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.
But change in leadership could be a good thing. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela has shown us what genuine and committed leadership can do! He served many years in jail and as a leader listened to the voices of his jailers. Under his leadership South Africa stood tall on the continent and beyond. Qualities in leadership should not be assessed in terms of either/or. Leaders who bring real benefits to nations carry with them a number of attributes - integrity, trust, willingness to listen, commitment to serve others including those who do not support him or her, proven competence in the performance of public duty, the willingness to change things so that social and economic benefits can be spread out more evenly, concern for those who are disadvantaged and so on. I do not believe that change in leadership should be effected for its own sake; rather, it should be supported because on balance it promises to bring real transformation in the lives of ordinary citizens.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
