Leading a country, a business and even a sports team is not an easy task. In the “olden days”, the king or emperor would lead his soldiers into battle risking his life at the forefront of the fighting. Those who would be king could not be weak or indecisive as the consequences were dire.
Similarly, the CEO of a successful company or the captain of a winning sports team must lead from the front and be able to decide to change strategy when an initial strategy is failing. Decisive leadership not necessarily group consensus is a mark of success. Recent reports reflect the frustration of business leaders with the indecisiveness and lack of leadership of the South African political leadership.
Chris Schutte, CEO of major chicken producer Astral, is reported to have said that it is time for the government to respond to the hardships faced by SA’s people, “instead of sitting asleep at the wheel, floundering around decisions and not implementing real solutions while the country implodes” referring amongst others to the consequences of daily and extended periods of load shedding.
Pick n Pay chair Gareth Ackerman was critical of government for its “inaction in the face of SA’s structural economic problems, warning of an existential threat to the food industry, as well as social unrest stemming from food shortages.”
Tim Cohen wrote recently in a Daily Maverick column that South Africa is “likely to experience political instability, further policy uncertainty, deteriorating infrastructure, municipal service delivery failure, and power cuts.” South Africa as a result could expect more social unrest, increasing hunger, and more poverty. Even more pertinently Cohen went on that “even by the standards of the extreme vacillation of career politicians, Ramaphosa is proving particularly dithery”.
In a recent parliamentary session answering oral questions, the President responding to a question about the power crisis, asserted that the country has moved forward with the National Energy Plan despite the increasing frequency of power cuts. As with many other challenges, government had resorted, in response to any earlier increase in the severity of power cuts during 2022, to the establishment of a committee, the National Energy Crisis Committee (NECOM). This committee released a six month report in January 2023 reflecting other than initiating various processes and amendments to various procedures that materially nothing had changed. In fact, as experienced by every South African, the situation is now worse.
Earlier in the year, after an inordinate delay a cabinet reshuffle was announced on 6th March 2023, likened by some to shifting the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, which brought about the creation of a ministerial post in the Presidency responsible for electricity. On Monday, some two months later, a presidential spokesperson indicated that the functions of this minister in relation to other cabinet colleagues, who to date had been responsible for the parastatal Eskom, had now been clarified although it was unclear when this would be promulgated. This in the face of the daily challenges resulting from power cuts for all South Africans with the exception of those appointed in high political office cushioned as they are by alternative sources of power.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the country experienced an approach to crises dominated by a plethora of committees and repeated consultations, which has now been replicated faced with the harsh reality that the country’s parastatal responsible for ensuring a safe and reliable supply of electricity has failed to do so. Every action taken by government appears dependent on a convoluted process of committees, task teams, lengthy consultation and the need for consensus. Urgency is not a characteristic that seems evident in the actions of the government leadership.
Government’s approach to the controversy concerning a Russian ship LadyR, embargoed by many of South Africa’s major trading partners, that docked in Simonstown in December which the Americans now allege was loading military cargo, highlights the problem. Rather than seeking the information and making it public thus ending the speculation, a retired judge is appointed, as yet unnamed, to investigate the incident. This while the value of the South African rand plummets and trade agreements with one of the country’s largest trading partners are threatened.
As a student of history and particularly military history, I wonder how an army would fare lead by a general with the characteristics evident in the leadership of this country. I fear that the enemy would have overrun that army long before a committee or task team had decided on a course of action. Certainly, a general must consult advisors and receive reliable intelligence from subordinates, before ordering soldiers to attack a particular objective. Faced with an eminent attack, a military leader does not have the luxury of time. All options must be rapidly evaluated and based on the available information, a decision made, orders issued and carried out. A leader cannot be paralysed by the fear of making the wrong decision. Rather a leader must dare to make an error and be prepared to correct this once it becomes apparent.
I am reminded of words from a poem, The Old Sailor, from a book Now We Are Six by the author A.A.Milne read to me by my mother as a child that appears to mirror the situation of those in government:
There was once an old sailor my grandfather knew
Who had so many things which he wanted to do
That, whenever he thought it was time to begin,
He couldn’t because of the state he was in.
The indecisiveness in government results in inertia and confusion. South Africa is a country with great potential. It has the people, the natural resources and climate that should make it a success story despite its dark apartheid past. But the way of life of South Africans is under attack. The current situation poses an existential threat to safety and security fuelled by unemployment, poverty and hunger. Restoring the health of this beautiful country requires fearless and decisive leadership from leaders who are prepared to take decisions in the best interest of the country even when those decisions may not necessarily be to their own benefit, politically or otherwise.
