My SAWIP Journey

“Ngwana yo o sa leleng o swela thareng”- This, is a proverb of my people, Barolong ba BaTswana,
which translated, means: a child who does not cry will die in his sling!

The implied meaning is that he who does not ask for help; simply, cannot expect to be helped.

Two decades post our transition to our new democratic dispensation, SAWIP has heard the cry of the
nation; and this- our journey- will help us heed to the call of need.

Greetings

Greetings honored guests and the esteemed class of 2014.

The Journey: What has it all meant?

Being a young South African leader is often a very polarising and conflicted experience. On the one
hand, we remain hopeful of the future, largely due to our nation’s potential, which is evident in the
strides made in this very short period of time post 1994. On the other hand, the frustrations and pains
associated with a growing democracy have left many by the wayside; a reality we cannot abnegate,
and one that often sees the idealism sadly dissipate.

At the fulcrum of this seesaw of extremes, are programs such as this; programs that address the
realities of today, yet embrace the possibilities of tomorrow. SAWIP has transcended a curriculum; this
journey is clamant to the hopes of my people.

The Story Line: A snapshot at greatness

Let me tell you how all this started for me: Firstly, on the initial application, I misread “characters or
letters” for words in haste- so while people were handing in their 500 character statements, I was
writing an elaborate dissertation on my short 2 decades of life. This took me 3 days…not to mention the
automated system refused my application much to my frustration. Had Kim not come to the rescue at
23h51 that fateful night- I would not be here!

Then came the interview! I washed my best collared shirt in anticipation of the big day, but while I was
at class, the floodgates opened. Needless to say, all my washing on the line felt the full wrath of Zeus and
all I had that morning….was a tank top. So, I put on my brightest smile, said a short prayer, drank
my coffee, and went into the interview…in a tank top.

Then came selection camp, a great day with incredible leaders- topped off by Brynne Guthrie’s
insightful plea for feminism and transformative constitutionalism, followed by Erwyn’s…well, Erwyn is
Erwyn…the epitome of centered leadership. And there I was…the dissertation guy…who stutters…and
wore a tank top to his interview- talk about a coup de grace!

Guys, We’re in D.C: Family Business

Then came D.C, the time of our lives. We spend the first few days trying to send as many pictures and voicenotes home, but you soon realise that you cannot live through your cellphone, that if you’re going to experience the journey completely, you would have to do so being fully present.

So in no time, we became each other’s support structures. We left complete lives behind, and now we’re building a new one. D.C is not a city anymore, D.C is a home for many of us.

The food, the laughter, Kabelo’s protests to singing and dancing, Bongani’s smile in meetings, Joshua’s “Guys, we’re in D.C rhetoric”, WIP, NSL, host families, WMATA, SlaapTiger moments- everything I fondly remember about D.C had every single one you in it. My family, my inspiration- the people I share a unique experience with; the collective world changers I get to friends.

The Charge: Go confidently in your path

I have literally written 4 or 5 versions of this speech; not because I am unsure of myself or anything I have to say, but because I soon realised that I had the herculean task of speaking on behalf of 17 incredible leaders, commenting on their journey thus far- and laying the gauntlet for the promise of a brighter tomorrow.

To my team- I would say I love you! To SAWIP- I would say, we thank you! To my nation- I would say we’re better to serve you now.

Sihle- your nurturing nature will revolutionize the developing world; Bongani- continue to push the boundaries, weare behind you! Brynne- your voice is not your own, speak on behalf of our sisters, mothers, wives and daughters; Kessler- Do not be swayed, you may well usher a new perspective to law; Thato- The world is waiting, prepare for your imminent launch; Kabelo- you were born a diplomat, get into office already! Boipelo- Let the strength of your faith move mountains for our continent; Li’Tsoanelo- It’s not about how high you go, but about remaining rooted- stay amongst the people; Erwyn- your commitment to people is unrivalled, it’ll set you apart; Sechaba- Look to your left, look to your right- you’re one a kind, Sir; Joshua- Never let your believes be bullied. You’re speaking on behalf of my grandparents who had no voice; Lauren- You will scale huge walls in this life, brace yourself! Ishara- Medicine is but a doorway, you will help heal a continent; Courtney; your leadership is rare, trust it, embrace it- believe in it!; Dalisu; my brother, some have greatness thrust upon them- don’t be scared, we are always behind you; and lastly, my brother, Velani; The steps that have gone before you may be huge, but they aren’t as big as those you’ll step into.

Management- your sacrifices have been huge. Thank you- we appreciate it all.

Landing the Plane: You are already great!

Henry Ward once said: “We should not judge people by their peak of excellence; but by the distance they have traveled from the point where they started.”

I leave with this, my greatest lesson learnt- that every single one of your dreams and aspirations are valid irrespective of narrative.

We may have reached the end of the program; but this is the beginning of the journey for many of us. Look to your left and your right- this is where it started, with these people- this is friendship, this is family, this is the future of our country!

Thank you!

Today was one of the richer experiences of my SAWIP journey so far here in D.C. We had a very candid conversation with the team about race and diversity, and as usual, my fellow Tukkie Brynne Guthrie, being the advocate for equal justice for all- brought a perspective I'd forgotten all too easily.

"What about the struggle of emancipating women in society?". I thought this apt, partly because we're so often confined to the box of race, class and culture when posed with the challenges of diversity, that we often forget the first and arguably most distinct one, gender.

On Friday, the 11th of April 2014, news broke that a rugby player from a local university had assaulted a young lady in what seemed to be a brawl between opposition rugby players post the Varsity Cup final. I knew the victim personally, and at the time, decided to write the following piece. We are all a part of the problem!

Puzzle Pieces: We're all a part of the problem

Written on the 11th of April 2014.

This blog post is written quickly, expediently in fact, not in a way to be sloppy or contemptuous of the content, but more to ensure that the urgency I feel in this moment is well documented in its acme as apposed to the diluted fuel it often becomes, after we rationalize, contextualize et al. the ills of our society. This will make more sense later on.

Firstly, I would like to send my sincerest apologies to the Agathagelou family. I cannot begin to understand the indignant anger you must feel to your own daughter, princess and jewel, being hit by a man, for being an upstanding citizen and patriot in defending her fellow student. This, simply put, is an act of heroism worthy of being noted. Irini, I know you, so I hope you get better soon. Let your story liberate the thousands of women in townships, small towns, farming communities and maybe even rich suburbs, who will never have the courage to stand for the right to not being a punching bag.

I would also like to send an apology to the family of Anene Booysen. You lost a daughter, a child, both brutally and senselessly so. I want you to know that her life has sparked something in me- a desire to bring this beast to shore and if need be, die wrestling it. I will speak of her wherever I go- all around the world. I will speak of how a teenage South African was brutally assaulted, raped and killed, essentially for being a woman. How sick is my land? Her name will be remembered. Her life remembered. Her contribution celebrated. God keep you.

Lastly, I would like to apologise to my mother, Khumi. I am sorry I have not owned this problem South Africa has. The anger we both release on women and freely so. I apologise for not working harder to be the stamp out- to wrestle it, choke it. I'm sorry I come back here all too often, indignant at the injustice; only to walk away watered down and 'contextualizing'. To all our mothers; rich and poor, young and old; married or deserted; adorned or battered- I apologise, on behalf of all of us, as South African men. Your sons, brothers, husbands and often objects of affection.

To us, as men- I am deflated. Kyle Kriel- you have not only disappointed yourself, you've let us all down. Same for Oscar. Same for OJ. Same for the millionaire who can afford to buy his wife expensive make-up to cover the marks of leafy suburban blows; same as the construction worker who beats his wife as therapy. This event, Irini's and Reeva's; is but a microcosm of the broader depravity we're faced with; mere fruits of the chronic illness the Y-chromosome so richly bestows. How we raise our voice at or mothers in frustration, slam doors to prove a point with our girlfriends, or simply wont vote for a competent, highly capable leader to rule our country for a tenure, because 'we don't want a woman for a president'.

All this, a microcosm, a snapshot, puzzle pieces to the grotesque expressionist piece we call 'the problem', 'the man-issue', a battle that can only be won by men but we refuse to face. I choose to own my anger- my misogyny, my deeply ingrained sense of entitlement because I am a man. And no- I do not do so proudly.

Today I posted a question on social media:"Ïf it was another women, poor, nameless, who'd been hit, would we care?"

This is largely on the basic premise of the Reeva Steenkamp vs Anene Booysen saga; one famous, one not so- but was also in response to the Irini Agathegelou situation, as I know her in person. The question doesn't wrestle with the nature of the injustice. Irrespective of where you come from, your economic or social status- as my father would say- depravity is depravity. It wrestles with us, the hands of justice, or selective justice. What about the 1,000 women across the world, young and old, rich and poor, who were 'hit' in one way, form or another? The poor, maimed.

Like I said, this was not written to trivialise the matter at hand for certain individuals (It is in no way a comparative analysis between the injustice itself and/or its perpetration) or the painful experiences of all these women. It is written to question us, all of us, as puzzle pieces- to look at the macabre reality being strung together by us. People may say one still lives, the other is dead, one can afford a good lawyer, while the other is from a rural karoo town. Even though these factors may contribute in some way or form, I pray that the South Africa I'm a part of, am helping build and leading is one that says: 'Though your background and experience of life may be different; it is not deficient'.

Maybe your mom may have never been struck like ours, or your father wasn't a violent individual? Maybe Irini is just a name to you, and Anene Booysen just a news-header you read 14 months ago? Regardless of what your reality is, here, on the same canvas of South African reality, lies a sickening underbelly of violence against woman some deal with constantly, weekly, daily, even hourly. Here, lies a truth, that we are the problem- men. Look at us, be honest, look at yourself, be honest. Yes, you, us, we need to win this battle.

I pray we become better men.
The battle continues.

Sincerely,
Lehlohonolo 'Nolo' Mokoena

“Embracing community- especially through diversity”

Diversity has always been a source of great contention in most post conflict societies. I mean, one need not be a genius to understand that you have a very polarizing social dynamic at the point of emancipation, or freedom of one from another. Firstly, you have a perpetrator who now must co-exist with those they’ve wronged, and secondly, you have a society that is structured in a way that systematically benefits one and takes from the other.

These conditions are the convention, sure, but they are huge challenges in forging a sense of community. It would seem natural that some form of justice would be necessary, but that is impossible without hampering the benefactors- though not necessarily perpetrators- of the injustice suffered during prior “conflict”. This, at a very subtle level, will always threaten to dismember the components of a united community, regardless of the understanding for the need for reform, redress, restitution or re-appropriation by both ends of the spectrum.

However, these are components we cannot run away from; a reality of justice we must fight relentlessly to institute. The question of diversity has always been at the core of the matter. In the case of South Africa’s history, the divide was racial, and though systematic- at face value at least, it seems as though this was the root of necessity the policy implementation. There are other nations where the reason was different, be it in the Rwandan or Bosnian genocides, or the Troubles in Ireland- each nation must stare its own “monster” down.

The challenge for any leadership in post conflict circumstances is to use the attribute which caused the divide and inspired the perpetuation of the various forms of injustice to unite the people again; almost in an attempt to trivialise the divisive nature of the root of the conflict. Instead we magnify its pietistic qualities- a messianic unifier of sort. Though I am a fan of this approach, the reality is that unless there is some sort of tangible change, there is NO community- the nation is STILL divided, merely in a diversely different way.

The understanding of diversity in a greater sense will aid us in cultivating a sense of belonging. Essentially, coming from a historical context of chronic exclusivity and division, both as a general global community and in our own nuanced experienced as citizens of various nations; how do we bridge this divide and embrace community- even through diversity?

As multifaceted and complex as that answer may be, the first step is not to equate our diversity. Though we reinforce the idea of equal intrinsic value of every human being, and we believe that all people of all nations are born equal- we must understand that we are not all the same. Trying to equate the two will continue to entrench the traditional sectarian divisions; as it is based on a flawed concept of comparative analysis as though the yardstick for each individual is identical- (while I agree it should meet some standard of uniformity)- in reality, it must be nuanced to accommodate the diversity of people. Simply stated, we are dealing with human beings with capacity, not livestock.

Now, I understand this view can be discussed further to include the role of paternalism and governance in the ecosystem of community (which I will do in my next blog), but I need you to come to the cinch understanding that the first step to community with diversity, is not equating the one’s differences. That has often been the fundamental flaw in our understanding and implementation. The idea is not to recreate the imbalance of the past, but to address it in every way possible. This is not an arithmetic path to success, where free education and a monthly grant stipend will address the issue. This is a very dynamic, ever changing struggle we have yet to diagnose clearly, and thus tackle it successfully.

When we understand that our diversity is not the same, not equal- there is no room to say my difference is “better” or of “greater worth” than yours. When we understand that our diversity is of equal importance though they cannot be measured comparatively- we will begin to see the beginning of a new social order, one that is far less cynical to discourse about what divides us, and far more optimistic about the prospects of real, functional community.

As we build our nation, and the nations of the world!

Nolo Mokoena!

“A commentary on Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool’s address at the Woodrow Wilson centre”

“South Africa is a violent nation. There is violence against our women, children and all vulnerable citizens. We need to move away from the violence that was invested in us a community during Apartheid, if we’re ever going to realise the full extent of our freedom.”, said Ambassador Rasool. No statement would’ve better summarised the societal challenges we face as a nation 2 decades post transition. He painted a clear narrative. One that was both true and appealing to my moral and ethical compass; one that was challenging- how is this acceptable in today’s society?

The more cynical reader is nodding in agreement at this point; the sentiment most likely reinforced by some sort of injustice they’ve suffered themselves as a by-product of sheer societal dysfunction. This view is valid- it is however not absolute. Likewise the optimist will claim it’s a generational attribute, and the roots of the cancer will pass with the more senior citizens of the country. This theory does hold to some degree; but the recurring attacks on some of our university campuses would suggest the water is far from under the bridge.

Historically, violence has been the primary medium for democratic discourse [in terms of mass movements]. I am not talking about us, the educated and privileged minority, I am speaking about my neighbours in Bekkersdal, who still have to burn tires and vandalise stores to feel they have a been heard. Often times we respond to the violence more than we do the plea. The language of democracy has to change; how is violence the loudest voice in society?

The idea that one fights for their freedom, was once true in the literal sense. However, in a post conflict nation, it is imperative to preserve the willingness to fight for the ideals of democracy and freedom, while substituting the ammunition for revolution with other tools, be it education, economic opportunity, welfare etc. The fight carries on, but the rules have to change. It is pointless to change the rules of engagement yet not provide the necessary tools for the transition.

While the solution to the root of violence in our post-conflict nations may be multifaceted, this one aspect remains clear as day- you cannot change the rules of the game without changing the tools with which it is played. How does one play water polo with a croquet set? In the same way, you cannot expect the masses of your nation to use new “channels” of free expression, while they live in pre-transition like circumstances. When marginalised, they used violence as an amplifier to air their defiance. Now, though legislatively free, those who remain marginalised by will use what freed others to free themselves.

No, this is not mob mentality. This is a “freedom story” narrative; and if we are going to successfully counteract the violence invested into our communities in post conflict nations- we must fight this fire strategically, not with fire, but with finesse and intentional policy.

Ambassador Rasool's speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2r42SRvbM [from 25min onwards].

“Nothing’s for free, chap!”

Growing up in South Africa at the birth of a democracy and the growth of an immerging economy, the word investment become somewhat of a buzz word, a killer blow in our heated grade 4 debates. When posed with a difficult question from a friend in HSS(Human Social Sciences), I would mutter a half baked reply using a few “big words”, out of context might I add, to throw them off- right before I detonated my verbal grenade- “You don’t know we don’t want investment”. Oh when ignorance was bliss, the not so good old days. I had no idea what the word meant at the time of course, but what was apparent was that it is was important, and whether be it in the original Keynesian model, the Solow growth model or the maneconomy, investment is a theme that remains central to most things we deem important.

The etymology of the word investment is interesting for me. In the original meaning, which could be dated to 1590 or older, the meaning meant “the act of putting on vestments”. The modern day example would be the black garment (vestment) of a judge- which is a vestment and insignia of their rank and authority as an ecclesiastical official. I prefer this perspective when it comes to developmental leadership. Investing in your leadership eventually comes out in your vestments- the day to day look of how you view problems, understand the world and approach the common man. In the maneconomy model for leadership, it is impossible to hide your investments. What you consciously seek out as a contributor to your leadership mix will inevitably have a greater proportional effect on it than otherwise. What you choose to be a key driver of your growth, they are your vestments; you carry them as you lead.

This view will give you a completely different approach to growth or investment. The maneconomy model holds that what you invest in with regards to your leadership- is on display for the world to see. If it is loving people, that inevitably becomes visible. The same can be said for polar opposite objectives- profits, impact, fame, and power- in the end you cannot hide that which you’ve invested into your leadership. It is your focus; it is in how you treat people, it is in how you view yourself as a leader.

This perspective to leadership is the best path keeping tool any leader can have. As much as the investment function in the maneconomy is crucial- it is in its origin truly a vestige, a microcosm, a snapshot of the leader you have chosen to become. Think and choose wisely, like an investor would. After all- nothing’s for free, chap!

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the world was Cadbury?”

One of the most important aspects of your leadership will always be the input or influences you receive, in practical terms- your consumption. Now, to those screaming in their heads “he’s a purist”- hold your horses, I am in no way postulating an alarmist or extremist view of this principle, one that will advocate exclusion; as anything different is a “pollutant” or inherently corruptive. No! I am suggesting a more inclusive approach, but one that deals with the issue in its simplest form- C=TC. You cannot run away from it, you are the sum total of your influences- it all contributes to your “GDP”.

Though some may say the maneconomy approach to leadership is overly simplistic- I argue it is this unbundling of complex leadership tools that’ll sustain the code for not only good practice but continued successful developmental leadership. Think about it in its entirety, and by entirety I mean chronologically, everything you’ve ever done is directly related to some sort of input- some sort of teaching, influence, and even in the more biological functions, food or stimulation. As a leader- it is imperative to continually ask yourself what are you continually consuming that has you where you are right now? What could you do differently? What is your primary source of stimulation? This may be the difference between healthy leadership and subtle despotism.

This is essentially the goal of SAWIP. Coming to D.C has opened up something new in me- it has been a new input, a new dynamic, in reality- my Y can no longer be the same because of the nature of what I have consumed. We are always consuming- question is what are you allowing in your maneconomy? What role has this played in the leader you currently are? How will a change in consumption affect the leader you’re becoming?

In conclusion, there are a number of different aspects of the Keynesian approach we could’ve likened to this analogy, i.e. Marginal propensity to consume= how frequent a reader you are et al. I somehow feel as though that will detract from the primary message of the blog, the crux of the matter at hand. It is not about the quantity or propensity of your consumption- it is about the realisation of the mere fact that you’re always consuming, always being influenced, always learning. What you put in, is what you get out. Look around you- in part or whole- the state of your maneconomy as a leader is the sum total of what you’ve consumed.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the world was Cadbury? Sure- probably would be. Would we all survive if the world was Cadbury? No- we probably wouldn’t. What if it was Nestle? I think we might then. Lindt? Okay- I digress. Point is- when it comes to consumption, “nice” is trumped by future, convenience by growth. Actively engage in your consumption- it will steer your maneconomy towards its optimum.

“Let’s talk GDP=Y, this Gross Domestic Problem”

Oh GDP, my beloved friend. This is arguably the most obsessed over figure in global society. What is our GDP growth rate? GDP this GDP that? This, in my opinion, has created a broad disconnect between the real indicators of growth and development and those tailed for a different context ie highly formal economy.. For instance, GDP often does not include the informal sector- as it is revenue often not reported to the government as it is not taxed. It is this kind of common critique that makes this figure a problem; particularly in the context of developing countries, as the informal sector is a significant ratio of the total economic activity. This is the kind of “issue” that frustrates agriculturalists such as myself- I could only imagine the internal furry the feminist economists must feels, as most informal sectors in developing countries are both heavily populated and run by women.

I won’t be secretive about the revolving policy I adopted a few hours ago regarding my writing. I had made a completely different point with this initial “chapter 1” to the maneconomy series, but having had an incredibly personal and impactful session with Congressman James Clyburn and his daughter Secretary Mignon Clyburn with the SAWIP team tonight, I couldn’t help but be challenged to approach this differently. The walk to my bus stop became reflective; I now understood what the problem with this obsessed figure was.

In the maneconomy model of leadership, we will discuss in depth the many parts that will form composite of the whole you, and that whole you is your Y=GDP. In the world today, we are ironically plagued with an overwhelming number of position-driven leadership zealots, an egoist perspective of something best practiced from the floors of selflessness; the math doesn’t add up, does it?

The crux of the lesson was simple- the GDP is not a measure for it all. How do you measure hope? How do we measure welfare completely? We cannot always. Does this mean they are not the most important? Surely not! In the same way, the GDP for leaders ( goals, results, targets, mandates) can be blinding. Focusing on this alone creates extremity; a condition we will find hard to come back from once that culture is created in isolation. The Clyburn’s are competent, pragmatic and technocrats in all honesty- but they haven’t forgotten that the GDP alone is a problem.

They have kept their focus in one place- and that is people. I have not met people with more humility and reverence for the “bigger picture”, an understanding that beyond it all lays a possibility for the both of us. In the end, if the summative contribution of the different aspects of your maneconomy do not reflect your commitment to people- then I am certain we would have missed the plot, totally missed the target- what do our goals mean now? In the end we must be cognisant of the true work- and that is in the lives of others, for the lives of others. It is simple- we must not fall for the guise of the gross domestic problem.

“Rethinking linear programming: Reconsidering the leadership context”

“Limitless!” has to be one of my favourite movies of the past half decade. The basic idea that we could use more of our brain and to such a powerful extent is a concept we have all toyed with in the more jovial and often juvenile spaces of our imagination. I was thinking about it just this morning on my way to Higher Achievement- what if I remembered every single thing I intentionally set out to learn? Wouldn’t that be amazing? What would this mean to my leadership? How different would the world be?

The idea of infinite possibilities is one I agree with- wholeheartedly so too. I believe it should always form the backbone of our quest for dreams- but is blunt in building the rest of the frame or the substance of our vision’s vehicles of change. We are finite beings- and therefore we are finite leaders. The possibilities may be limitless like the sky above, but we, as individuals- are not the sky itself. Let that sink in. Rethink linear programming. It is time to rediscover the context for developmental leadership.

The idea of capacity is one not discussed enough in developmental leadership [particularly in the African context]. Programs such as SAWIP are invaluable in counteracting this phenomenon, but the normative attitude towards this subject has been somewhat ho-hum in a pragmatic sense. We still sit with an ambition vs skill mismatch; a “dream vs capacity” inequality to be exact. Together, with our resources, growing population and somewhat conducive pro-developmental conditions, the continent could build a future that could reach into the sky- but the tower still needs to be built. That should remain the focus for this phase of the continent's development- ensuring that the limitedness of our humanness- is maximized in our leadership functions to ensure the necessary growth is achieved.

In simplicity, the modern day leader in the developing world could be viewed as a growing small country- with a Keynesian model governing the framework of their maneconomy. Fundamentally, rethinking the context for leadership through the linear programming perspective would mean that we, as individuals, acknowledge that we’re limited, yet have an optimum that can effect limitless change. Unless we each find our own optimum point from the linear programming perspective- we will simply be frustrated and our leadership and efficiency will always be under the possible levels of success.

The maneconomy can be given by the following formula [Keynesian model] : Y= C+ I+ G+ (X-M)

Over the course of the next few blogs, I will tackle each of the contributors to this maneconomy model of leadership, to gain a clearer perspective on the role of each factor and its overall augmentation on our day to day leadership.

The sky is not the limit, a lack of understanding ourselves and our limitedness, is the limit. Successful leadership understands capacity. Successful leadership understands what it is- but also more importantly- what it is not!

“Leadership in a cup- The mighty do fall”

So, Spain lost. Wait, the reigning champions knocked out of the World Cup™ in the first round of the tournament. Let that simmer, understand the gravity of this reality in sporting terms. How is this possible? Are they not the greatest? I think this particular situation offers us a unique opportunity to analyse leadership and redefine some of the principles we dogmatise, and others we all too often don’t, often to our detriment.

I’d like to call this Leadership hara-kiri; symptomatic of the global leadership deficit- it is fast becoming ritual, that leaders’ fall.

Spain failed to adhere to two simple principles. First and most importantly, Success does NOT beget success. I think this is one of the negative by-products of leadership in general. In a world that relies heavily on systematic processes, we often rely on what previously got us there, even when faced with a changing global ecology; a dynamic global society. This Spanish side is almost identical from that of 2010. The players have now been past their best, some being well over 30. In essence, they were always going to be unable to adapt and change their playing style, “that’s not how we won the last world cup, son”.

This same principle is what creates room for a symbiotic relationship between the present and uncertainty of the future. Being conscious of this is what gives us the tools for risk aversion and innovation. In leadership terms- this is the hinge to our coping mechanisms.

The second and probably more difficult principle forgotten is that of humility. Now, if you’re like me, you’re immediately asking what does this mean pragmatically? And to that answer I’d say, hunger. Were the Spanish hungry enough? Hungry enough to forget past victories and methods of foraging to conquer the obstacles we face today? I don’t think so. Much like what Polaroid has become (or not become) today, a “has been”, so are many of the leaders who refuse to meet change at its beckoning. What liberated South Africa in 1994 is not what will work now. Neither will our methods of first stage post conflict democracy- repeating the same practices and expecting something different- the very definition of insanity. Polaroid, many absent fathers, Zimbabwe, Spain FA, Nabster, TDK- the principle holds irrespective of sector, nature or magnitude of one’s leadership role.

Remain humble enough to be hungry. Conscious enough to know that success does not necessarily beget success. This is the crux of progressive and transformative leadership, not reinventing the wheel- but understanding it can come in a variety of sizes with varied physical properties. This, I believe, will make the cliff longer, or omit the dagger- and the hara-kiri which has become ritual in today’s global leadership - will be counteracted. Everything rises and falls on leadership- including leadership too.

“Leadership in a cup- The Dutch Way”

The modern day Spanish football team is arguably the greatest in history. The only team to successfully defend the European championship sandwiched by an amazing victory in the historic 2010 World Cup here in South Africa- in terms of medal tally, they are arguably the best generation any nation has had. They are the greatest, not only because they won, but it is the way in which they won. 70% ball possession, 2,000 passes per game; their statistics were an anomaly at worst, a football Obelisk of Axum at best.

The other day the Spanish took on the Dutch team, the latter having lost in the previous tournament’s final to the same Spanish side, and many dubbed it a “grudge match”. All sensationalism aside, this match provided a unique leadership case study for a sport fanatic like me. Apart from the robust physicality and boyish competitiveness, I see sport as an analogy for life. The bedrock of the comparison being that most sport is both dynamic and static, you need an identity and culture, but you also need to be adaptive and responsive simultaneously- in order to reach what Franciscan Richard Rohr calls- a “necessary tension”.

As a change agent, your perspective is usually bottom-up. I totally agree with that too, as key drivers for reform and justice, our focus will always be with the least benefiting citizen. However, like I stated in my earlier blog “What’s in it for me?”, it is about levels. This is arguably the greatest value of SAWIP, the glimpse into the top-down perspective, which is typically the “leadership view”, while working to ensure that we don’t forget the more static components of our identity, which is largely our bottom-up rooted drive by ensuring we priorities servant leadership.

In essence, the lesson from the Dutch perspective is easy- we still play total football, just a lot more direct. In leadership terms- they have reached a necessary tension- the right balance between the dynamic and the static aspects of their team’s playing identity. They’re rooted in the Cruyff era of Dutch football, but play it on 2014 terms. It has transcended idolisation, the roots are now functional.

That is the challenge for us, as young leaders and young South Africans; balancing the dynamic and static, our history with the contemporary, finding that necessary tension; because it is necessary. Change or adaptation does not mean losing yourself; it merely suggests we’re adaptive enough as leaders to know 2014 is starkly different from 1976. This is the crux- this is leadership in a cup- well, the Dutch way at least.

“Aweh, bra”

I have a deep rooted fascination in colloquialism; how it changes with the generations and how both universal and region specific it can be. I am not saying I’m a lingual enthusiast per se[my Afrikaans teacher can attest to that to this day], but I am however intrigued by the ‘cool kids’ lingo- as it represents the “youth” culture on a broader scale, almost allowing us a gateway to that “level” of citizen. The same can be generally said about the older generation, and any other pigeonhole one may choose to view this idea through.

Personally, growing up in a postmodern society [as in postmodernism being highly sceptical of explanations[of life, belief etc] generally assigned to a group, but focuses on the relative[subjective, individual] truth[interpretation of life, belief etc] of each person] has posed some fundamental challenges for me. In a culture of “Nah dawg, I do me” and “I’m winning[which was revolutionarily introduced into our urban dictionary by Prof Sheen] “ or “Levels, chief[which would mean I’m on a “higher “ social or economic level than you are] how do we steer a generation away from me, myself and I? From “I just wanna ball” to “How I play the [ball]game is arguably just as important as playing”?

To sum this up in a nutshell- the conflict is rooted in my belief that everything we are/have [talents, resources, opportunities, education etc] is greater than ourselves as individuals. This is how I was raised. I was taught a ‘loaf brown’ was bigger than us alone, it could go further- and if circumstance necessitates, it must go further. The ironic reality is that I can hold this belief freely largely due to the postmodernist’s world view of global society. In the same way, the opposite can be held, whether be it a wasteful Skhothane lifestyle or a juxtaposed Vikter & Rolf civil servant paradigm. In essence, both polar opposite perspectives deal with one primary directive, what’s in it for me?

“Where’s my cut?”- Understanding the “in it for me” of servant-hood.

This past Monday I was in my other hometown(ship) of Bekkersdal. Part of the SAWIP curriculum is to complete a given number of community service hours. I thought why not “start at home”, so I decided to help the local clinic with their health promotion campaign, as issues of sanitation, TB, HIV/Aids, ring worms and the pox are a problem in the area, particularly in the larger shanty town bottom part of the kasi.

I spent a few hours walking this township which has been a contentious subject of discussion to say the least over the past 12 months, with the local health promoter, and we settled on a municipality sponsored early development centre(crèche) and an old age home. The understanding of “in it for me” of servitude took on a new light after the day.

Firstly, it’s about “Levels, chief”. No, not in that sense; but in the understanding that the broader demography which composites the nation’s citizens is greatly nuanced. Like colloquialism, the issues can be either universal(national) or regional; and understanding the challenges from both the top-down and bottom-up perspectives can only make us greater and more effective leaders. Think about it, unless we serve the elderly, how will we know what social protection policies to pursue? Unless we’re exposed to early development centres in underdeveloped areas of living, how could we possibly make sound assessments and suggest accompanying social policy to aid education reform?

Sure, the practicality and possibility of being exposed to every single area of need is highly improbable, but the gist of the principle is in being “plugged in” enough to be exposed, aware and informed. We are all equal, but we are not the same- there are levels, and if we are serious about serving and leading this nation, continent and world at large, we need to understand that it’s “Levels, Chief”. May we never be too accomplished for the street merchant, too sophisticated for the needy or dismissive of the “privileged and educated”; for all levels of people together, form the DNA of all citizens; domestic and global. Like I said- Levels, Chief!

The second, and more important idea to understand about the by-product(s) of servant-hood, is that it always does more for us, as the giver, than it does for the person receiving the aid.

Consider the following anecdote- the old man in the wheelchair (above) is my grandma’s cousin. That probably won’t resonate deeply with most of you, unless I give you the context of this meeting. Had I not served with the health professional at the old age home, I would’ve never met this man. I never met my grandma, but the stories he told[among other things] bore testament to the woman I believe she was. Sure, the experience may not have the same traction with everyone, but it does with me. It was personally enriching, priceless; a by-product we all too often neglect in our servant-hood ideology. Truth is, it’ll always be “in it for us” if we serve.

As a sport fanatic, we often discuss the validity of calling a player great [as if we are qualified by or in any way to do so………much like many of our fathers] and my criteria has always been “the intangibles”. Any professional basketball player can pass the ball, shoot, drive, jump or do anything else required. Truth is, the greats are great because of their intangible qualities, the belief they give their team in the 4^th quarter, their courage in times of adversity, the leadership on and off the court, the ability to take that clutch shoot in game 6 of the finals. In the same way, a servant-heart is what makes us great, it is what makes the different, it’s what will count when we’re in the 4^th quarter.

“Everybody can be great...because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.”― Martin Luther King Jr.

Service to others humbles us. Servant-hood helps us to connect to all people, however different or similar. Remember, it’s about Levels, Chief! You may ask what’s in it for me? Well, that’s simple- "the intangibles"- simply, greatness!

May we always serve!

“Lost in translation: To be, or not to be?”

Election time: promises, promises, promises. Heck, I feel as though if I played my cards right, had the right media presence in the right neighbourhood, I could get even Bantu Holomisa to promise me a house in Faerie Glen. Amidst outlandish state development plans and exhausting rhetoric, Freedom Day has passed. I chose the word “passed” instead of celebrated because the truth is, for some people, all today meant was braai’d meat and a beer, a day off from work, let alone the epitome of “the struggle”- this is no July 4^th.

If I look at this introspectively, I make the following conclusion- we [as in the generation born post 1989/90] don’t know what it means. What is Freedom Day? No, think about it. What does it even mean? To you? As a young South African? I woke up with a forlorn sense of patriotism; knowing today I would read about past heroes and hear our president sing in the customary annual ANC rally. Surely this day means more than gathering voter sympathy? I had to ask myself, what does this day mean to me?

I can imagine what this day means to those who grew up in the injustice we call Apartheid; for the “nie-blankes” of the time, this meant the right to be. Sure, the rights to equal education, economic opportunity, freedom of movement and a political voice were insurmountable in importance, but I believe, the significance of April 27^th 1994 was that it liberated South Africans to simply, be. No longer was it a crime to be of a certain ethnicity or background. The very mothers who left their children to raise others’ in the leafy suburbs, could just be. In the eyes of the state, the eyes of the world and the oppressor- everyone equal. Equal to be. Everyone free. Free to be.

No two ways about this. No misinterpretation. Those born into Apartheid South Africa knew what this day meant. Privileged and oppressed alike! Two decades later, many of us are lost in translation. As difficult as it is to quantify the liberation struggle of South Africans, one can loosely summarise it into one phrase: One citizen, one vote. Is this what many nameless and faceless South African’s laid down their lives for? This vote?

Please do not misunderstand what I am trying to say. This is in no way a rant or diatribe coated in euphemism. This is me, a young and patriotic South African, saying what does this day mean to me? To us? To my mother, it means the right to move. 38 years of being ‘illegal’ because of her skin colour, Freedom Day embodies her journey to here; democracy and liberation. What about us? What will this day mean to us? What will we tell our children’s children of this day when they have no reference for injustice of that kind?

I don’t know about you, but I do know about me. What this day will mean to me- is the right to be, for us too. The right to be young, the right to dream and the right to learn. The right to express ourselves, the right to stand for justice and the right to serve my people.

Sure- the translation was murky at first, but my conclusion is simple. Though this day may mean beating apartheid to my mother and her generation, overthrowing an unjust government and fighting for basic human rights and dignity; to me, this day means the right to be; young, South African and proudly myself. 27^th of April 1994, meant more than just one man one vote. It meant freedom for all generations, in whatever language they understand and in whatever context they would find ‘swaggy’. Incredible. Freedom day, to be, or not to be!

"An agriculturalists' perspective on collective leadership"

I know what you're thinking. "No! Not another one of these 'save the earth' people". Besides, we have far greater fish to fry right?, like clothing the orphans and feeding the poor? The irony.

Just to set the record straight though, I am not completely an environmentalist in the truest sense of the word. In fact, I believe, one cannot be wholly an agriculturalist and an environmentalist simultaneously. The two, though not entirely mutually exclusive, are often on polar opposites(i.e 'A union B' concept). Think about it, agriculture destroys the earth in its primary form, how then do you....I digress; let me rather get to the point- we can discuss the balance between these two ideas at a later blog.

This week we had the privilege of having the esteemed Dr Mokate talk to us about leadership. At the crux of her talk, was the pressing necessity for collaborative leadership across all sectors and levels; and that considering all the factors, inclusive leadership is the only solution for South Africa. I agree.

Fundamental to both the functioning and success of this idea pragmatically, will be the collective understanding of concepts such as "unity", "collaboration" and "collective approach". In a country where a multiparty democracy has led to more internal conflict from a pure self interest perspective, how do we rally the different levels of power into a "common good" direction, without disregarding the various positions of influence and interest they hold in this 'localised geopolitical' framework?

Another, more ideological obstacle we're faced with, is that of egoism, the curse which has plagued the African leadership DNA in recent times. This is what I've termed the 'big man, little man' problem. In modern Africa, those in leadership positions are now 'big men', too important, too entitled, too internally conflicted to serve, what they view as, 'the less important masses', the proletariat, you and I; the 'little man'.

To solve this "big man, little man" saga, we need to take this fight to the dusty constructs of agriculture.

1. “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”- Aristotle

The primary understanding that individually we may be purposeful, but collectively we are powerful, is fundamental in addressing the self interest aspect of this 2 sided solution. We are all just 'little men', and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we realize that only together, collectively, are we 'the whole'- greater, more efficient; the 'big man'. The potato is the seed, the soil, the sun, the water, the hands, the sprinkler et al. Collective impact is the "sum of the parts".

2. "The whole is simpler than the sum of the parts"- Willard Gibbs

Secondly, understanding that the whole is simpler than the sum, addresses the egoism problem, which is often rooted in the need to be 'difference' and/or to supersede. The parts are far more complex than 'a rainbow nation' or 'bridging the inequality gap', and this makes us all very important, both intrinsically and in function. All citizens and stakeholders are 'big men', which in fact, makes us all 'small men'- equal, and of same importance. The potato is simpler than the liters of water, kilograms of fertilizer and the production schedules and risk assessments.

The collective, sum; far outweighs the individual, no matter how independently purposeful the "part" is. It is on this premise, even as a SAWIP team, that we should anchor our leadership approach. For me, I now look to my left and right- to every team member and those around me; 'the soil and the sun'.

As accomplished as we all may be individually, collectively, the possibilities become probabilities. As we live by this, it'll be mirrored on a broader, more macro-scale. A Forrest doesn't grow in competition, only in co-operation.

I count it an honor to be a part of the "parts"- a South African, a student, a SAWIP(er), a leader.

This, is an agriculturalists' perspective to collective leadership: We all make the farm. Together, we WILL produce the needed product.

As we grow!