African Leadership, Not Quite The Same

It is ever tempting, I believe, to regard Africa as the true home of great leadership. The
momentous achievements of African born leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Julius
Nyerere, Steve Biko and Kwame Nkrumah will interminably convey the potential for
remarkable accomplishments that lies un-nurtured, in the hearts of African Youths. The
conceptualisation of social philosophies such as those of Ubuntu- the belief in a sense
of community and sharing that tethers all of humanity, is testament to the existence of
an innate understanding that a leader is someone who exists as one with his people,
and not above them. It is because of this undeniably strong foundation that we ought to
evaluate, why leadership in so many African countries has denigrated to something
analogous with greed and corruption. This essay will support the position that leading in
Africa differs fundamentally from leading elsewhere by drawing distinctions between the
general philosophies, priorities and duties of the respective leaders.
Perhaps the loudest dissimilarity between leading in Africa and leading in the rest of the
world is the context in which leadership is applied. This is noteworthy for several
reasons. Foremostly, the context in which leadership is exercised ultimately defines the
challenges that leaders are required to contend with when assuming power.
Comparatively speaking, leading in Africa is arguably more arduous than leading
elsewhere, especially when considering circumstances such as the political instability
and poor economic activity that plague most of the continent. It is worth mentioning
however, that whilst these troubles arent uniformly indigenous to all African states, they
nonetheless affect the leadership paradigm through their ability to transcend
borderlines. These circumstances, amongst other things, actively influence the decision
making framework of African leaders in a way that considerably varies it from those of
many leaders the world over. When considering things like the poor economies of scale
that run rampant throughout the continent, leaders come under immense soft pressure
to accept conditional aid packages that on many occasions preclude them from passing
absolutely autonomous economic policies. This necessary, but ultimately unfortunate
limitation creates deep running problems that affect ones capacity to lead. One such
problem is that it engenders a feeling of alienation within those charged to lead as they
are overcome by an air of helplessness. A feeling of prohibition that not only affects how
they identify with themselves as a leader, but also alters their perspective on leadership
in Africa as a whole. When contrasted with leadership in nations that arent as aid
dependant as most African nations are, it becomes fairly apparent that leading in Africa,
due primarily to the external financial assistance it requires, isnt as independent a task
as leading in the rest of the world.
The second key difference, albeit equally as pertinent as the first, is the political
environment through which leaders ascend to power. When examining African
leadership patterns one will undoubtedly observe that in a majority of African states a
single political party, and in some instances a single leader, maintains power for
incredibly long periods of time. Even though this isnt always a priori problematic, it
edifies valuable lessons about leading in Africa. It teaches us that unlike in the west
where leadership is empirically strongly contested, leadership in Africa is ostensibly far

less so. The inferences that can be drawn from this are plenty. Perhaps the disparity in
literacy levels between many African countries and most of the world is at play. Maybe
voters in Africa are far less punitive than their counterparts around the world.
Alternatively, the answer could be a different phenomenon altogether, the one thing that
remains arrantly clear however, is that in Africa, the political ecosystem is seemingly
more agreeable to longer terms of leadership. It can be argued that a sizeable portion of
the challenges that gnaw away at Africas development come as a consequence
leadership longevity. That corruption creeps into the hearts of leaders as a result of the
complacency that naturally follows excessive security. That instability develops and
intensifies owing to a lack of change. The germane issue for this essay though, is that
leading in Africa, as opposed to leading in the rest of the world, provides a perplexing
reserve for longer terms of ceaseless power.
As an underdeveloped continent that plays host to some of the youngest democracies
in the world, Africa often finds herself more susceptible to sporadic onslaughts of socioeconomically crippling crises than her counterparts. The general lack of clean water and
sanitation, the limited access to basic healthcare and education, as well as the
relentless persistence of famine, drought and war, dramatically affect the duties of
African leaders in ways that vary from the rest of the world. Consequently, leadership in
many African countries is almost exclusively premised on attempting to rescue people
from the harsh daily realities of their lives. Although similar problems may exist in
intermittent patterns around the world, they have a unique bearing in conversations
about leading in Africa due to the magnitude of their existence on the continent. Having
to navigate such testing conditions weighs heavily enough on leaders who have the
resources and infrastructure to counteract the effects of these conditions, in Africa
however, where infrastructure is dreadfully insufficient and the necessary resources are
scarce, the results are catastrophic. Whereas the rest of the world has discussions
about making healthcare affordable, dialogue in most African leadership circles is about
making healthcare available. Where the world shows concern about the quality of
education, leaders in Africa agonize about access to education. This comparison clearly
illustrates that leading in Africa not only differs from leading in the rest of the world, but
that it is also significantly more challenging because leaders have to do more, with less.
When considering the role that open discourse plays in strengthening the democratic
process, another patent dissimilarity arises. Discourse is an indispensible tool in the
leadership process because it is the foundation on which the communication of needs,
concerns and priorities is built. This is as true for discourse between leaders and
citizens as it is for discourse amongst and between leaders. In many African countries
leadership debates, as well as discussion forums where leaders can meaningfully
engage their people are in very short supply. This has essentially transformed leading in
Africa into a top to bottom hierarchical affair. The people very seldom fully comprehend
what the goals and philosophies of the leaders are and in turn, leaders very seldom
have an appreciation of what the desires of the people are. In most countries around the
world, leadership debates and discussion forums are common occurrences and as
such, there exists stronger relationships between the people and those that lead them.

In conclusion, this essay has shown through consistent analysis that leading in Africa,
owing to the context and environment in which leadership is applied, differs necessarily
from leading in the rest of the world. From the circumstances surrounding African
leadership and the challenges that African leaders consistently have to grapple with, to
the manner in which the people participate in the leadership process, Leading in Africa
is dissimilar to leading in the rest of the world.