No Need for Either/Or Leadership
The Current Discussion: With the U.S. presidential primary season in full swing, there's a lot of talk here about "change" vs. "competence" in leadership. Which does your country have more of? Is that a good thing?
There is always a danger in assuming that the pursuit of "change" is necessarily a good thing because of the saying "a change is as a good as a rest." There is immense evidence that change in leadership could be a regressive step. Instead of bringing in fresh ideas that enhance the human condition, certain changes in leadership could in fact be the beginning of a consolidation of ideas that are harmful. When Idi Amin overthrew Milton Obote in Uganda, the British Government quickly endorsed him because in the mind of the British rulers, Obote had shown socialist inclinations. Within a short time, however, Idi Amin became a dictator and many Ugandans lost their lives under his leadership. Equally when Daniel Arap Moi, former president of Kenya, took over power after the death of Jomo Kenyatta in 1978, Western capitals celebrated. In the earlier days it was assumed that the Moi regime, because it was new, would bring positive change in Kenya. Again, within a short time the democratic space was narrowed and freedoms were curtailed. Initially a single party country in practice, but with a possibility of multi-party political participation, the constitution was changed by the new leader to make the country a single party by law. The reversal of that amendment in the constitution cost the lives of many Kenyans.

