Do We Really Always get the Leaders we Deserve?

I muse a lot; I muse about things I hear said over and over again as my mind turns them every which way trying to see the validity or otherwise of such claims. It’s a good habit. It helps me explore all possible sides of an argument and, whereas there is probably a grain of truth in each one, I go with the most valid, the one that holds the most weight. Isn’t that what life is all about, relevance? Why go on and on believing things that are either not true, or have such minor effect on the order of things as to be considered irrelevant?

So I find myself thinking about the phrase, ‘People get the leaders they deserve’, and that ‘It’s all up to the people. If you don’t want something all you have to do is refuse or reject it and, voila! You are winners’. Of course this in the context of national issues and democracy, though it no doubt applies to other areas.

We must have been doing it wrong then during the fifteen or so years we as a country heaved and sighed and demonstrated and agitated under an oppressive regime. Every day in Kenya then was a mass action day. Places like Kamukunji and Uhuru Park became synonymous with political meetings demanding change. I tell you, if it really was up to the people, we would definitely have removed that regime in the first multi-party elections in 1992. But was it?

After spending the better part of 10 years demanding change and a multi-party democracy, it was finally here. But what did the opposition leaders do, those who had led the masses in perpetual protests? They all wanted to be President, and we ended up with at least 7 presidential candidates. Fat chance of beating the incumbent with that kind of division….

You can imagine the disappointment on at least 70% of Kenyans who had voted for the opposition: A divided opposition who only managed to scatter votes every which way and hand victory over to the regime of the day. We were mortified, bewildered. How could we have lost? We put so much into this, we were so sure the opposition had this? And how would we endure another 5 years under the same regime, now even angrier at the expression of discontent the populace had shown? Would the powers of the day now round up all those who were vocal against them, or deny services to the protesting masses?

And they did. Some of the dear persons who led that first revolt are dead, and others will never recover their health, except by a miracle: So badly did they suffer under intelligence personnel of the day. As for services, what services? We gave up on that years earlier. It’s like that government had taken Kenya on one mission only, to undo whatever good had been done for this nation economically, socially, democratically and every other system. Agriculture and education in some areas ground to a halt. State corporations were looted and closed down, roads disintegrated and honestly, we took unimaginable steps backwards.

Politics became our one preoccupation in the nation as we knew it had everything to do with what we were suffering. Even little children understood the issues they had no business being concerned about. Well, oppress people at your own risk. Man will always stand up for survival. Even if he seems unconcerned now, should he at one time feel pushed to a corner and reckon he has lost all and has nothing left to lose, he will stand up and fight. It’s called the fear curve (fear tends to follow the law of diminishing returns.) The more you instil fear, eventually the bolder the victim becomes, once you’ve taken away all dignity, all you can take, and nothing is left for the victim.

Mark you, it had been largely assumed that, on repealing Section 2a of the Constitution and introducing multi-party democracy, the incumbent, who had already misruled for 14 years, would not seek re-election. How naïve we were! According to him, with the coming of the amendments, it was as if he had never been President and that this was now a new law under which he could vie. Sigh again…

So it was that he won, not just in 1992, but also in 1997 as the law allowed the President to rule for two terms. As you have well figured out by now, the opposition had not yet learnt its lesson and fielded multiple presidential candidates again in 1997, to their and our loss as a country.

My question then in this whole drama is, did we get the leaders we deserved? Did we not speak out amid tear-gas and police harassment? Thankfully, at this time Kenyans had not yet learnt violence. Had we gone about change then the way some people did in 2007/2008, I doubt we would have a country to talk about today. Kenya had always been a peaceful nation, and to be honest even poll/post poll violence in certain parts of the country were introduced by that former regime at the height of mass demands for change. And it was largely from the supporters of the regime.

In 2007/2008 however it was very unfortunate to see leaders transform peaceful Kenyans into killers of brethren just to push for positions. After going through so much to rout the former oppressive regime, why would we resort to violence at a time when the country’s economy was growing at 7%, roads were smooth again and more were being rebuilt, state corporations were up and running, and education was free for Primary schools? Beats me. It appears to me if there was a point to be made, there were better ways of doing it, and Kenya did not deserve the display of anger, malice and violence we were subjected to – to the extent of undoing the very economy we pretended to be so concerned about.

Back to my question, why did it take 15 or so years for us to finally rout an oppressive regime, despite most of the country being united in this course? Simple really, in my opinion. It was until 2002, when the opposition got the point and decided to unite against the incumbent, that we finally won over that regime and Kenya turned a corner. Bye bye to the days of oppressive politics, bye bye to the days of gagging the media, bye to the days of sycophancy. Kenyans breathed again, the economy began to grow and infrastructure got the attention it deserved.

Despite the good intentions of the average man, it was not until the LEADERS did the right thing and united that we actually got the change we craved.

Policy is everything. A fact the West learned the hard way in the last few years. For a while they had gone around happily borrowing for all sorts of reasons; holidays, weddings, parties – but mostly housing. The mortgage industry was booming. All seemed to be heaven until boom! Without warning the economies, the stock markets, the banks, private companies, CEOs, tycoons, collapsed. (Some are in jail, a few took their lives, and others will simply never recover). The habits of a lifetime, aided by government policy, had come home to roost, and the brood was horrid to look at.

Suddenly people who had never cared about politics, some hardly knew who their President was (what with all life’s luxuries and conveniences at the swipe of a card) were on the streets demonstrating, and wanted to vote! They wanted a change, they needed a change! And change they got. Young people who had hitherto never read anything that was not a tabloid or was not about the latest celebrity to go to jail for drunken driving, were now moving about distributing leaflets in support of their candidate of change. And this was repeated in many Western countries. Mh, how refreshing….

So how much of this was about the people, and how much about the leaders? So far so good, but at the end of the day, the general belief is that things will get better because we now have new leaders. Never mind that most of the economic stimulus packages have gone to these very banks, private companies and tycoons. The populace, those who lost houses, those who couldn’t pay their credit cards and those who lost their jobs, have gotten pretty little in return; hence the next round of protests on austerity measures.

The popular UK comedy ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Yes Prime Minister’ captures this all too well. In it it becomes clear that leaders will barely do anything unless it earns them votes, and senior civil servants will block anything that threatens the permanency of their offices, or that demands they do some actual work. Now I know this is a Satire, but I’ve lived long enough to confirm that most of what is in the series is true in any government or country. Case in point, ‘The Empty Hospital,’ (hospital without patients) an episode in ‘Yes Minister’.

In developed and more mature democracies (relatively, absolute democracy is a figment of your imagination), by and large leaders are indeed voted in by the people. However look carefully and you’ll see you only elect those whom leaders tell you they are worth electing. For instance, how involved are you in party nominations? Is it an open ballot then? By the time the common man is allowed to vote, choices have more or less been made for you, and you only have three or so candidates to choose from.

Developing democracies on the other hand are more complex. Not only does the system mean they too choose only from a handful of appointees, but leaders go about dishing out money or goodies to influence votes, or intimidating their opponents. To the extent that voters allow themselves to be bought or intimidated, then we could say they get the leaders they deserve. But a third scenario is at play here, where some leaders somehow steal votes, i.e., rigging. In that case, how are the people to blame? When you send hooligans to scatter or scare genuine voters, then go ahead and somehow steal votes, how are the voters to blame?

Guilt has often been a security blanket for mankind. Ironic, isn’t it? Despite its destructive tendencies, we like to hide behind guilt. It becomes or feels easier to deal with bad situations if we blame ourselves for them. ‘I know he loves me. I must have done something to provoke him,’ says a battered wife. ‘It’s all my fault. I’ll be better next time,’ sobs an abused child. ‘I must have done something to provoke him/her,’ laments an abused teenager.

Somehow we think by blaming ourselves we explain the situation enough to satisfy ourselves that we are not worthless or undesirable, just paying for a mistake we made. We want people to value and respect us, and when they don’t, we explain it away. Anything but….

So it is that rather than face the shame and humiliation of having our leaders disrespect and devalue us, we blame ourselves for their mistakes.

I mean think about it. We pay our leaders exorbitantly through massive salaries, luxury cars, expensive medical covers, housing, allowances etc.; so why should we then be still expected to do their job? Isn’t ‘working with minimum supervision’ a prerequisite for any self-respecting worker in places of responsibility? Our leaders are our employees (or so we like to believe). So why do they fail us so often?

If after paying you monies I don’t hope to see in my lifetime I still have to bear blame for your failures, then you are of little value to me as an employee. Which reminds me of a statement made by one prominent member as he dodged responsibility and blamed ‘Kenyans’ for the failures of his ministry. And the question I was dying to ask him was, then why are we paying you? How about you go home seeing as we are all required to bear responsibility for your ministry? That way we save the taxpayer whatever it is we pay for your luxurious lifestyle; I mean if I have to do your job, then I don’t need you, and maybe you should pay me instead.

Man has always needed leaders. You have to understand it is not that many of us can’t rule or even do a better job than those in power, but hardly can we have everyone up there at the same time. So man comes together and chooses representatives, otherwise we would argue forever on simple points if there was no one to make a final decision. Group dynamics, if you’ve ever been involved in one. And so we elect leaders not because they are better than us, or that we are incapable of leading, but so that they may collectively act as representatives of the masses, with consultations where necessary. They are supposed to echo our words, our will, our desires, not their individual or partisan concerns. They are supposed to rule according to our criteria (the Constitution, Memorandums of understanding), they should lead us all to a place we want to go, not drag us kicking and screaming into the abyss. If only our leaders could understand this point?

National leadership differs from employment in the sense that, once we have elected them, thereby employing them, they almost immediately cease to be employees and acquire positions of immense power and authority, and I don’t care which country you are in. We entrust the wealth of a nation into their hands, the armed forces are the preserve of the new Commander-in-Chief, I mean it’s like willingly submitting and accepting to be ‘Ruled Over’, and the prerogative of mercy, justice and kindness lies in the heart of the ‘King’ alone.

No wonder God was so sad when Israel in the ancient days demanded for a King. They felt the reason they were losing in battle and were probably not as advanced as their neighbours was because they had no earthly king. They wanted someone to sing for, boast about, lead them in battle; unfortunately that was not all this person would be. Says Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8:11-18 ‘This is what the King who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots…. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers…. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants…. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use…. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.’ (NIV)

Once they become ‘kings’, unless their hearts are indeed with the people and for the people, they can misuse or abuse power, and it takes a lo…..ng time for the masses to get rid of them. Even if their term of office is limited by law, 5 years or so is a long time to be under an uncaring government.

My argument then is that we don’t always get the leaders we deserve. In all honesty more often than not we get leaders we are coerced into having by other leaders who purport to know exactly what we need.

Second, masses may change things, but at an agonizingly slow pace. An oppressive regime will resist change by hook or crook. And only when they are squeezed into a corner will they consider giving in. Only those who have not had to agitate for change, or those looking for simplistic explanations, will blame the masses for the failures of their leaders. I mean when we so faithfully vote, pay taxes, plant trees, grow tea, coffee, cotton and other crops, go to work daily, take our children to school, do trade and commerce, even heed calls to participate in local tourism and the activities of our Stock Exchange, what more are we, as masses, required to do for the leaders to run the country efficiently? We give them the office, the resources, the breathing space, now can somebody please go to work up there as we are working ourselves to death down here! Can we actually see change, see our country transformed! Can we not be expected to spend time checking on a government that should know its mandate, and is being paid unbelievably well for it! We need to know the people we put in office are productive and competent, otherwise we will do all we can to change them all, no matter how long that takes.

Which brings to mind another group this treatise would not be complete without mentioning. The activists, be that civil rights or whatever the activism is about. Now this is a curious group because it arises in any country without any real effort or organisation and quickly becomes a force not to be ignored but a real thorn in the flesh of the establishment.

The beauty of the activists is that they need no one’s permission to be here, neither do they require any votes to exist. But they quickly establish themselves as the spokespersons of the masses on all sorts of issues, some legitimate, some quirky. Soon there is hardly a day goes by and we don’t see them in the media. Interesting, isn’t it, how it’s possible to acquire leaders and spokespeople you never elected or appointed? But they are here to stay, we know that by now. Once in a while we hear about their wrangles as they fight out for offices in their little but unbelievably vocal circles. Ironic, how so called civil rights activists cannot hold peaceful elections or whatever it is they do to appoint leaders.

Give them time ‘T’, and this group becomes the politician of tomorrow. Seasoned in battle, trained in shrewdness, afraid of no one and nothing. Another politician is born, and the cycle continues…… 

If the masses are to blame for anything, it's that they asked for a King in the first place....


Related articles: 
Good Systems our Lifeline
The New Dance