By Joseph Diescho
LET us now consider how leaders acquire authority and/or power. The Italian theorist of power, Nichollo Machiavelli pointed out in his book The Prince that in order for a leader to be effective in leading others, he must be either feared or revered or both. History seems to prove this point to be correct. Leaders such as Shaka Zulu kaSenzangakhona and Mandume yaNdemufayo were feared. Leaders such as Nelson Mandela are revered. The rest of them fall in between, depending on how people are disaffected at certain points in the trajectory of such leaders.
Change in conditions and circumstances also affect the levels of referring and fearing. For instance, in the beginning of the rule of Adolf Hitler, he was revered by many Germans who were moved by his unusual tenacity to interpret their conditions after the First World War in manners that he made them see themselves and their conditions for the better if they followed his vision of a better Germany, or Lebensraum, that they followed him blindly until things changed when they were victims in and of the process.
There was a time when the apartheid dispensation was such that those who espoused it with conviction and vigour, such as D.F. Malan and H.F. Verwoerd were revered by their followers, till the costs of the system began to outweigh its benefits in their own lives.
In the history of post-independence Afrika, the liberation leaders were mostly revered until their currency ran out and they became a liability in their own countries and most of them departed dishonourably. Hence the paradox between the two fundamental philosophical teachings: One, that the only constant condition in life is change, and the other by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr who in the January 1849 issue of his journal Les Guêpes (“The Wasps”), opined: ‘Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose’ (The more things change, the more they stay the same). Most leaders know this, and most managers do not.
In the schemes of the games of politics, leaders are characterized by the extent to which they have power or authority or both. In studies of these matters, theorists suggest that power is that ability to get things the way one wants in the face of resistance. Power is generally acquired through military, physical or psychological force by vanquishing others. It is also acquired by coercion through manufacturing consent by way of propaganda, manipulation, misinformation and miseducation. Power can also be attained by means of inducement such as imposing sanctions in order to cause submission and compliance. It can be acquired through persuasion such as fancy talk and demagoguery whereby the rest is hoodwinked and cajoled through the power of oratory and metaphor. Power can be accumulated through a process whereby one person gets to be accepted to have earned the right to order, reorder and even forbid things from happening.
Authority on the other hand has different sources. Key amongst the sources of authority is hereditary rights, by which certain individuals are born into families with lineages of unquestionable authority. The King/Queen of England, the Netherlands, Norway, Swaziland and the likes of many of our traditional authorities come to mind here. They do not have to know or do anything, but are guaranteed leadership with absolute authority simply by virtue of being born into the royal family. Some acquire authority by virtue of connections. Knowledge that one knew Nelson Mandela intimately is likely to give such a person some recognition to possess qualities of leadership compared to the enemies of Mandela. Levels of knowledge, skills and expertise can offer a person authority to lead. For instance, in one of the South African Bantustans, Ciskei, upon the attainment of independence, the president needed people to appoint as cabinet ministers. There were very few people with knowledge and skills for ministries such that he appointed a relative of his who was a taxi driver as minister of transport, as he was the only one with knowledge of the homeland’s roads, and people accepted him as such.
Competence is another source of authority. One of the good traits of the evolving Namibian political leadership system is the ability of our leaders to cast their eyes on the wider horizon to identify and elect the best and most competent citizens into positions of leadership. People also acquire authority by reference – when a departing legitimate leader pronounces a preference for his/her successor. Then there are those who are seen as authoritative by virtue of the level of information they possess about a certain problem or experience such that others will defer to them to lead them. This is what if often referred to as situational leadership. People can accumulate authority by way of their magnanimity and good work to others such that others would look up to them as special human beings and reward them with power and decision-making on their behalf. Almost in all situations of leaders with authority, there is an essential factor, namely charisma or that admiration that others have for the leader that they believe and internalize that he knows more and with him/her around, conditions can only get better.
The next dictum will sketch more succinctly and schematically the most common differences between leaders and managers. Let us end today with the famous words by one of the gurus on leadership in our life time, John W. Gardner who said the following words that are very relevant to Namibia this year as we prepare for our very important general and national parliamentary and presidential elections: “The prime function of a leader is to keep hope alive.”