PRESSING MATTERS: Credibility speaks for itself

Why is it necessary for our politicians and politically aligned organisations to perpetually engage in coming to the defence of an individual when the country is faced with so many challenges?

The fact that South Africa’s delegation to the World Economic Forum has to possibly also put up a good case for our political leadership is an unnecessary distraction.

They should only be there to sell the country as an attractive investment destination to the business leaders, investors and politicians gathering in Davos, Switzerland.

Our leaders should be depending on their own track records to defend themselves.

And rather than people being “100% behind” this and that leader I would expect people to be 100% behind South Africa and what moves the nation forward.

Yet it seems a personality cult is overshadowing the pressing needs of the country, which is worrisome.

For instance, the ANC Women’s League took to the streets at the end of last year in defence of President Jacob Zuma?

I certainly would expect the league to mobilise against issues such as sexual violence and the mistreatment of women and children. But how exactly was defending Zuma a women related cause?

Then there was the case of Water and Sanitation Minister Nomvula Mokonyane who undertook to defend the President with her buttocks raised

While it turned out that her words were somewhat twisted in translation, the matter raises important questions about the motivation for and extent of people’s loyalty to a leader.

I think the problem with South Africa’s political leadership is the widening credibility gap between it and citizens.

In his book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership James L Garlow says “wise leaders know that trust is the most valuable leadership commodity”. When this commodity is lost no amount of spin doctoring will help recover it”.

Trust is connected to a leader’s ability to be persuasive when he speaks. Garlow argues that persuasive speakers are not those who have the greatest command of language or who are flamboyant and expressive.

He says trusts rests on the credibility and authenticity of the individual.

Garlow uses former US President Bill Clinton to illustrate what happens when a leader loses credibility. He shows that Clinton’s spin-doctors initially managed to convince Americans that the leader’s personal life had no relationship to his ability to govern, but finally the American “gullibility tank” registered empty. When it did Clinton’s vice-president Al Gore paid the price – he lost the presidential election of 2000 because people saw him “as Clinton incarnate”.

Our nation’s parliament shows South Africa has an abundance of loud, populist leaders. But in the long term people do not put their trust in such leaders, rather they look for credible ones, says Garlow.

“And when they enter a room, we listen.”

Indeed, we do listen – not because we have to as political party members or employees, but because we want to.

And to be drawn by a leader’s credibility is far more powerful than being bused in by party machinery.

Defining what he refers to as “solid-ground leadership” Garlow says “to be a good leader, focus on being good before you focus on being a leader”.

In others words the state and condition of the person who leads is more important than the position he or she holds. When a leader’s words match up to his walk then he will not need minnows and party members to defend him. His own credibility and integrity will always be his best defence.

The fact is, leadership is less about a position than about the person occupying that position. Position is always at the mercy of the personal and professional conduct of the person who holds the post.

And while others might seek to defend a person, they cannot undo the damage done to the reputation of the person occupying the position.