Leadership

“An anti-imperialist administration that has courageously reclaimed for Africans land appropriated through conquest and settler colonialism. An authoritarian regime that has disastrously manipulated the land question in order to maintain its hold on power…”

To any given set-up – political, economical, societal, cultural, or even moral in nature, leadership is very important. Leadership comprises the aptitude and ability to inspire and influence the thinking, attitudes, and behavior of other people (Adler 1; Bass, 5; Bass and Stogdill 2-5; Bennis and Nanus 6; Kotter 3). Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of other individuals in the achievement of a common task (Chemers 7). The major points of this definition are that leadership is a group activity, is based on social influence, and revolves around a common task. Although this specification seems relatively simple, the reality of leadership is very complex. Intrapersonal factors such as ideas and emotions, interact with interpersonal processes (i.e., attraction, communication, influence) to have effects on a dynamic external environment. Each of these aspects brings complexity to the leadership process. Leadership has different styles that a leader may follow or may not.

Somewhere between the broad personality trait and the specific behavior sits the leadership style. Styles reflect relatively stable patterns of response to social situations. Leadership style refers to the degree of direction that the leader provides to subordinates in attempting to influence their behavior toward the accomplishment of organizational objectives (Gibson & Marcoulides 45). The three styles of leadership are the authoritarian (autocratic) style (Lewin, Lippitt, & White 179-85), permissive (delegative) style, authoritative (democratic) style (Schriesheim 221-23; Newstrom 12). In this case, it could be said that autocratic leadership exists.

Authoritarian style (Huffman and Piggrem 8-10) of leadership states that the leader has the authority over his subordinates. In this manner the authority have the right to do the decision making without asking the opinion of the followers. The leader is this type of leadership tends to tell the followers what must be done in order to achieve the goals or objectives of the organization. Together with the leadership and its kind, leading must have the presence of law. These laws are used as guide in the governance of the chosen leader.

Zimbabwe is still a getting the same attention in the foreign affairs nowadays. Its lawless leadership under President Mugabe is worsening the lives of every inhabitants of the place. Historically, Zimbabwe has leaved its negative inheritance of an abusive colonialism (Bradley). To quote the said author, “The difficulty with analyzing the Zimbabwe situation through the lens of Western political values is that Zimbabwe, despite its rule by a Western power, has never been governed by the best principles of Western governance.” It is a known fact that all throughout the years, the rule of law is absent in the country. It is because the authorities believe that laws possess no significance in the operations of the state.

The leadership of President Mugabe resulted to starving and oppression within and among the people.

“The autocratic and despotic cycle of leadership must not be allowed to continue if people are truly concerned about the sanctity of human life and welfare of the people of Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans are being denied basic freedoms that would allow them to feed their families and stabilize the nation. Mugabe’s tyrannical mismanagement has allowed famine and disease to wreck a nation with enormous potential. (Bradley)”

The problem in Zimbabwe's case is that President Mugabe has failed to provide the leadership required to allow the government to shake off its malaise and take autonomy in economic policymaking to its logical conclusion (Mumbengegwi 47). Thus, there is a need of intervention of several forces such as the United Nation.

The role of United Nation in intervening to the current situations of Zimbabwe could be helpful. For several years, the United Nations Security Council has taken their part in helping some of the problems being faced in some countries. The UN Security Council is important especially in politics. For that way the leaders all throughout the world are sticking their heads together to solve particular problems especially in peace-war situations. Negotiations are done here. We live in a world there are 191 member countries of the UN have dramatically different interests, beliefs, and objectives with the key decision making body (Bailey and Daws 2-4).

Originally, the United Nations was created to advance human welfare; in particular, by the avoidance of war through co-operative efforts among sovereign states (Hurd 4-5). But the avoidance of war is a negative goal, and in positive terms the United Nations was to devote its efforts, or should devote them, to creating the conditions of peace in which disputes do not arise or, if they do, are resolved without recourse to armed force; in which basic human rights are protected on a non-discriminatory basis, economic and social advancement for all is promoted, international law is respected, and nations co-operate in those technical matters which affect the universal common good.

Furthermore, it is sometimes said that the United Nations has had more success in dealing with economic and social problems than in the field of peace and security. This is an assessment which it is difficult to substantiate in a scientific way, but we doubt whether the organization will have a useful future in the long term if it is manifestly failing to do what it should to preserve world peace (Bailey and Daws 8-12). It is on the Security Council that this primary responsibility rests. The phrase 'international peace and security' occurs twenty-seven times in the Charter; the next most important goal, 'human rights', is mentioned seven times.

However, there is a big problem on the role of UN in political and social situations of countries like Zimbabwe. It is the dictatorships and autocratic governments, as President Mugabe’s administration, around the world that cynically enmeshed themselves in organizations such as the UN Human Rights Commission and turned it into a parody of what it what created to do. Among prominent members of that Commission have been Cuba, Libya, China, and the Sudan, all fighting hard with considerable success to prevent any resolution involving their particular countries from passing through the Commission (Sarooshi 15). The political opposition and internal conflicts are also barriers for the entry of international coalitions. But then again, there are state affairs that are directed to their own debate and management.

Now, the leadership in Zimbabwe, which had been radicalized in the liberation struggle, sees a gradual transition towards socialism. Economically speaking, it decided to maintain the interventionist economic policies of the previous government, reorienting them towards socialist transformation, and to extend government intervention to the labor market. The leadership showed greater, albeit muted assertiveness of its members' interests: the relationship with government evolved from subservience to conflict.

According to Bradley, “Currently, the moral and cultural context necessary to institutionalize principles of national reform, such as rule of law based in the preservation of human dignity, property rights, individual liberty, free-market initiatives, entrepreneurship, improved education, and quality healthcare simply do not exist.” Thus, there is a great need for the Zimbabwe government to reform its constitutional objectives and agenda for the betterment of the nation and its people and other related aspects of governance. The intervention of international forces like countries and the UN has not yet proven effective.

With the materialization of international efforts to aid the ill fated situation of Zimbabwe, it is by virtue that development will envisage. The understanding of the roots of the problem and the lessons learned all throughout the nation’s history are best information needed to augment in the development of more socially oriented terms of governance. International reform over Zimbabwe will definitely end the conflict of ideology and the ghosts of the past will no longer chasing its international take off.

Thus, I disagree in the aforementioned statement.

Bibliography

Reading Materials

CODESRIA Bulletin. Editorial. Nos. 1 & 2. 25 Apr 2006 http://www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin/Bulletin1&2_2002_english_.pdf

Raftopoulos, Brian. The battle for the cities. 08 June 2005. Kubata.net. 25 Apr 2006. http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/opin/050608br.asp?sector=URBDEV&range_start=l.

Raftopoulos, Brian. The Zimbabwean Crisis and the Challenges for the Left. 23 June 2005. kubata.net. 25 Apr 2006. http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/opin/050623br.asp?sector=OPIN

Sources

Adler, N.J. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA:

Kent. 1991.

Bailey, S. and Daws, S. The Procedure of the UN Security Council.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998.

Bass, B.M. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The

Free Press. 1985.

Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M. The Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free

Press. 1989.

Bennis, W., and Nanus, B. Leaders. New York: Harper and Row. 1985.

Bradley, Anthony B. The Lawless Leadership of Zimbabwe. 02 Sept. 2002. Acton

Commentary. Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. 25 Apr 2006 http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=103.

Chemers, M.M. An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates. 1997.

Gibson, C. B. and Marcoulides, G.A. “The Invariance of Leadership Styles across

Four Countries”. Journal of Managerial Issues. 7(1995): 45-50.

Huffman, K. and Piggrem, G. Psychology in Action: Active Learning Edition.New

York: John Wiley & Sons. 2003.