This is probably the last time some people will talk to me. For what I am about to say is well known in the sector and no one has dared say it publicly, at least in a systematic and sustained manner. Well, today I am going to.
I want to make it clear that what I am saying here is not fiction. This is real. We have known it in the political terrain. It has never been a surprise for political leaders to reject calls for succession. If it is not Mugabe and others who have overstayed their popularity, it is those that are grooming their sons and daughters to take over. As a matter of fact, they all do not want to relinquish power, period. It is as if the presidency is a family inheritance. There are very few cases where power has been resigned voluntarily. Mandela of course is exceptional.
Apparently in the corporate sector also, there is a problem with family businesses. Power is concentrated in one individual. There is no succession plan. Is it fair though to expect family businesses to develop succession plans? It would be fascinating talking about succession among family businesses. However, my agenda now is not so much that sector. I am more interested in the civil society sector where I understand there is a new trend of passing leadership roles from mothers to duaghters or fathers to sons, whatever the case might be.
I have been drawn into this as a result of two occasions, at least in the last weeks. The two are meetings that TrustAfrica convened: one in Dakar and the other in Naivasha. What was interesting about these meetings is that they were held not to discuss succession. However, in both proceedings, participants echoed each other about the succession challenge facing civil society organisations.
Let me break it down. There is a serious emerging problem of founders and chief executives of some of these organisations refusing to leave office or failing to groom their successors. In fact one participant in the Dakar meeting captured this rather sarcastically: ‘it is at times more difficult to replace a civil society leader from power than it is to replace Mugabe’.
This is of course exaggerated but if one looks at the civil society landscape, this statement has resonance. And yet ironically, these civil society leaders are more often the ones in the forefront calling for the replacement of political leaders. Shouldn’t they lead by example? Methinks they should, or else they lose the little moral authority left. And as the Naivasha meeting stated, ‘we must all realise that we are temporary custodians of the institutions we run’. The need to groom new leaders in the sector is more urgent now for many reasons.
First it is the right thing to do. Secondly, what will happen to the vibrancy and quality of leadership, governance and institutional capacity when all the current leaders are called back to the ‘heavenly father’? God forbid but they will be called one day. Third, as a watchdog, civil society must also lead by example. I know you are thinking of Mr X and Ms Y in organisation Z. Yes he has been there for a long time. She has no intention of leaving. Talk to them and hear their excuses.
I think we should be worried about the failure of succession within the civil society movement. Because if we are not, then we are doomed as a sector. Now if you think what I have said is not a serious matter, you need to think about the foundations world: that sector which we call philanthropy. Think about family and community foundations. In Africa, for example, there are numerous of these now from Cairo to Cape Town. Most of the family foundations are established by prominent individuals such as Nelson Mandela, Mo Ibrahim, Youssou N’Dour, Joachim Chissano and many others such as sports personalities. The greatest challenge will be to ask these guys to be replaced in their foundations. Again Mandela has been exceptional here too. I hear via the grapevine that he has already made an interview in which he stated that ‘he created the foundations to last beyond himself’. In a way this was to separate himself from the work that his foundations do.
Most often foundations and other organisations are known for their founder more than for their work. This separation must be made, and this can be the basis for a long and necessary discourse on succession in foundations. Will we see Mos, Youssous and Chissanos making a distinction between themselves and the work of their foundations? Some of you in the sector are already cursing me — I know it is a sensitive matter. We avoid it, we know it is a problem but we choose to see it in the political sphere only. We devise all kinds of tricks to remain in charge. Some of us even provided some insights to Putin.
There has been this trend among institutions for top executives to pretend that they have resigned from their posts and still retain a position in the organisation either as advisor or some sort of officer. Meanwhile they are the de facto directors. This is not succession: it is suppression of the new person. Others leave the organisation and still talk in meetings as if they were still running their previous institutions. They continue to overshadow their successors. Others flatly refuse to move.
It is for these reasons and many other sensitive ones that I think the issue of succession needs to be seen not just as a political problem but one that affects all facets of society.
It is also dangerous when it affects civil society and philanthropic institutions.
Absolutely spot on. But you should also ponder why it is that virtually every CSO goes through enormous ructions and pain when their leader – whether founder or not – leaves. People get sued, they never get spoken to again, their era is written off – it happens in CSOs across the board and across the continent and elsewhere. Succession planning isn’t just about grooming no. 2, but about preparing the whole organisation for a new phase without the need to ‘kill the bad mommy/daddy’ who left as Director…
I wish you were more specific and had actually given some names of individuals and organisations.
Khama, Masire and Mogae are three past presidents of Botswana who all willingly gave up their terms early in order to assist their successors.
Look further than Africa, see How Putin keeps his hands on the levers of power without having to resort to the usual device of changing the constitution to bypass the two term rules.
Of course, there is also the return of the Clinton dynasty – “Mother of All Presidents”
I’m not a big fan of civil society so if i give you a thumbs up for this article, am i being biased.
Anyways, most of the civil society of today is made up of mediocre egotistical fanatics who wants to be patted on the back and kissed in the arsehole of being ‘good people’. Their primary goal is not to alleviate the sufferings of others, but to be seen doing it. However, in order to hold on to this image of all that is good and kind, they have to construct their agendas in such a way that they keep the poor, poor and the oppressed, oppressed. You cannot be praised for saving that which does not need saving.Cosatu is a case in point. Their agenda to hold on to power is via the continued impovershment of the black man and woman. They have to make us believe that we are victims who should not move beyond the factory floor packing boxes and cleaning the factory tiolets. I freakin hate civil society.
Well done for speaking something we usually shy away from.Wish this article would appear on Bussiness Day.
In the western world the ideas remain constant and stagnant and only the faces at the helm of power change. In Africa there is a dire need not only to change faces at the helm but also the dominant ideas, and that is why change is strongly resisted. For the first time in the US, judging by what Barack Obama says, it appears that both the ideas and the faces are at stake. But democracy is not a cure all and end all, just imagine the US case: in spite of the huge intellectual and democratic capital and world renown thinkers and solid democratic institutions, George Bush stole the election in court and squandered the positive US image which took almost a century to put together and went on to dispense cruelty and violence to other people. The US silence of the lambs is eloquent. Infact African civil society is much more responsive and articulate about democratic infringements compared to their western counterparts in the US who simply live comfrotably with Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and other appalling examples of the systematic erosion of human rights.It was never a perfect system, and has serious shortcomings.
In a system that celebrates individuality as a holy sacrament why should I give my hard worn achievements and business empire to an opportunistic usurper who will just cannibalise my life-long work? It’s very easy to see African dictators as self-contained entities and conveniently forget their western partners in corruption. The arms deal fiasco in South Africa has the faces of Schaik, Zuma and possibly Mbeki but all foreign western nationals who introduced and really talked about the bribes (and continuing doing so elsewhere right now) are faceless and anonymous: we only hear of Thint. Individuals working for companies must be punished as individuals if they commit offences as agents and on behalf of their companies. Why is it that all military dictators in Africa between 1959 – 1975 were trained in Sandhurst military academy in Britain? Democracy, democracy … economists will say democracy wprks provided all other things are equal (ceteris paribus?)!
Excellent post. I think part of the reason for this trend is our inabaility bringing new people into civil society organisations, and providing them with a career path.
Botswana never get any love. While Zim is in crisis they changed leadership.
On Topic:
The blame also lay with the members of the organisation/company, its a kind of “if it ain’t broken…” mentality, but forgetting that the “brilliant leader” might be called to the big company in the sky or even rapid changes on the bussines environment might need a quick change in leadership.
Yes, Bush already feels that if the Democrats take over in 2009, they will bring down his failing foreign policy. The Republicans are shaking in their boots because a young, black newcomer isbaout to shake the country in ways it has never been in the history of the wesgtern world. They are losing seats in the White House, Congress, you name it. The liberals have come back full force and they have ten thousand reasons to end Bush’s reign of stupidity, intolerance, self-service, greed and incompetence. McCain, the republican presidential nominee, wants to continue Bush;s legacy and keep the troops in Iraq for another 100 years, even when they’re plan has failed dismally. Reps are pushed in a corner and MCainwho claims to be bringing ‘change’, finds himslef stuch with the Bush stigma all over again. His policies are incosistent he is trying by all means to gain the conservative vote by aligning himself with the incompetent fr right policies, that have not worked.. Bu the same conservatives do not like him, because.. he’s not too conservative. Poor guy. His age is also working against him, because he seems to flip-flop and forget the statements he made only two years ago, about the US foreign policy towards the radical group Hamas in the Middle East… I can write forever.
But my point is change is a difficult thing when it’s time to move on, and those who’ve been in power for so long, are hindering progress that woul denable organizations or nations to adapt or keep up with the ever changing global village we live in.