas Sankara? The problem with Africa's leadership is both structural and systemic; economies of most African countries today are at a worse place than they were at independence with the weak currencies that continue to slide daily against international currencies being the greatest manifestation. Development scholars in the third world countries of Africa have even talked of development in the continent having hit an impasse, with all development talk in the continent being rhetoric.
In trying to understand leadership in Africa vis-vis leadership in the rest of the world, it is imperative to note that leadership in Africa is different from leadership in the rest of the world. Africa to start with has a history that puts it at a position of great disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the world. Walter Rodney, in his magnum opus "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" talked of the conscious exploitation of the Africa continent by European imperialists after the scramble and partition of Africa that was a precursor to the colonialist regimes. This in essence placed Africa into a state of underdevelopment. Underdevelopment led to modern day dependency that has seen countries in the continent and their leaders depending on former colonial powers for survival. This has put African leaders in awkward positions because as leaders of predominantly producer economies, they have to depend on these overseas economies for markets for raw materials produced on African soil. They also have to depend on these countries for foreign aid in terms of grants and loans and technology transfers. This has adversely affected the continent as leaders have had to become subservient to the Western economic powers in order to keep their economies afloat. This has in turn led to adoption of Eurocentric development and leadership models that are not well suited for Africa and have further aggravated Africa's predicament. As a result of this, homegrown and indigenous models and frameworks that could have been workable in the local African context have been ignored. The ideological wars in many African states during the post-independence cold war era pitting leaders who subscribed to the communist school of thought versus the capitalists are evidence to this fact. No local, homegrown ideology gained so much traction as these two ideologies whose origins were far from the continent.
Secondly, Africa's diversity in terms of tribe and religious identity has made leading in Africa different from leading in the rest of the world. In as much as fragmentations exist in the rest of the world in terms of race, tribe and religious identity, the fragmentations in Africa along these lines of diversity come along with some of the saddest tales in the chapters of humanity; Tales of death, destruction, nepotism, favoritism just to mention but a few. The African leader therefore has to grapple with some of these issues on a day to day basis in comparison to leaders from the rest of the world. Weak leaders have ridden on these differences for their own personal gain to the detriment of the continent. In systems with no proper structures that promote meritocracy in selection of leaders; the tribe is the greatest determinant of who sits on the seat of power. This has led to instrumentalism where the tribe is used as an instrument to achieve sectarian and parochial interests. Michela Wrong in her book "It's our turn to eat" aptly captures this phenomenon where prebendalism takes centre stage as leaders feel entitled to a portion of state coffers in an African state after a regime friendly to their tribe takes over the reins of power. Conflicts over resources, some even basic like water and pasture in pastoralist communities have taken a tribal and religious twist. Secessionist wars have also been fought on many parts of the continent thanks to these differences making leadership in the continent a precarious balancing act. These differences have impacted negatively on development in the continent and on the overall quality of leadership in the continent in comparison to other parts of the world.
In addition to these issues, one of the biggest issues leaders on the African continent have to grapple with is the runaway corruption and misappropriation of resources. This can be blamed on many issues but comparatively speaking in juxtaposition to the rest of the world, this can be blamed to weak institutions and systems. This can in turn be blamed on the relatively "young "African continent in terms of development of systems. America for instance has had a constitution and systems that have been in place for more than two hundred years. In Britain, the basis upon which laws are founded, the Magna Carta just turned 800 years old. That means that systems are well developed to curb and punish cases of corruption. The African Union estimates that graft costs the continent a whooping sum of more than $148 billion every year on average, a figure that by far exceeds the paltry $30 billion the continent receives in development aid. This shows that Africa does not even need foreign aid in the first place if loopholes are sealed. African countries have struggled to fight this menace by setting up independent bodies to deal with this menace like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in Nigeria, and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission in Kenya, but the war against graft is far from over. Leaders from other parts of the world therefore have a greater institutional support to deal with corruption as compared to their African counterparts.
In conclusion therefore, the leadership of Africa is at a critical stage; Africa is bubbling with potential and is the new frontier thanks to its industrious people, mineral wealth, proper democratic systems, good climate and a leadership that is willing to take it to the next stage. African leadership can be better than leadership in other parts of the world if efforts to entrench democracy and accountability are accentuated and emphasis put on citizen participation.