No easy matches

Leadership is in vogue after the debacle of England failing to qualify for the European cup followed by the instant sacking of the team manager (for which he received 2.5 million quid compensation after just 12 games, thank-you very much) and ‘Not flash, just Gordon’ Brown’s recent miserable weeks as Prime Minister, in which he has learnt there is no place to hide when news is bad: namely, when the government has admitted it has no real idea about the number of immigrants in the country or exactly what they are doing (except the guy who was guarding the PM’s car), has committed the equivalent of 30 Millennium Domes’ worth of tax money to a small failing private bank, and mislaid confidential financial data on half the households in the land.

Now football and political leadership success may be exceptional in that they are driven acutely by results, either in terms of cups or elections, but arguably they share also a number of characteristics. First, the truism that in politics, as in football, success is usually held to breed success. The more a party or team looks like a winner, the more likely it is to be a winner. Second, success comes from results and leadership is a key ingredient – and perhaps to a greater extent than found in a say a soap company or supermarket chain – or for that matter a public forestry institution. Second, a football team or political party is identified to a large extent by the authority of its leader – who has to establish his/her authority, set standards, determine tactics, and organising the team/cabinet. Above all to get the team to perform depends on getting the right personnel, and through conviction to show that their methods are right.

And – as an aside – the old adage which seems true in football, but perhaps less so in politics: don’t promote the #2 (remember: they were chosen to be the #2…).

Leadership is about authority, confidence and competence. McLaren never demonstrated these characteristics; Brown is in danger of losing them irrevocably. It was on competence that Brown planned to fight the election that he bottled.

African prizes

It would be difficult to conceive a more ludicrous idea (and luminaries such as Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and Mary Robinson really should know better). The “self-made” cellphone billionaire Mo Ibrahim has started to hand out his eponymous self-congratulatory award (the “Mo Ibrahim Award for Achievement in African Leadership”). He should know: Celtel made him a fortune in 15 African countries not renowned for regulatory oversight, in an industry characterised by high initial capital and thereafter low marginal costs. Now Former Mozambican President Joaquim Chissano, the first winner, is probably a good guy, but he and any other winners could reflect on the words of Chinua Achebe:

” A leader’s no-nonsense reputation might induce a favorable climate but in order to effect lasting change, it must be followed up with a radical program of social and economic reorganization” [The Trouble with Nigeria (1984)].

Development agencies regularly make the mistake of relying on ‘agents of change’ and then wonder why nothing really changed. African voters hope for the best – and often accept that there limits on social change imposed by democratic politics and institutions – but nonetheless and in plain words, good leaders are good, but strong institutions are even better. These include viable tax systems – not least in forestry – to pay for essential social services and tax justice in a globalised world.