Research in Focus with Jo-Ansie van Wyk (August - September 2007)
< Return to this month's Research in Focus
|
In August 2007, we examined Political Leaders in Africa: Presidents, Patrons or Profiteers? by Jo-Ansie van Wyk from the University of South Africa . This paper reviews and analyses the multiple layers of formal and informal political leadership in Africa. Contemporary African leaders operate in an environment constrained by colonial legacies and instability. |
 Jo-Ansie van Wyk |
GSDRC:
Why are you concerned about African leadership and what motivated you to investigate it in the way that you have done?
Jo-Ansie:
As you know, the African continent is in a dire condition. It is beset with civil wars and most African countries are unlikely to achieve any of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. For me, the quality of a country’s leadership determines its stability and level of development.
My research is based on a paper I presented at the 7th Global Leadership Forum hosted by the University of Bacesehir, Istanbul, and UNESCO in 2005. At the time, a new generation of leadership seemed to be developing and this fascinated me. Very little has been written on 21st century leadership in Africa and I thought I may be able to fill the gap. Also, for the first time in Africa’s history, the continent’s leaders have committed themselves to good governance, accountability etc. as enshrined in the African Union, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). And, of course, there is this culture in Africa not to criticise leaders, or bring them to book for crimes.
GSDRC:
You use the term ‘stayism’ in your paper – what does this mean and what impact does it have on African politics?
Jo-Ansie:
‘Stayism’ refers to the phenomenon that African presidents and certain political parties maintain power for decades on end. Take for example President Compaore of Burkina Faso. He has been for power for 18 years, President Museveni of Uganda for 22 years, Paul Biya of Cameroon for 24 years, President Mugabe (Zimbabwe) and Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) for 26+years, President Dos Santos of Angola is in power for 28 years, Muamar Al-Qadafi of Libya for 38 years, and Omar Bongo of Gabon for 40 years.
There are also cases of ‘stayism’ among political parties. Examples include Botswana Democratic Party , who have been in power since 1967; the ANC in South Africa who have held power since 1994; the MPLA in Angola since 1979; SWAPO in Namibia since 1990; and ZANU in Zimbabwe since 1980. Others who have also stayed in power for considerable lengths of time include the UNIP who ruled from 1960s to 1991 and the Malawi Congress party in Malawi who were in power from 1964 to 1993.
For me, there is a strong correlation between ‘stayism’ and the low levels of development in states. This is due to the fact that leaders have centralised their power, entrenched their interests and have established a strong network of patronage.
Notwithstanding the impact of global political and economic forces, most of the governments in the region have not, apart from liberation, brought significant human development to their countries. The dominance and ‘stayism’ of any political party in a particular state signals either a consolidated democracy, a contented electorate, good political leadership, high levels of political loyalty to the governing party, economic growth and an equal distribution of wealth, or stagnation, procedural democracy (for example manipulated elections and rule by constitutional amendments), political alienation and exclusion from the political arena, regime formation, state capture or the entrenchment of, particularly, the ruling elite’s interests.
'Stayism’, as we see currently in most of Africa, is not necessarily undesirable, or politically dangerous. However, when it leads to, for example, state capture, political exclusion and economic decline, where the ruling elite only benefits, it becomes both undesirable and politically dangerous. In Africa, ‘stayism’ has consolidated the ruling elite’s interests, made the state apparatus the only source of power and wealth and enlarged the gap between the haves and have-nots.
GSDRC:
You mention the role of women as political leaders and note the increase in women decision-makers at the highest level of African politics. Do you think this is tokenistic or is there a real move towards greater equality in the political arena and how can more women be encouraged to participate?
Jo-Ansie:
This is difficult to answer. I do not think there is a real move towards gender equality on the continent. For me, it is more indicative of the amazing freedom struggle women on the continent are still engaged in. I want to go back to the Millennium Development Goals. The Goals are mainly concerned with the position of women and girls. My impression is that African governments open up the political arena for women due to political reasons. Donors, for example, demand greater gender equality; so governments allow more women into the arena. If we take into account that more than 50% of the African population is women, numerically, at least, there should have been more women in power. Also, due to the fact that states are in such collapse women’s participation in formal political processes remain limited.
Women’s participation in the political arena can only occur once the continent’s wars and conflicts are resolved. Women did not start or maintain Africa’s wars and conflicts, they are victims of genocidal rape, forced prostitution and discrimination. Under these conditions, no woman will dare to participate more freely.
GSDRC:
The paper suggests that ‘South Africa reconstructed its foreign policy by focusing on its position of leadership in Africa’. How has South Africa been instrumental and do you believe it can maintain this difficult role?
Jo-Ansie:
South Africa is viewed with suspicion by some African countries. These countries see South Africa as too activistic, too much tuned to enhance our own political and economic interests, and, of course, the perception is there that we encroach in areas where other African powers have their sphere of interest. For example, in East and Central Africa, South Africa is leading the peacemaking, peacekeeping and post conflict reconstruction. This encroaches on the spheres of influence of, for example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kenya.
However, I believe that our government has made a difference. Whereas President Mandela carried a lot of moral authority, President Mbeki is often referred to as ‘Mr Delivery’ as he is more of a doer. President Mbeki is one of the ‘founding fathers’ of the African Union, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development and the APRM. South Africa has taken it upon herself to speak on behalf of the global South (the developing world) and has attempted to sell these initiatives at various meetings of the European Union, and the G 8. On the one hand South Africa has crafted this role for itself, whereas on the other hand some African states expect South Africa to play this role.
Whether South Africa will be able to maintain this role, or not, is difficult to predict at this stage. As you know, South Africa will undergo leadership changes within the next two years. This process has already commenced with the presidential race within the ruling African National Congress (ANC). Our Constitution limits presidential terms to two terms and President Mbeki’s second term ends in 2009. Mbeki’s position in the ANC as ANC president is precarious. He is opposed by factions in his own party and the party electorate may elect a president in December that may be different than Mbeki, but with whom Mbeki must serve until 2009. Even after 2009, the new president may prefer to be more populist within South African than on the continent.
GSDRC:
Your research provides some policy recommendations such as strengthening of the ARPM and the establishment of an African Leadership Academy. How have donors and governments responded these suggestions and are there any plans to implement the recommendations?
Jo-Ansie:
The idea of an African Leadership Academy (ALA) should be responded to. But so far most decision makers I spoke to react to my recommendation as ‘interesting’. Of course, political parties do not like the idea of grooming successors as these successors may attempt to threaten the incumbent to surrender power too soon to his liking. Ideally, the African Union should establish such an Academy. I am not aware of any plan to implement any of my recommendations. This may be due to a general lack of interest in addressing any challenging question vis-à-vis the continent’s leadership, the lack of funds and capacity to implement this, or the fact that the African Union is still a very young institution.
