Reflections on the MDC splits: The dilemma of a democratizing society

MDC’s continuing and increasingly notorious splits as opposed to ZANU PF ‘unity’ reflects a great deal about structural challenges MDC faces and broader national issues faced by the nation as a whole. As the party with arguably the most realistic chance of defeating ZANU PF in a general election, it is important to reflect on the dynamics of MDC politics.
Since 1999, MDC has split three times. We now have MDC-T, MDC-M and now MDC-99 and each one of them believes it best represents the aspirations of the people. However, there is no doubt that MDC-T has the greatest support amongst the three. It is difficult to discard the individual roles played by the respective faction leaders in the formation of the ‘original MDC’ with Tsvangirai as the well-known labor union leader, Ncube as a prominent civil society leader and academic and now Sikhala as a former students’ leader.
From the very beginnings of the party, it has to be recalled that MDC was a started as a party with individuals united not necessarily by philosophy or ideology but by a common enemy, that is Robert Mugabe and his party. There was no time from 1999 to the watershed 2000 elections to unpack and synchronize the different worldviews of the key players. Zimbabweans in the urban areas particularly, were fed up and understandably demanded change. That definition of the change was not adequately interrogated. The general point of convergence was the removal of Mugabe and his party and anyone who was bold enough to castigate Mugabe had a decent chance of landing a leadership position in the party.Sadly,being brave is not synonymous to being competent or even incorruptible (Zveidi Zimbabwe haivakwi nechivindi basi). We are now in the uncomfortable position of having to do away with some of the opposition’s bravest men and women as they have shown inexcusable character flows over the few years of MDC existence.
While it is too early, or maybe too harsh to dismiss the MDC, it is important to understand where this all came from. Indeed the foundations of a party matter. Inasmuch as I do not believe in determinism, the complex and confusing constitution of the foundational leadership of the MDC makes decisions based on votes alone in the party unacceptable to small but highly influential sections of the party. The farmers who joined MDC may not have had the philosophy that the ordinary woman from Chipinge who also wanted changed might have had. Labor and business, which converged under MDC, obviously had different ideas. Labor rose to greater prominence in the 90s by opposing ESAP yet business wanted a more unfettered market economy. These two positions are contradictory. On the other hand, students have not had a coherent philosophy in that regard but their energy and culture of frequent leadership elections and generally limited loyalty to politicians also needed expression within the MDC.To make matters worse, the strong foundational alliance of labor and students was veritable in energy, popularity and appeal but short on resources hence overtime, it had to court funding sources like international donors, business and the party has had to incorporate in its ranks the likes of Ian Makone.
Consequently, Tsvangirai has had to do a delicate balance of a plethora of fastidious partners from international donors, local business, labor, civil society and others. Democracy does not always bring forth the conclusion that will please all these ‘coalition partners’ within the party. President Tsvangirai’s challenge is to meet the expectations of these stakeholders whose style, philosophy clearly differs from each others. This role does not always suit the strong willed and aggressive nature of Tsvangirai, a man of undisputed dedication to the democratic struggle. Tsvangirai’s personality is vital particularly in the dangerous and conflict- laden decade we are just completing but it has its own pitfalls as exemplified by the way he handled the 2005 split.
To his credit, he asked a pertinent question recently; How do you fight a dictator using democratic means? Yet another important question is how do you maintain discipline and loyalty in the opposition movement using democratic means? ZANU PF is ruthless with internal and external opposition hence its implementation of party decisions is swifter and more ‘effective’. Within the MDC, the democratic process has to be followed, and this is intrinsically complex, slow, and decisions, which are unpopular with the most powerful officials, may be arrived at. Tsvangirai thought the party was ‘wrong’ in backing senate participation in 2005 and he did not mind splitting the party as long as he did what was ‘right’.
Noteworthy is the fact, protracted fights against ZANU PF have had the effect of certain ZANU PF tendencies emerging in MDC ranks. We become what we are fighting against if we are not careful. The ZANU PF culture has become our culture. The earlier we believe it the more we desire a constitution and a system of governance that puts term limits to public office and that maintains strict adherence to the rule of law.
The sad thing about our society is not just ZANU PF, but our societies in general do not nurture a democratic culture from the local level to the national level. Consider our culture, it is hierarchical and it has a strong sense of right and wrong. Infact, we believe in an absolute moral or social truths and this makes coalition politics and democratic processes a little harder because people dig in deeper into their positions even when compromise is the reasonable way forward.
Consider our educational system and the near absolute authority of headmasters, principals, lecturers and vice-chancellors over students. One grows up in an environment where people in authority proudly and emphatically flex muscles with little to no opposition and or substantive debate. The concept of shared governance even in our universities is fuzzy when it comes to lecturers’ and students input in the general financial and adminstrave planning of the respective colleges. School is a key arena of democratic practice and nurturing yet that is not the case today.

Even the usually influential religious institutions are not democratic but theocratic hence there is an objective reality, which is not subject to majority and or minority opinion. Our culture and respective religions teach people to ‘not conform to the patterns of this world’. I am not necessarily opposed to this, l guess my attempt here is to reveal the contextual obstacles to the creation of a democratic culture in a societal structure such as ours. The road to the institutionalization of a democratic culture is thus littered with challenges. What we need is fundamental social change and a paradigm shift in our view of power and authority.

We ought to be a Socratic people that relentlessly questions self and beliefs. Why do we do what we do? We are good at handing emphasizing adherence to our cultural practices but we don’t effectively explain the principles behind the practices we do hence certain practices we do now appear misplaced or misapplied. On the political front, MDC needs to take stock not just of its tools to fight dictatorship but also of its progress as a movement in adhering to the tenets of democracy. There is no democracy without democrats. After a closer look at the MDC, I am left with the question John the Baptist posed to Christ ‘Are you the one or there is another we have to wait for?’It remains to be seen whether MDC can take us beyond the ‘Age of Anguish’ under ZANU PF to a definite place of transformation for our great nation. I remain optimistic.

Obama and the failed Olympics bid:lessons on leadership

Clearly that was embarrassing. President Obama may have tried to put up a brave face (and he needed to) but the fact remains that that was one of the most stunning loses he has had to deal with since his majestic inauguration in January 2009.However,students of leadership like myself ought to learn valuable lessons from such events. The first thing l learnt without doubt is that charisma will take you to the top but knowledge is your only sustenance up there. Few doubt that Obama is probably the most popular President internationally. He is a celebrity. People like him and he is likable. Even the polls show that he is always more popular than his policies. The number of Americans who ‘like him’ to this date are astounding. However, leaders don’t live on charisma alone; rather, they should be masters of their turf. The Olympic loss showed an uncharacteristic miscalculation on the part of team Obama.Pre-election team Obama usually had an eye for opportunity and they normally chose their battles wisely. Surprisingly when you then study closely the internal politics of the Olympics movement, you realize that Obama was chasing waterfalls. The US Olympic team was at loggerheads with the all powerful International Olympic Committee and relations had not improved. Obama may be liked but it is the local Olympic team that calls the shots. Decorum in dealing with the President applies to members of congress of the United States but IOC can embarrass him.Infact an Olympic Joe Wilson could get away with ‘You lie’! IOC announced the decision whilst Obama was in air. He heard it from the news! Remember you are not everybody’s leader.
Leaders should choose their battles wisely. Some battles are not worth fighting. The energy you put in fighting some is not commensurate to the results you get when you win.
Leaders master detail. When you run for any office or engage partners on any project, don’t get carried away by the exterior or optics of a project or office, rather study the internal workings of the organization. It is like falling in love with a company logo to an extent where you assume that the management is as great as their logo. What glitters is not gold. If one notes the lopsided nature of the result, it was probably obvious that US wasn’t going to win had they done their homework
In addition, l noticed that all the other competing countries had the highest possible representation. Spain actually had its king and Brazil had Lula, its President. Obama is a President but a US President is deemed ‘more equal than others’ at least in the eyes of many pundits hence you do not normally have a US President going ‘for such trivia’.However,his five hour visit to Copenhagen though historical for American Presidents, did not augur well with at least one voter. One voter characterized it as too ‘businesslike’. I took a pause when l read that response. It’s amazing how people regard authentic relationships before they consider working with you. Don’t hurry it, people can feel that you are only talking to them because you want something. Make relationships long before you ask for a hand. Probably, the voter may have felt that the US takes them for granted for just making such a lightning visit and expect to host an event they have hosted several times over. People respect their leaders; sometimes they may even consider them ‘great’. What they don’t want is for those leaders to call themselves ‘great’! In other words people know the US is great, maybe the greatest, but history shows that people resent that each time the US implies that or says it itself. It’s a mystery.
In the same vein, seeing Rio win for the first time made me relive the January 2009 moment when Obama himself trounced the much more experienced Mc Cain. I also remember Senegal shocking France at the World Cup and the young Roger Federer humiliating tennis great Pete Sampras at Wimbledon. There is something about the David and Goliath fights that make me nervous each time l see the greats taking on the small. The fact is South America had never hosted the Olympics for no ostensible reason really and now Brazil an undisputed rising global power was bidding to host. The US was supposed to be nervous from the start. The point is not to be scared of every little guy who fights you, but to take them seriously and make you prepare even much harder. I humbly submit that Rio wasn’t taken seriously that’s why team Obama decided on the ‘last minute’ to dispatch the President. Brazil submitted a budget above 13 billion as compared to the US 4, 9 billion and they had worked for a long time for it. The US seemed to rely too much on star power of Oprah,Michelle the ultimate celebrity himself, Obama at the expense of the nitty-gritties that l have discussed earlier. When l heard the announcement, though l felt sorry for Obama and the Chicago crew, l honestly thought that was a fair decision. I read that some IOC members claimed that in allowing Rio, they had voted with their ‘conscience’. Indeed a lot of online polls show a lot of sympathy for the Brazilians to win. They deserved it. Leaders should fight where they ‘deserve’. Imagine this, if you win, does it look fair? Does it look well deserved? In a world where the little guy is being supported more often than not make sure in all you do, you don’t look like a bully or a spoilt brat. People often route for the little guy. They like the story of David slaying Goliath.

Anyone who followed the Olympics debate in the US might have realized that Obama was damned if he had not gone and he was dammed even though he went. Often times leaders are faced with such scenarios. What do you do? Don’t do what’s expedient, do what’s right. Do what doesn’t reflect badly on your character. When Obama advisors went on a media blitz to repudiate all the opposition Obama faced for going to Copenhagen, they emphasized how it was important for the President to ‘put the country first’, to ‘do everything for the sake of America’. It remains to be seen how it plays out but one thing is sure, it is easier to defend with a straight face if you have rolled up your sleeves and gone into the trenches with your colleagues. If he had not gone and the Olympic bid had been lost, l wonder what he would have said without sounding mean. Now the Republican jibes sound hollow and banal because the President ‘at least tried’.
Lastly, all leaders should learn to face their defeats with broad shoulders and a straight face. That’s the essence of emotional intelligence. Bounce back and dance again. People are losing jobs and the Taliban remain recalcitrant in Afghanistan, Obama has no time to wet his pillow.Similarly, leaders will have to learn to juggle several sensitive and high- importance assignments. When you lose one, don’t lose your resolve for the others because it can become a chain of loses. Soon after the Olympic loss, Obama had to address the nation on job loses with a sober face. Can you do that?

ZANU PF must die but MDC must step up! Part 1

A lot of well meaning people literally thought the sky would fall on the MDC for agreeing to be part of the GNU.Well, whilst a lot of their fears have been confirmed, Zimbabweans have had a bit of some breathing space as compared to the cataclysmic period the nation had plunged in post March 2008.We are now 'celebrating' one year of the GNU.
One thing is certain though, ZANU PF is now rapidly disintegrating into smitherings.With the final collapse of the Unity Accord, the aging of its leaders, the return of Moyo and the fights that have ensured as a result, l am convinced the end is near for the criminals. I submit that the extinction of ZANUPF in its entirety is a sine qua non to Zimbabwe’s recovery process. The revolutionary party has become a threat to the people's sovereignty hence there is a need for a protracted Chimurenga against 'vapambepfumi ve ZANU' so we can reclaim our inheritance! We have to use their language to describe them now. Today Jestina Mukoko is acquitted yet she had been tortured. We have a government that tortures, a President who is a multiple farm owner while the poor he purports to fight for still live in the communal lands where stones grow better than crops. We still have ministers who think it’s cool to invade farms and even invade farms owned by recent new farmers. One year on, we still have governors, Permanent Secretaries and even a cabinet minister who haven’t been sworn in. What l have personally learnt one year on is that ZANU PF should not and cannot be reformed. The party must die and its leaders have to be tried for their crimes against humanity. Those who are calling on the nation to ‘turn over to a new page’ maybe sincere but sincerely wrong. Before we turn the page, let’s read what’s on the page-maybe it might help us to understand the next page. The evidence is awash in a multiplicity of accurately researched reports and the anger in the population is understandable
However, my article is actually more focused on an analysis of the MDC’s perfomance.I see potential in the MDC to improve. A lot of the leaders have shown outstanding fortitude under inexplicable circumstances. The Prime Minister needs mention on this. After losing his dear wife we all felt for him. The manner in which he managed to bounce back within days to continue working proves the fact that he is more deserving to lead this country than President Mugabe. Clearly the breathing space we have as a country is because of the MDC National Council’s decision to participate in this unfairly structured GNU arrangement. A lot more people would have died if the bickering had continued outside the arrangement. A lot more would be jobless and dejected. Practically every national executive member of the party has been tortured but in their minds, the struggle continues unabated. However, beyond the remarkable bravery and obvious international goodwill the MDC enjoys,l have serious concerns with the party that has gallantly fought for the common man since 1999.We have witnessed uncharacteristic selfishness and stubbornness from some of the MDC MPs particularly those that refused to return the Gono allocated vehicles after Biti instructed it to be done. More worrying is the ‘Mercedes Benz mentality’ which so pervades African politics-It is not necessary for many of the ministers on the continent to drive such posh vehicles when the masses starve. It’s even more embarrassing in Zimbabwe’s case to see opposition ministers and MPs continuing the propensity to overspend on packages of public officials when the economy is on its knees. Cheaper vehicles could do. Now we know MDC will maintain the same packages ZANU PF used for patronage. This is important because it shows the mentality that the leaders have. To them it’s payback time for ‘the suffering we went through’. This is exactly what happened at independence when Mugabe’s ministers felt the need to ‘finally be comfortable’ after years in the bushes. What one could conclude is that the more a party struggles to get to power, the more its likely to spend to compensate its leaders when it gets into power.Mwalimu Julius Nyerere taught us selflessness maybe to an extreme. He simply didn’t want the opulence we now see on the continent. For many of the new ministers, the ministers’ Merc is worth more than the value of the other cars in that ministry combined! There is nothing anywhere in the other ministries. As David Coltart once said, it doesn’t make sense to drive around in such cars when the ministry building itself doesn’t even have water or electricity. Where is the logic? Where is the servant hood that we heard so often during the massively attended rallies? Minister Eric Matinenga my homeboy actually said that he was ‘embarrassed’ to accept the Merc.But he still did! When MDC was formed in 1999, the mandate was clear, to liberate the worker from the doldrums of poverty. One hoped for worker centered policies. Now the same party has ministers driving new and expensive cars whilst civil servants get $100 per month. Where is the solidarity? If MDC ministers had refused, that would have thrown egg in the face of ZANU PF .Now they can’t criticize ZANU PF spending without being accused correctly of being hypocrites.
It has been somewhat anti-climatic to just look at the MDC-T‘s list of ministers in itself. I deliberately exclude the Mutambara faction because l think that that party would crumble like a deck of cards if the GNU would collapse or elections are held. They have no mandate essentially. They aren’t going anywhere. The more we talk about them, the more they look important. I don’t see them having any influence on public policy whatsoever in future unless maybe the MDC unites. Folks like Thamsanqa Mahlangu, Paurina Mpariwa among many others make you wonder if that’s the best Zimbabwe has to offer as we all desire impatiently for the dawn of a New Zimbabwe. If there is something that Independence parties or revolutionary parties have been good at has been attracting some of the best minds in the country. Some of the minds are smart though unwise like Prof Moyo but there is no doubt that Mugabe has over the years had some of the best ministers you could think of in the cabinet. Imagine Bernard Chidzero or even the more recent ‘technocratic cabinet’. I have concerns on the quality of Tsvangirai’s picks. I however appreciate that these men and women have labored more than many people. I just wonder if that alone is license to ministerial appointments. When you look at the cabinet ,apart from just a few, you struggle to think of any trend setter in any field amongst the picks.Ideally,as we map out a new Zimbabwe, its best to get the best ,loyal Zimbabweans available and make sure they have proven themselves in that field. Some of the ministers have not excelled in anything except maybe being brave and you then wonder if they can outmaneuver the more experienced, obviously smart ZANU PF gang.ZANU PF has ruthless tacticians like Mnangagwa,Jonathan Moyo,Chinamasa and others and one wonders if MDC being the junior party can stand up to the heat. They are structurally at a disadvantage and l am sure they are constantly outwitted by those ZANU criminals. Giles Mutsekwa was outfoxed by the ZANU machinery.Sekai Holland is constantly outmaneuvered by Nkomo.When you enter such unfair deals, you have to be a supreme tactician yourself.Unfortunately,while l would crown a lot of the MDC ministers world champions for bravery, it remains to be seen if they can excel in a bureaucracy littered with obstacles like Zimbabwe’s. They are set up to fail but they can succeed. Even a perusal of the list of MPs leaves you underwhelmed. I strongly hope Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is working flat out to get the best possible. The challenge is to get technocrats who have feet on the ground and not the lofty, out of touch and otherwise arrogant type like Mutambara.I believe Zimbabwe is awash with such examples. They don’t have to be politicians; they just have to be able citizens who are effective. The fewer politicians Tsvangirai works with the less difficult he is likely to face in pursuing the new Zimbabwe vision.
I have been disturbed with a tendency to either misinform the public like ZANU PF ministers or to say stuff that is simply blithering nonsense. The other time Deputy Minister Murisi Zwizwai unashamedly denied the callous killings in Chiadzwa diamond fields.However, for him to get away with such behavior is simply incredible. I wouldn’t have been surprised if that had happened with Mugabe’s ministers.Infact, it is always a surprise to hear them say the truth otherwise they have become pathological liars. It is sad our ‘democracy’ does not cut such l ‘leaders’ to size. He denied that ZANU PF is killing people. Who side is he on? What was he trying to prove? The ministers are so desperate to prove that Zimbabwe is now a safe investment destination that they are prepared to lie to achieve that end.
Regrettably, this shallowness of thinking and dubious character is the last thing we would want in our progressive movement. Then came Sekai Holland who simply has become a gaffing machine. She will struggle to regain credibility after her numerous gaffes. Giles Mutsekwa then completed this unholy alliance. He claims that he was cheated by Chanakira into agreeing to the specification of Moxon without hearing the other side of the story. To argue that he trusted Chanakira because he is a Christian is alarming. In fact it’s nonsense and for him to say that is to insult our collective intelligence. Was he simply outfoxed?
Prime Minister Tsvangirai has a huge challenge because for the first time we are now looking at his ministers closely. Gone are the days when we would just clap hands and ululate at rallies just because an opposition leader declared Mugabe a liar. The ministers have to deliver results.Sofar; the nation is waiting and trusting.
Our hearts have been broken by ZANU PF.When MDC came; we thought we were on a mending process. There is still hope. Please do not disappoint…

My take on Mugabe's interview with CNN's Amanpour

Like any Zimbabwean, l was naturally looking forward to the CNN's Christiane Amanpour interview with my President Robert Mugabe. Regrettably but not surprisingly, l was disappointed. Sometimes l didn’t know whether to cry or even laugh. Mugabe constantly lied through his teeth and Amanpour lacked tact and fact at times.
In reference to the evil Operation Murambatsvina of 2005, Amanpour mistakenly asked Mugabe to explain why 'those farm workers were driven out of the farms’! She clearly had not done her homework properly because Murambatsvina was not about the farm workers. It was about the urban poor whose dwellings were destroyed by a desperate, irresponsible and callous government that feared that the more poor people remain in towns; the most likely ZANU PF would lose in towns during the elections. So the idea was to reduce the town population and drive the poor to the rural areas where ZANUPF 'rules’. Rigging has been very easy in the rural areas.Infact the Amanpour’s questioning itself sometimes left a lot to be desired.Amanpour was often irritated and frustrated by Mugabe’s transgience and l suspect she thought the Zimbabwean issues were so obvious that she didn’t even need to work too hard on the facts. It showed in the interview because she omitted pertinent questions bedeviling Zimbabwe and failed to follow up on some of Mugabe’s rumblings. Rather she fell into the Mugabe trap of giving him the platform to look like he is a martyr of western imperialism. That message still resonates in some countries and she didn’t need to ask questions that would make him hide behind imperialism. He is most eloquent when he is talking about western hypocrisy partly because he will be right and also because he is simply a great speaker on a good day.

Unfortunately, Amanpour sometimes seemed obsessed with 'white farmers' circumstances and never seemed to ask intelligent and probing questions on the situation of the black folk. One could argue that she confirms the fears of many that Zimbabwe has been an international concern less because of the malaise of the black Zimbabwean but because of the recent plight of the white Zimbabweans who have been brutally murdered. The question is whether there would been equal vehemence against the Zimbabwean crisis if the white folks had not been affected? Infact Amanpour praised the 1980s period as if that was some golden era. For goodness sake that was the era of Gukurahundi, the darkest period in the young ‘democracy’ when over 20000 Ndebeles were murdered in cold blood by the North Korean trained 5th brigade soldiers. That was the period when Mugabe was getting the red carpet the world over, receiving honorary doctorates from Universities from the East to the West.

It is amazing how that interview showed that Amanpour was probably asking what Americans wanted to hear? Why the silence on the opposition officials who have not been sworn in when they don’t have cases to answer in courts? It’s a question that Mugabe simply could not answer coherently the way he waffled embarrassingly when asked about Roy Bennett’s issue. It was hilarious to witness the Big Man of Africa crumble like a deck of cards! In my years in Zimbabwe l had never witnessed Mugabe look so clueless, stupified and clearly raffled. That was both a high and low point for Amanpour.From a tactics and political point of view, she could have asked about the other officials, permanent secretaries,governors,ambassodors who have not been sworn in as opposed to only pressing Roy Bennett’s issue which Mugabe defended. It gives the impression that the West seems interested only in the affairs of white Zimbabweans. While l feel sorry for the many white Zimbabweans who actually bought land yet it was taken away from them,Amapour should have outsmarted him by emphasizing the unfairness he is doing on his ‘own people’

However, Amapour was far from the loser that night. However, l felt she could have done more research, control her body language more because her contempt for Mugabe was apparent and ordinarily you don’t want to do that with a Head of state. Pointing at a head of State with her glasses was a small thing that revealed more. It’s highly disrespectful in the African culture.
Amapour still managed to ruffle Mugabe. Indeed he has not had such probing questions in years. He had become accustomed to Reuben Barwe who simply has been bootlicking throughout the crisis. It is said that bootlickers run the risk of being kicked in the mouth!
It was Mugabe who lost and lost emphatically in that interview. It was his first interview in several years since he instituted a blockade of independent media on Zimbabwe. He was at least supposed to sound his usual best. He generally has smart arguments and he easily outsmarts a lot of journalists but yesterday he was strangely subdued, tired and clueless. I was surprised by the stuttering. Sometimes l even felt sorry for him! He thoroughly flip-flopped that he lost the minute credibility that he might have had with some strange people.
Zimbabwe almost collapsed under his watch and the GNU is grinding to a halt under his watch as well. He denies that people are being harassed. He denied that the economy is in dire shape. He simply denies responsibility. At his age and health state you would think that he is more remorseful but pride reigns supreme in him. His fall is now as certain as the rising of the sun and its setting. I can sense a new Zimbabwe!

Emotional intelligence and leadership

We live in a world obsessed with intelligence. In the university system, one talks of rankings of institutions, grades and all kinds of ways to separate the intelligent and the slow. We even assume that the Ivy-educated will most definitely always make it in life. I have news for you! It’s not always the case. Now research shows that 75% of one's professional success is determined more by emotional intelligence (EQ) and less by mental intelligence-what we normally call IQ.EQ is a an intelligence that is fairly new in literature though as old as humantiy.People like Stephen Covey and Daniel Goleman have written remarkable books covering the subject.

Put simply, it explains the way a person handles their emotions within the confines of dignity. Over the course of my short life,l have met classmates who were very smart but no one wanted befriend or even hang out with them.Noone could deny their brilliance but they usually lose opportunities because people didn’t like their 'attitude', 'temper' and or 'disposition’. Even in the work environment, a lot of people fail to progress simply because e of the way they express and manage their emotions.Noone wants to work with emotional wrecks.
This is pertinent to leadership because leaders are usually faced with many daunting tasks that require nerves or broad shoulders.EQ is divided into three areas namely emotional awareness, emotional management and emotional sensitivity. Some people actually talk of more.
Emotional awareness is somewhat self explanatory in that it challenges the leader to be aware of their emotional make up. This is not as obvious as it sounds on surface. Being of aware of who you are helps you manage your behavior in critical moments. A short tempered person needs to be 'aware' of that and make sure they know when to stop in arguements.EA is important in explaining people's reactions to situations. Have you ever wondered why some leaders seem to blow everything out of proportion? I know of a prominent war veteran in Zimbabwe who fought gallantly during the war of liberation. His family was killed by the white minority government of Ian Smith. As late as 2005, he witnessed a car accident in which a white lady driving a car in the Harare city centre accidentally hit a black man just walking by. The man wasn’t hurt and they settled the issue amicably. The war veteran saw this happening and came charging literally to the point of hitting the lady. He started shouting obscenities at a place where peace was reigning. Passer bys stood perplexed because he was neither a victim nor invited to the discussion. What happened with the man was that he never dealt with his emotions of anger of losing his family to the extent that to this day, each day he sees a white person and a black person discussing or arguing, he has the propensity to attack the white person. Imagine if such a person becomes a President?Unfortuantely,a lot of nations, families and companies are led by people who are not emotionally self aware through analyzing their background .Consequently, a crisis tends to shake them and expose the deep seated unresolved issues in their subconscious mind. I read in the newspaper of a lady who used to hate all men with dreadlocks because she was once raped by a man with dreadlocks. As a leader, one has to be particularly aware of any deep seated negative emotions and deal with it. I know this is a huge subject on its own. Usually when you don’t deal with an issue, it explodes when you least want it to.

Second aspect of EQ is emotional management which deals with impulse control issues and control strong emotions of anger or even joy among other things. Many times we talk of anger management but we forget that some people are as destructive when angry as they are when happy! The trick is to where possible to always try not to make big decisions when extremely angry or happy-such emotions can cloud judgement.Some overjoyed people can be very naïve and gullible. Joy management is critical in negotiation. When you are close to sealing the biggest deal of your life, how does your body language show? Some get so happy that they freak out the other person they are negotiating with and they end up changing their mind! Imagine being a peace negotiator in a war torn country and you strike a deal midnight. What do you feel? Some immediately text everyone on phones and within an hour, delicate information is in the press and you scuttle the entire process.EQ experts like Covey even talk of impulse control with reference to control of sexual urges. Need l say more? Need l give examples of great people who essentially lost it for failing to manage this impulse? Regrettably a lot of people underestimate the importance of impulse control.

To remedy all this, consider clarifying your values and learn to stick to them. Consider among other things, auto suggestion or neurolinguistic programming, have a realistic set of goals and ‘making conscious effort’ to work towards emotional management. Seize making excuses of emotional outbursts.Folks like Kanye West,Joe Wilson and many others are classically examples of how not to conduct yourself as a leader.You might retract you statements but the damage would already be done. It doesn’t get you anywhere.

The last tenet of EQ is emotional sensitivity. This is empathy. World renowned leadership expert John Maxwell says ‘people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care’. Leaders are sensitive to the needs of others. They don’t say things that are unnecessarily confrontational. They respect others. In his EQ classic Daniel Goleman sees this as relational intelligence in a way. Sensitive people usually exude a positive aura around their orbit. They attract and not repel. As a leader the last thing you want to do is to attract.

In conclusion, in this piece, l am simply encouraging the leader to be self aware, and then to learn to control self and to be ‘relationally sweet’. I can assure you that if you do well with EQ you substantially improve your leadership capacity. All the best!

Leadership crucible series

Today,1 July 2009 is President's Day in the Republic of Botswana.Naturally,there has been a lot of talk about leadership today.Moreso,because this is an election year.I had interesting conversations with a colleague KB an officer responsible for youth capacity building in an organisation in which l am currently attached to and seperately with my my good Professor Yeagan Pillay on leadership issues across Africa.Infact,KB and l are collaborating on some capacity initiatives for youths in Botswana.I like to call it 'capacity strengthening' because 'capacity building' somewhat implies that there isn't any capacity in the entity or group you are working with.Many atimes,the socalled 'capacity building sessions' are for people already in leadership hence any initiative is essentially a strengthening process!In my discussions with KB or Kabelo,l was sharing my conviction that personal leadership is the basis for people leadership.Often folks like to lead others when their lives are in shambles.You find someone with unbridled and unretrained appetites chastizing other politicians for 'excessive abuses'.It is easy to get bogged down on 'how to lead people' or 'how to influence' people and forget the centrality of the personal.As the adage goes,charisma can take you to the top but it is character that will make you stay there.
I want to do a series on the leadership crucible,that is the things that an aspiring leader has to go through or should become in the process of leadership development.I am a student of leadership myself so l actually learn from my own writings.Naturally my interest is in politics so l will use names of politicians whose qualities may best demonstrate the strength of a certain virtue or quality.Today l will look at no more than five qualities;

1. Leaders are readers;It is amazing how much reading one needs to do as a leader in order to keep in touch and in tune with emerging trends.We live in the Information Age.Infact,people are now talking of 'information overload';there simply is too much out there.I always joke with my friends at how difficult it is to come up with a theisis topic that has not be researched before.If you think you have found one,just google it and you might realise someone did that very research 2o years ago!However,if one ought to be a leader,there is need to know what is happening in the broader world.People rarely rise above their leaders.Infact your ceiling as a leader tends to become the lid for the goup you lead.The higher your level,the higher your gorup could go.Think of it,it is not common to see a level six leader to nurture level nine leaders.You cant teach or emonstrate what you dont know and your ignorance becomes contagious.The issue is not to compete but to know the context one operates in.If one is a politician,one ought to read what other politicians have done or are doing.Keep updated by newspapers,journals and magazines covering emerging issues of the day.This means each leader needs to have a robust library which covers 'wide and wild' topics.Read everyhting from your field to philosophy,economics,history and technology.Politicians especially need to be aware of several areas.In Africa,l have witnessed a medical doctor being appointed Defence Minister.Imagine if you have not been reading.One of my media mentors,Myles Munroe says he reads at least 2 books per week.You don't have to be like him but at least be an expert in your area and make sure you are updated on current affairs in your field.However,often people just 'read'.Take time to reflect on implications of what you are reading to programing or leadership.What does it mean?Does it mean l have to adjust a certain way of thinking?Does it mean l need to take up an issue as an advocacy point?Check out for meaning.World renowed leadership expert John Maxwell says that every leader should have an administrative office in which they 'work' but more importantly,they should have a 'creative office'.This office is a closed environment in which you withdraw from everyday hussles just to think.Create things in your mind.Plan.Reflect.Build.Destroy and rebuild again.Have you noticed how much we simply don't take time each day to think through issues and reflect.Often we 'think' as we are driving and rushing to work.Great leaders have always had ample time in their own creative offices.Consequently,set aside resources every month to boost your library.On a monthly basis,we remember to pay for our dogs,cellphone bills etc.Why not buy books,dvds and materials that stretch your thinking in the realm of leadership?Show me what you read and l will show you where you are going.Similarly, show me your creative office and l will show how far you will go.
2. Imagination.This seems pretty obvious.However,leaders ought to have a certain level of what l call audacious imagination.This is the confidence and ability to imagine the mindboggling.Your imagination must scare you!Imagine Cecil John Rhodes' dream of 'painting Africa red from Cape to Cairo'That imperialistic and unjust dream was fulfilled because he had audacious gut wrenching imagination.Thank goodness there are other folks with positive imagination.Remember leaders should spend time imagining things that a re just and advance freedom and prosperity for all God's people.Imagine Kwame Nkrumah's dream of a United States of Afirca at a time when other African countries were still colonised.At that point,some African leaders retreated to a cacoon and concluded that colonialism was impossible to break.Think of Fredrick the guy who dreamt as a student of the giant FEDEx company?How on earth could he imagine a worldwide overnight delivery mail service?How about Mandela?To imagine that he could walk out of prison and set a nation free?He needed a certain level of 'madness'.An imagination of the seemingly impossible.The reason why there is so much mediocrity is that there is too much smallness in our imagination.Leaders should stretch their thinking.A young Barack Obama should imagine being Presidnet of the US.Boldness surges after imagination and creativity is a function of sustained imagination.Anything great that you see in the world was created twice.First in the mind and then in the physical.Think big!
3. Conviction.This is an important aspect.Convinience often takes the place of conviction.After all we all want the easy way.Focus is only possible when one actually has a conviction of what they are doing.When challenges mount, many change positions and allegiances because they are fighting or doing something out of preference not conviction.Conviction is stubborness in public.Strive Masiyiwa the Zimbabwean mogul who owns ECONET had to survive a six year legal wrangle with government over a telecommunications license.If he didn't believe that he was supposed to specifically get into the telecommunications business and not any other business,he might have abandoned the case that so him go for broke and maybe chosen another line of business.Men and women who have built great things withered storms because they had the conviction of what they were doing.One online dictionary calls conviction a 'fixed belief'.How does one get to have 'conviction' over something?This is hard to answer because people are different.Some people naturally have set beliefs and they hardly change.Some it comes through a very strong experience that inspires them to work for a certain cause.Some with a more spiritual incilination see conviction as a product of divine inspiration.They see it as a burden or cause given us by God.This cause 'comes' as a gift or an unusual ability to do something.That 'something' usually has our undivided attention.Whichever way you explain the origins of this virtue-make sure you have it.Make sure you have a conviction of the cause you are pursuing.That's the only thing that will sustain your focus.No salary or prestige can break the will of someone with the conviction to do something.Its something you enjoy doing even without a salary.Don't force convictions.Many people out of sheer calculation pretend to love a certain cause.Sooner or latter,they change.Take time in your creative office to locate your passions and convictions.It is easier to become a great leader in an area of conviction.Interestingly,our genius is exposed when we work in our areas of strength or conviction.,The human brain tends to be stronger when it is forced to produce ideas in an area we hold dearly to our hearts.If you find that you seem to lack the intellectual fortitude or drive for a certain cause,you are unlikely to excell in it.

Unpacking the Ian Khama enigma

I am currently enjoying a month long stay in the beautiful nation of Botswana on a programme arranged between my university,Ohio University and the University of Botswana.I am enjoying working with a number of civil society organisations and of course seeing stunning places like Kasane and the spell binding Grand Palm Hote and conference centre.I will make sure l pass through the Okavango as well before l leave.As l travel to more and more African countries,l am amazed at how beautiful the countries are and the sweetness of the people in general.Of course there is always this guy who won't just get it! Such is the complexity of humanity.

Botswana is led by one Ian Khama,the son of the great father of the nation,Sir Seretse Khama who was the independence leader in 1966. I find Khama something of an enigma. He shocked all and sundry by declaring that he did not recognize the indomitable Big Man of Africa,Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.To the delight of many ordinary Zimbabweans,he called on SADC and AU to exert pressure to force Mugabe to accept the March 2008 Presidential elections which he lost.However,Khama got a bit too excited when he even called on nations to invade Zimbabwe and force Mugabe out.One has the sense that he maybe has a strong aversion for folks like Mugabe.What l found interesting is the sheer auacity to lambast and lampoon a President feared by his collegues yet he himself has been in power for only less than 2 years!He goes against the grain in so many ways.Born to a European mother,the man is not married and he is known to be ruthless with inefficiency and laziness in civil service.He is known to be a leader who 'gets things done'.A former Commander of the Defence Forces himself,he has no known training outside the army.

Khama has even declared that if the Sudanese dictator Omar Al Bashir sets his foot on Botswana soil,he would in an unprecedented move arrest him!He was saying that ahead of a trip by Al Bashir to Zimbabwe where he was strangely given a red carpet by Mugabe who apparently is desperate for visits by foreign leaders since he has been increasingly isolated for the past decade owing to his abrasive leadership style and controversial economic policies. As if not enough,Khama at some point withdrew from participating in the Johannesburg SADC summit in protest for what he felt was SADC dilly dallying on the Zimbabwe question.To his credit,the next summit had a more robust engagement on the Zimbabwe question.Interestingly,l would have been the last person to think that Khama would play this role of African statesman.He clearly is emerging as a lone voice in AU and SADC meeings speaking more pointedly against bad governance.Khama reminds me though of Mugabe and Mbeki.The three men have a distinct Western leaning in many ways.Khama's Tswana isn't great to say the least.Infact,as earlier stated, his mother was Western and his dad was knighted by the Queen herself.Mbeki and Mugabe are perfect Englishmen!Not that there is anything wrong about being an Englishmen;just that Mugabe and Mbeki often had very harsh words for Westen countries and their people yet their personal lives and tastes betrayed that hypocricy.These are men whose 'nature' is English though they like to lecture to everyone about being Pan African.Mugabe dresses in designer suits sometimes even to a rural political rally!

However,there are more troubling things about Khama.As a former military man,he already is showing signs of authoritarian rule which if unchecked,this can be detrimental to the health of the nation.The proposed Media Practitioners Bill has similarities with the Zimbabwean draconian media legislation AIPPA and this is a worrying sign.His tendency to take sides in his party's two factions in a way weakens the glory and respect of the Presidency.The BDP has two factions namely the Baratha-Pathi and the A-Team.Currently he is backing his sister's bid to be the Botswana Democratic Party' national chairman at the upcoming Kanye Congress.The sad thing is that his sister dismally lost for the contset to become a delegate which proves that the grassroots do not necessarily want her.Moreso he has publicly bashed current BDP chairman Daniel 'DK' Kwelagobe who is challenging his sister for the chairmanship.All things being equal,DK is poised for an easy win and its going to be interesting to see how it plays out.Khama has already indicated that he cannot work with DK if he is elected.He publicly bashes the Kwelagobe-Kedikilwe faction (Baratha Pathi) which opposes Khama's choice for Vice President.Khama has announced that the current VP,General Mompati Merafhe (A-Team) will retire and it is known that he wants to appoint his cousin,current Defence Minister Ramadeluka Seretse.DK is known to support either veteran Kedikilwe or a woman candidate yet unnamed or even himself!The fights are spilling into the public realm and if unchecked,the ruling party may lose votes owing to the in party's childish squabbling.The way Khama has handled the factionalism in his party raises more questions than answers.He doesnt seem to tolerate criticism.He also is slowly militarising government if one has to look at his appointments to date.Clearly,he wants to maintain the Seretse dynasty. This is sad.The essence of democracy is that people ought to be elected on the basis of merit and not heredity.He is unfortuanately routing for the Seretse dynasty.This will potentially cause problems.Not many people may tolerate his bypassing other veteran politicians who have served the party faithfully over the years.Should it be a crime to not be a Seretse?

Be that as it may,l see the BDP still winning the upcoming parliementary elections.Khama comes from the royal family and his fahter is still well loved.He is a chief and his policies tend to favour the poor although they may not be economically prudent in the longterm.As a Zimbabwean having seen how the 'Englishman' Mugabe has slowly militarised the country and brooked no oppostion and also carried out populist politicies,l fear for the great nation of Botswana.However,for now,the country is safe and prosperous.The air,water and land are all clean.Time will tell.

Tommorrow,l am buying a Motswana soccer team jersey and will vigorously support the Botswana national soccer team as they battle it out with Iran on Saturday.