“WE need strong institutions, not strong individuals!” This is an exclamation which people may have heard or uttered several times. But, do people really understand what they intend to communicate when using such an argument? Oftentimes when people talk of strong individuals they speak of the leadership – the top most leadership.
The phrase ‘strong institutions’ is, to most people, not very clear. The new National Five Year Development Plan (FYDP III) that takes us beyond 2025 is a road map to significant changes that are expected, possibly post COVID-19 context. The COVID-19 has affected and is continuing to affect both households and national economies.
The FYDP-III is to be implemented by all of us: individuals as respectable and patriotic citizens, institutions and the civil society organisations at large. When we make reference to institutions in the nation, we speak of the executive, the judiciary, the legislature, private sector associations and umbrella organs, the civil society organizations, pressure groups and so on.
The efforts to build institutions that support national development and national planning are as old as the country itself. We have, however, had the executive, the judiciary and the legislature whose mandates and purposes have not in principle, since then, changed. However, one can argue that how they handle issues might have been changing from time to time.
The context and circumstances can influence what changes should happen and our perspectives on issues. Strong institutions or, using moderate terms of ‘effective institutions’ adapt and support the nation in its adaptation to the changes experienced. For example, we were able as a country to adopt multiparty politics in the early 1990s and to see a more prosperous Tanzania being created.
Capable institutions that existed could be credited to such a success! Nonetheless, the roles of strong individuals at the top leadership level cannot be down played. Changes at national level require the capacity to manage and whether the unexpected consequences that arise. It is important to note that strong leadership does not mean arbitrary leadership.
Leadership is strong and positively considered so when the rules are followed and are seen to be followed so that as a nation the larger national outcomes considered important are sought and achieved.
Accountable strong leadership requires strong institutions that also follow rules and are accountable. Strong institutions of that sort do not require only strong leadership of those institutions but also strong institutional members and strong citizens. Institutions are structural forms with purposes but comprise of individuals who are there for specific reasons.
These individuals are members of the larger society – the larger society has to follow rules and to care about rules and to be ready to be accountable and seek accountability in those entrusted with different societal-wide responsibilities. A very relevant piece on the issue of strong institutions could be found in a web posting by the UNA-UK (an independent policy authority).
It notes that there have been numerous efforts to create strong institutions in developing countries by the nations themselves and supported by multilateral organs. It also says that strong institutions are essential to a just and progressive society.
It, however, observes that despite the huge efforts corruption, injustices, and generally failure to follow rules characterize many developing countries. It argues that to create strong institutions is a painstaking task and has to be per context, not necessarily to follow Western models. In business discourses they speak of ‘Alpha leaders’.
These are leaders who make things happen. Among them, are those who make things happen and the change created is positive to organizational prosperity but does not endure. There are those change makers who make a big difference as well and contribute to institutional and societal development, they promote innovation and creativity and what they achieve endures.
Both types of leaders are needed in certain times: but at all times leaders have to seek to make a difference. If the institutions are weak, we probably need effective leadership.
A leadership that is aware of the weaknesses in our institutions, strong on purpose; nonetheless a leadership that follows rules and seeks to be accountable to the public. Robert Dilts describes Alpha leadership as a contemporary leadership model in terms of “triple A’s”: Anticipate Align and Act. Anticipating – awareness of the larger system the leader is acting; Aligning – the way a leader engages and interacts with others – achieving congruence in values and desires in pursuit of business goals and outcomes.
Acting – establishing what is important to achieve the business goals, and making the commitment to persist in areas that make a difference through clarity and constancy of purpose. There have been many efforts to build effective institutions in this country. We have had reform programs; new institutions created, relevant processes and systems introduced, capacity enhanced, business processes re-engineered, big results now initiative implemented, etc. We need the efforts to create strong institutions to continue.
More importantly we need all the heads of our numerous institutions in executive, the legislature, the judiciary and the civil society leadership to be Alpha leaders. Leaders who make a difference in their institutions and support the national development goals they are responsible for as per the Five Year National Development Plan that also seeks to strengthen institutions and the national capacity.
Mind you, as a leader, determine what is important, follow rules and see that rules are followed, seek results, do not tolerate non-performers but also create an environment that promotes creativity and innovation.
● Dr. Faisal Issa is a Senior Lecturer in Public Management, Mzumbe University Dar es Salaam Campus College