The world is undergoing a process of creating a convergence of private sector efficiency, public sector leadership legitimacy, political, and democratic criteria in how societies, countries, and, more acutely, governments are led. This has been an ongoing experiment for several years, and an emerging consensus is that the context of political leadership is inextricably linked with the dimension of interests as the currency of politics underlying all societies.

The dominance of proverbial markets, globalisation, rising dependence on stable trade value chains, and the increasing significance of supranational multilateral global governance institutions have obscured the boundaries between business and government and between public and private interests. In the global South, numerous countries have clung to memories of liberation politics, most of which have defined heroism and, by default, criteria for leadership.

In many cases, the leadership of developing economies is constrained and diverted by the rhetoric of ‘us-and-them’ paradigms emanating from the adversarial relationships stemming from the colonial and apartheid periods. This diversion is more influenced by ideology than by the bare necessities of their society today. In this context, political leadership has relied on either a military background, anti-colonial veteranism, or, in some cases, difficult-to-standardise criteria.

Consequently, the traditional polity evolved to include the need to view the issues of public service and administration as a core variable in the survival of private sector investment. In South Africa, a country with a profoundly mercantilist and extractive economic history, the influence of the private sector in determining policy predictability, political stability, and overall certainty in how public power will be exercised as a function of the rule of law has been a determinant of political outcomes and leadership. 

Fortunately, the South African democratic order is anchored in an arrangement whereby no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people.  It is an order whose legitimacy is based on a government of, by, and for the people. Voter choices, which are still heavily influenced by the men and women selected based on party political preferences, remain the dominant criteria in determining good or otherwise leadership.

The accumulated political and social capital of political parties, and by extension, the influence of individual leaders within them, has been the de facto determinant of the quality of leadership the country has had over the past thirty years of the RSA’s democratic experience. The ANC, arguably the nexus of our politics, has dominated South Africa’s overall leadership dynamics.

The ANC’s obstacles to leadership advancement have set a baseline for general political and, in some instances, business leadership in South Africa. One of its cherished and well-protected slogans regarding its source of power is that it resides in the branches. The ANC takes pride in its branches determining final policy and leadership as a core aspect of its heritage. The assumption of quality across its branches has influenced the foundation and quality of leadership in RSA. In the immediate aftermath of the 1994 democratic breakthrough, the claim was legitimate. 

 

As in any democracy, the private sector would be invested in the identity of the eventual leader that the political system produces. In light of the prominence of transactional leadership among and between sovereign states, the requisite leadership competencies have evolved in response to geopolitical demands and global dynamics. The ideological conflicts that once characterised the governing entities have diminished, focusing on which interests can be leveraged to secure victory. It’s no longer the horse that secures victory; instead, the jockey plays the most critical role. Major bets, some outside the scope of political parties and voters, have become the decisive factors in leadership choices. 

 

The entry of billionaires into the political leadership arena, where competition standards extend beyond the traditional ‘it’s about the people’ criterion, is a new phenomenon that countries with a significant inequality gap, such as South Africa, must reconcile. Leaders have transformed into brands. As branded figures, whether icons, legends, philanthropists, or others, their character ultimately reveals itself during their time in office, influencing the return on voter investment. The direction of their legacy will determine how a society or nation envisions its growth and development.  

 

Patrice Motsepe’s muted candidacy to lead the ANC should be examined in this context. As previously noted, “the reality is that the ANC cannot escape the societal perceptions regarding its technical skills and ethical leadership quality. Its survival will depend on the quality of the leadership it presents to improve its image in society. This effort will reduce its vulnerability and allow it to recover from its battering in May 2024.”  If Patrice Motsepe’s entry aligns with this, and considering his undeniable track record in corporate social investment, his candidacy, potentially as part of a grand coalition led by the ANC, could enhance South Africa’s position in global competitiveness. 

 

Suppose the conclusion of the moment of leadership includes raising leaders with business transactional prowess, which the world seemingly demands. In that case, South Africa might be on the right track with the Patrice Motsepe breed, even if Patrice the person generates a different discourse. On the other hand, the breeds that have been on display for the longest time in the politics-specific leadership pageant, of which Patrice has once entered and exited active involvement, may be appropriate for other criteria that might emerge while raising hands. 

What is real, though, is that the ANC remains the pole organisation with the social and political capital, even in its current compromised state, to provide a platform for newer leadership breeds to rise to the leadership challenge. This does not diminish the omnipresent advantage of coalition arrangements in mitigating the risks that the country has been subjected to. This includes breeds that stubbornly believe in the correctness of South Africa’s entire past before the May 2024 moment.

Leaders bred from the foundries of private sector leadership shaping furnaces do not have a tolerance for the meanderings of decision-making associated with democracies of the kind South Africa is. It is not a given, and definitely cannot be a given convention, that success in a corporate and bottom-line driven leadership environment is of general applicability elsewhere. The unfolding case study in the United States of America does not inspire confidence. Notwithstanding, the jury is gathering around Patrice Motsepe as a leadership breed for politics. 


If Patrice’s entry was a
planned strategy, the social and political capital he now commands to lead the
country has been meticulously accumulated. The journey to his current position
has been long and profoundly sophisticated. Consider the Motsepe Foundation’s corporate social investment in various areas of societal impact. Through the foundation, the faith-based community, particularly the
Judeo-Christian faith, has seen tangible interventions made by the foundation
that have contributed to its continued growth. 


It
is no secret to South Africans that Patrice, the person, has cordial and
invested relationships with leaders of several large churches. Some are
political constituencies of note in their own right. He does not need an
open endorsement; history with such organisations is enough of an endorsement.
The success of Mamelodi Sundowns Football Club has earned him the endearment of
soccer fans, including those from rival teams. The contributions his entry to
soccer, local and continental, have earned him a reputation for being a
delivery-oriented person. His social investment successes, including his donations to schools, youth activities, and the science and innovation safaris led by his wife, set him apart from those muted for
raising a hand for candidacy. 

In
the business world, the transaction defined terrain that has made a decisive
entry into the domain of political leadership, Patrice records several
self-initiated successes not dependent on the state tendering system. The
completeness of his international trade experience defines him as an
appropriate C-Suite candidate, and the form and character of the RSA’s
democratic and constitutional order might be ready for it. If there is still a
trust deficit between capital and the state in South Africa and the continent, Patrice Motsepe’s accumulated experience in both worlds diminishes
the deficit. It could introduce a new breed of trust surplus with a
social conscience that the economic order requires. 

 

He
brings tangible experience of organised business, notably the profoundly
self-made business constituency he led as President of NAFCOC. He also led the Black
Business Council, which declares as its purpose lobbying the government on
policy-related matters and plays an advocacy role where policies are in place to
accelerate the participation of black businesses in the mainstream economy. The
absence of his name, including as a noticeable footnote, in corruption and
state capture investigation reports, introduces into the political contestation
context the ability for society to sharply raise this matter as a criterion for
political leadership selection. 

 

As
the saying goes, “few are angels, many who are saints become so in the
afterlife” Patrice Motsepe’s entry into this contest, whether he raises
his hand or it is raised about him, has made him the proverbial baboon on the
tree of politics. The higher he climbs the tree with state power as the prize,
the more what has never attracted the attention of society about him will be in
the open and on display.

 

Leaders bred from the
foundries of private sector leadership shaping furnaces are not known to have a
tolerance for the decision-making meanderings associated with democracies of
the kind South Africa is. It is not given that success in a corporate and bottom-line-driven
leadership environment is generally applicable elsewhere. The unfolding case
study in the United States of America does not inspire confidence for his breed. 

 

Interestingly, his
investment company is delisting and going private. Without insinuating anything
about the business merits of the decision, the brute truth is that his entry
into politics might subject his publicly listed interests to scrutiny of a
special type. Notwithstanding, the jury is gathering around Patrice Motsepe as
a leadership breed for politics. His public trial as the candidate is about to
begin. Only his confirmation that he is in the race is outstanding for him to
enter the pigsty. CUT!!!