Zimbabwe and Leaders' Global Responsibilities
It’s among the worst places in the world to live. In recent years the situation’s gone from very bad to even worse. And in recent months it’s hit rock bottom.
Among the different countries on the African continent, Zimbabwe is, or should have been, among the most advantaged. After it gained independence – formerly it was Rhodesia – there was reason for optimism. The English had left behind a good infrastructure, arable land was plentiful and producing surplus for export, and natural resources were in abundant supply.
Instead, under the ghastly leadership of Robert Mugabe, the now 84-year-old liberation hero who has been in power for almost three decades, Zimbabwe has dropped slowly but certainly to the bottom of the heap. Since 2000 well over five million people have left the country. There is nearly nothing to eat and no work to be had. Despair and decay are everywhere. Life expectancy is the lowest in the world (mid thirties). Inflation is the highest in the world. And there are more orphans per capita in Zimbabwe than anywhere else on the planet.
Moreover in his old age, Mugabe has gone mad. How else to describe a leader who is so desperate for power that he will do whatever it takes to keep it, up to and including murder and mayhem. As the New York Times summarized the situation, the presidential runoff election scheduled for Friday has been preceded by “a calculated campaign of bloodletting meant to intimidate the opposition and strip it of some of its most valuable foot soldiers.” Things got so bad that Mugabe’s main rival quit the race, saying he could no longer take part in the “violent, illegitimate sham of a process,” nor could he ask of others that they risk their lives on his behalf.
But this grim and grisly story is much less about Mugabe, who is a fiendish freak of nature, than it is about other leaders, who years ago should have weakened and even disabled him. Highest on the list is South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who stood by and watched as the situation next door deteriorated. To be sure, Mbeki was in good company - other African leaders did no more. But South Africa is the strongest country by far in the region. So Mbeki’s passivity sent a signal to those who ended up his equally passive counterparts: Being a bystander is being presidential.
Western leaders - presidents, prime ministers, cabinet secretaries – followed suit. To a person they flunked leadership. Oh sure, there’s been lots of tut-tutting. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said recently that it was time for the “leaders of Africa to say to President Mugabe that the people of Zimbabwe deserved a free and fair election.” England’s Prime Minster Gordon Brown went on to caution that the “eyes of the world” were on Zimbabwe. And United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon insisted just a few days ago that the election in Zimbabwe would not be credible unless the government brought to a halt its harassment of the opposition.
Meantime more anti-Mugabe activists have been killed, more injured, and more jailed. No getting around it: While Zimbabweans burned, others fiddled, none more achingly than those at the top.
Leaders and managers in government and business tend to mind their own business. They occupy themselves with those who are, most obviously, their followers, their subordinates, their constituents. But in this day and age, when the planet has shrunk, and when the technology is such that everyone knows everything, that’s just not good enough any more. The time is now for a more expansive view, for a view of leadership that transcends the group or organization for which we are directly responsible. In the mad, sad case of Zimbabwe such inter-group leadership, exercised in a smart and timely manner, could have made all the difference.
Sign up for the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly Hotlist, a new weekly email roundup featuring the top highlights from HarvardBusiness.org.
- Comments (4)
- Join the Discussion
- Email/Share
Barbara Kellerman is the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was the Founding Executive Director of the Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, from 2000 to 2003; and from 2003 to 2006 she served as the Center’s Research Director. She is author and editor of many books and articles on leadership. She is the author of 
Comments
While I agree in principle with Dr. Kellerman's comments, it seems to me that we hold our national and international leaders to a double standard. While we berate them (justifiably) for their lack of involvement in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe out of one side of our mouths, the other side is simultaneously berating them for their involvement in Afganistan, Iraq, Tibet, Central America, Chechnya, etc. Even though we repeatedly see our governments getting involved in the affairs of other governments with disastrous results, we continue to take our governments to task for not getting involved.
Somehow, after each disaster, we seem to forget that our various national governments are incapable of altruistic intervention in other nations. When we stay out, it is for selfish, nationalistic reasons. When we go in, it is for selfish, nationalistic reasons.
So, while I agree, in principle, with Dr. Kellerman's comments, I remain skeptical that Mbeki, or any other African leader, or any other international leader for that matter, has the wherewithal to intervene in Zimbabwe in any positive or productive way. The degree to which leaders around the globe need to pay attention to followers other than their own must be matched by the degree of unselfish, altruistic involvement with those followers.
-- se
- Posted by Steve Eubanks
June 24, 2008 1:03 PM
I don't believe that Zimbabwe has in fact hit rock bottom. There still needs to be a total breakdown of government, slaughter of the innocent, and an exodus of millions of refugees before Zimbabwe reaches "rock bottom". Sound familiar? The situation is extremely complicated and merely removing Mugabe is not the answer, although being held to account for crimes against humanity might be the charge. If there was ever a time for the heads of the Commonwealth to stand united and show leadership, it's now, for the sake of the innocent. As we all know, the measure of real leadership is how a person conducts themselves and influences others when times are hard, not when everything is going swimmingly. Unfortunately, this skill is less prevalent in our global village of today.
BR
- Posted by Baden Roberts
June 24, 2008 10:29 PM
You have all made good points. I think, the issue can be viewed from the perspective of "Who has global responsibility". Is it not the United Nations? Perhaps it should be constitutional that the UN not allow the slaughter of the innocent anywhere, by any internal army, or any external army. And, national leaders should have representatives that act on these issues through the UN.
Terence
- Posted by Terence
July 2, 2008 1:58 PM
Mugabe made a valid point before leaving for the AU summit in Egypt. He reminded the heads of states that would be attending the summit that very few of them have any moral right to accuse him of undemocratic behaviour since hardly any of them have held credible elections for decades.
Why is Mugabe being singled out? He's by no means Africa's worst dictator.
Some of Mugabe's most vocal critics have no room to talk. Take for instance, George W. Bush. In 2000, it took the US electoral system even longer to announce the result of the US presidential election than it took the ZEC to announce the results of the March 29 election. Furthermore, it was finally a decision by the 12 Supreme Court Justices that elected Dubya, not the American People, and it's quite possible that a proper recount of the Florida votes would have led to Al Gore winning. Were the Supreme Court justices repaying Dubya's Dad and that actor fellow for appointing them?
Then there was the 2004 US election. The Republicans had millions of (mostly black) Democratic Party supporters removed from the voters roll illegally. We don't see that on the news.
The hypocracy of the so-called Champions of Democracy (the US and the UK) in faking evidence to justify attacking Iraq in order to remove yet another despotic dictator (and former CIA asset) from power is palpable.
So, as bad as Mugabe and his party have proven to be, they're not in the same league as the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of the UK.
- Posted by African Democrat
July 6, 2008 1:48 PM