Mandela and Mbeki set the agenda, they did not become the agenda, writes Dumisani Hlophe.
Leadership sets the agenda. It is not supposed to be an agenda in itself. When society gets preoccupied with discussing the leadership itself, rather than the agenda set by the leadership, then society suffers the poverty of leadership.
When Nelson Mandela became state president, he set the agenda on national reconciliation and nation building.
Society debated his take on the Springbok rugby emblem, and his caution on how society dealt with apartheid statues – Mosiuoa Lekota as Free State premier can attest to this.
Society had to engage on the meaning of reconciliation and nation building. The leader, Nelson Mandela, had set the agenda.
Society did not discuss Nelson Mandela.
Rather, it discussed what Nelson Mandela’s vision was for society at the time. Now, whether some people felt like Mandela, they went to the extreme to appease white people.
Or that “he sold out” black people at the negotiating table.
Fact is, it is what he articulated during his leadership period that got people talking.
No matter how much society knows about Mandela’s inclination to beautiful sexy women, it is his vision for the country that society is preoccupied with. Now, that’s a leadership agenda.
Not the leadership becoming an agenda in itself.
Enter Thabo Mbeki. His seminal speech “I am an African” set society agenda on the meaning of Africans and the role of South Africa in Africa. Soon thereafter, he articulated himself on the “African Renaissance”.
Society debated the meaning of an African Renaissance, and the role that South Africa should play in it. Even FW de Klerk found himself saying that he was an African.
Why? Because being an African was on the national agenda.
Placed by a leader – Thabo Mbeki. Whether individuals in society agreed with Mbeki on his conception of Africanness was immaterial.
Fact is, society deliberated on an issue that a leader had placed on the table.
He then set another agenda on the HIV issue. He earned the tag of being an Aids denialist. Others hailed him for linking HIV/Aids with poverty. Ultimately, he set the agenda on HIV/Aids at an international stage.
He was leading. He led in the aspects of vision, knowledge and African identity, and its role on the international stage.
Society engaged his ideas, rather than himself. Mbeki went on to raise a few controversial issues on the “ANC TODAY” blog every Friday, and it gave society many issues to discuss.
Whether individuals agreed with him or not is not the issue.
Fact is, he set the agenda and people engaged on such issues.
Enter Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma.
Perhaps Zuma should be accredited with the notion of the “second transition”, which is now in government plans as the quest for “radical socio-economic transformation”.
Perhaps he should be credited with the National Development Plan. However, those in the know will argue that the quest for a long-term plan precedes Zuma’s presidency.
Unfortunately, these are not the issues that define Zuma’s leadership. These are not the issues that have the nation talking to itself. There are two particular reasons Zuma may not have set the agenda.
One is that while he took over in 2009 as state president, he only introduced the notion of the “second transition” in 2012 at the ANC’s policy conference.
His detractors within the party read “second transition” to mean he was lobbying for a “second term”.
Therefore, the idea was not given the necessary prominence due to internal leadership contestations.
Thus, while it found its way into the election manifesto and government documents, now as radical transformation, it has not assumed the centre stage of national discourse. At some level, Zuma has robbed himself of leadership agenda setting.
Rather than his vision for society, it is personal issues that have gotten society talking.
These include issues on Nkandla, the Guptas landing at the Waterkloof base, and the spy tapes.
These are not leadership issues simply because they have nothing to do with Zuma’s leadership vision for society. These are issues that are discussed by society.
However, they are not discussed on their visionary or intellectual worthiness.
They are simply discussed as perceived behavioural issues on the part of the president.
They are not the leadership ideas on the society’s agenda.
But, they are simply Zuma being on the agenda of society.
This robs society of a progressive discourse.
Rather than discussing the great potential that is pregnant of this country, it is rather the president who is being discussed.
In newspaper columns, talk shows, and Parliament, it is the president’s involvement or not on matters such as Nkandla that dominate national discourse.
The issue has even degenerated to ugly scenes in Parliament.
At worst, it is beginning to temper with the integrity of Parliament, and the constitutional standing of the Office of the Public Protector.
It is even eroding the collective leadership fibre of the ANC itself.
Increasingly, it is not the collective vision that the leadership articulates that informs national discourse.
Rather, it is what the collective leadership around him does in the president’s defence – from the Security Cluster to the ad hoc Committee on Nkandla.
While the ANC collective leadership may provide a vision and strategic direction for society, unfortunately its predominant brand is that it is simply “closing ranks” around the president on matters that are mainly personal.
Recently it was reported that the NEC is considering means to “protect the president”.
It would have been wiser if the NEC was more concerned with the protection and the preservation of the ANC as a whole.
Zuma does have leadership qualities. It is for this reason that he is the president of the ANC. This is an organisation with a rich history.
He has not been parachuted into the leadership position.
He has grown through the ranks and earned himself the ANC’s presidency.
He follows in the footsteps of great leaders such as OR Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Mandela, and Mbeki, to mention a few.
Arts and Culture Minister Nathi Mthethwa once cautioned against comparing Zuma to his predecessors. He argued that the historical context and situation is different.
Ironically, the general expectation is that current leaders will do better than their predecessors.
Current leaders are expected to have learnt from those that came ahead of them.
Interestingly, Zuma has worked with other prominent leaders such as Tambo, Mandela, and Mbeki. Therefore, it is correct to compare him to his predecessors.
It is correct to expect him to elevate the ANC’s leadership bar. Like his predecessors, he can set the national agenda. He can lead the discourse on matters of second transition and its potential for radical socio-economic transformation.
These are issues that should be on the agenda, and not the president himself.
* Dumisani Hlophe is a political analyst. Follow him on Twitter: @KunjaloD
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.
Sunday Independent