The world is experiencing a convergence of private sector efficiency, public sector leadership legitimacy and democratic criteria in how countries and governments are led. There is growing agreement that the context of political leadership is deeply connected to societal interests.
The entry of billionaires into the political leadership arena, where the standards of competition 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 with.
Leaders have transformed into brands, whether as icons, legends, philanthropists or others. Their character reveals itself during their time in office, influencing what voters get from them. Their legacy will determine how a society envisions its growth and development.
Patrice Motsepe’s muted candidacy to lead the ANC, and potentially South Africa, warrants examination. The truth is that the ANC cannot avoid societal perceptions related to its technical capabilities and ethical leadership. Its continued influence will hinge on the calibre of leadership it showcases to enhance its public image.
Should it succeed, Motsepe’s candidacy would eventually enable the party to recover from the credibility challenges it has faced since May 2024. 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 ANC leadership race concludes with the emergence of leaders who have business transactional prowess, which the world is seemingly in demand of. In that case, South Africa might be on the right wicket with the Motsepe breed, even if Motsepe the person generates a different discourse.
The ANC remains the pole organisation with the social and political capital, even in its current compromised state, to provide a platform for newer breeds of leadership to rise to the challenge. This does not diminish the advantage of coalition arrangements in mitigating the risks that the country has been subjected to.
If Motsepe’s entry was a planned strategy, the social and political capital he now commands has been meticulously accumulated. The journey to his current position has been long and profoundly sophisticated. Consider the corporate social investment of the Motsepe Foundation, whose interventions in the faith-based community — particularly the Judeo-Christian section of it — have contributed to its growth.
Motsepe has cordial and invested relationships with leaders of several large churches. Some are political constituencies of note in their own right. He does not even need an open endorsement; history with such organisations is enough of an endorsement.
The success of Mamelodi Sundowns has earned him the endearment of soccer fans, including those from rival teams. The contributions to soccer, local and continental, have earned him a reputation for being a delivery-orientated person. His social investment successes, including the donations he makes to schools, youth activities, and the science and innovation safaris led by his wife, set him apart.
The absence of his name in corruption and state capture reports introduces into the political contestation context the ability for society to sharply raise this matter as a criterion for political leadership selection.
The transaction-defined terrain has made a decisive entry into the domain of political leadership. Motsepe records several self-initiated successes that are 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 South Africa’s democratic and constitutional order may be ready for it. If there is still a trust deficit between capital and the state in South Africa and the continent in general, Motsepe’s accumulated experience in both worlds diminishes it. He potentially introduces a new breed of trust surplus with a social conscience that the economic order requires.
He brings experience of organised business, notably the profoundly self-made business constituency he led as president of the National African Federation of Chambers of Commerce. He also led the Black Business Council, which lobbies the government on policy and plays an advocacy role to accelerate the participation of black businesses in the mainstream economy. The absence of his name in corruption and state capture 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.” Motsepe’s entry into this contest — whether he raises his hand or it is raised for him — has made him the proverbial baboon on the tree of politics. The higher he climbs, the more he will be in the open and on display.
Leaders from the private sector 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.
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. Motsepe’s 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.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.