By Tinashe T. T. Mpasiri | 12 October 2026

Nine years ago today, on 12 October 2017, I joined Lucy Bodumele on The 1873 FM for a conversation on leadership literacy under the theme “Leaders Misunderstood vs Unrealistic Expectations.” Our guest was the late Hon. Mosiuoa Lekota, a veteran of South Africa’s liberation struggle, former Minister of Defence and founding figure of the Congress of the People (COPE).

The broadcast formed part of our efforts to examine ideas shaping public understanding of leadership, governance and the responsibilities of those occupying public office.

Revisiting that conversation nine years later, I find myself reflecting not only on Lekota’s observations but also on the assumptions underlying our original theme. What exactly happens when we describe one human being as a leader and another as a follower?

When Public Office Becomes an Opportunity

During our conversation, Lekota observed:

“The calling to leadership is misunderstood by some in public office as an opportunity to enrich themselves and their families.”

He argued that leadership was a calling to serve the people.

His observation distinguished the purpose of public office from the personal interests of those entrusted with its responsibilities.

A president, minister or member of Parliament exercises authority established through constitutional and legal arrangements. That authority is neither created by the individual nor owned by the person exercising it. Officeholders change, while the institutions and offices they occupy may continue.

Yet public discourse frequently attaches greater significance to personalities than to the institutional arrangements defining their powers, responsibilities and limitations.

Perhaps this is where some unrealistic expectations begin.

When Commitment Is Misunderstood

Lekota also reflected on former President Thabo Mbeki, describing him as a deeply committed individual who was nevertheless misunderstood as aloof.

His observation highlighted the distinction between personal conduct and public perception.

An individual may devote considerable effort to discharging responsibilities while others interpret that conduct differently. Equally, personal commitment does not necessarily establish that every decision taken was appropriate or beneficial.

Lekota’s assessment reflected his experience of Mbeki. Others may reasonably hold different views.

What matters is whether our judgments about those occupying public office are informed by their conduct, decisions and measurable contributions, or predominantly by impressions formed around their personalities.

The distinction is important because popularity, accessibility and competence are not interchangeable qualities.

When Constitutional Office Meets Political Judgment

Lekota was equally forthright in his assessment of then-President Jacob Zuma, questioning how Zuma had come to take the oath of South Africa’s highest office.

His criticism provided an opportunity to distinguish constitutional authority from personal judgment.

In a constitutional democracy, an individual assumes public office through prescribed legal processes. Those processes establish the legal basis for exercising authority, while the individual’s conduct remains subject to scrutiny and accountability.

A person may lawfully occupy an office without enjoying universal confidence in their competence or judgment. Equally, disagreement with an officeholder does not, by itself, invalidate the constitutional process through which that person assumed office.

Without an appreciation of this distinction, political disagreements risk becoming contests between personalities while the institutions through which public authority is exercised escape adequate examination.

Are Leaders Misunderstood, or Is Leadership Misunderstood?

Looking back at our original theme, I recognise an assumption we did not sufficiently interrogate.

We asked whether leaders were misunderstood or subjected to unrealistic expectations. The question presumed that leaders constituted a distinct category of human beings.

Today, I would begin elsewhere.

Human beings exist. Public offices exist. Institutions are established through human action and legal arrangements. Leadership, however, is an idea used to describe particular forms of human conduct, influence and responsibility.

When one individual is designated a leader and another a follower, what does that classification do to their understanding of personal agency?

Consider ordinary human experience.

When a person experiences hunger, they recognise a need and may act to satisfy it. When confronted with a problem, they possess the capacity to investigate, think and pursue a solution within their circumstances and available resources.

These capacities are not reserved for individuals holding titles or occupying public office.

Yet in public affairs, people can become accustomed to speaking as though identifying problems, developing solutions and determining collective outcomes are responsibilities belonging principally to a select few.

Have we constructed an understanding of leadership that encourages human beings to surrender responsibilities they are themselves capable of exercising?

Responsibility Is Not Superiority

Human cooperation requires coordination. Institutions assign responsibilities, establish procedures and confer authority on individuals to perform particular functions.

These arrangements are necessary for organised collective action.

The difficulty arises when the assignment of responsibility is mistaken for evidence of superior human capacity.

A president possesses constitutional powers that ordinary citizens do not. That does not mean the president has a monopoly on intelligence, judgment, initiative or the ability to contribute to solving problems.

Similarly, citizens may lack executive authority without lacking the capacity to question decisions, organise, advance proposals or contribute to public affairs.

Delegating authority is fundamentally different from surrendering agency.

The former enables institutional cooperation. The latter creates dependence on personalities.

Perhaps some expectations placed on those described as leaders become unrealistic precisely because individuals expect one person to accomplish what requires the knowledge, effort and participation of many.

From Leadership Literacy to Institutional Literacy

Our 2017 conversation examined the conduct and responsibilities of individuals entrusted with public authority. Nine years later, I believe the inquiry can be extended to the institutions within which that authority is exercised.

A president does not own the presidency. A minister does not own a ministry. A member of Parliament does not personally own the authority vested in Parliament.

Each occupies a legally defined position within an institutional arrangement.

The South African Constitution establishes public institutions, distributes powers and provides mechanisms through which the exercise of authority may be scrutinised and held accountable.

Citizens are not merely spectators within this arrangement. They possess rights enabling them to express views, associate, petition, participate in public affairs and challenge unlawful exercises of public power.

When these rights and institutional mechanisms are poorly understood, expectations become concentrated on individuals while opportunities for meaningful participation remain underutilised.

Leadership literacy should therefore be accompanied by constitutional and institutional literacy.

The purpose should not merely be to teach people how to identify good or bad leaders. It should be to enlarge their understanding of how institutions function, how authority is exercised and what responsibilities individuals retain within society.

Nine Years Later

I remain grateful for the opportunity Lucy Bodumele and I had to engage the late Hon. Mosiuoa Lekota on The 1873 FM. His willingness to share his experiences and political judgments contributed to a conversation whose underlying questions remain relevant.

I also remember the late Raphael Moyo, who helped promote the discussions through which we sought to make knowledge accessible to a wider audience.

What has changed is not my appreciation of that conversation, but the questions I would now bring to it.

In 2017, we examined whether leaders were misunderstood or burdened with unrealistic expectations. In 2026, I find myself questioning the classification itself.

Does describing someone as a leader merely identify a responsibility, or does it encourage others to believe that the individual possesses answers and capabilities unavailable to them?

Institutions do not act independently of human beings. It is people, acting within or through institutional arrangements, who make decisions and produce consequences.

Perhaps the greatest danger is not simply that those described as leaders misunderstand their responsibilities, but that those described as followers misunderstand their own agency.

The question is no longer merely whether leaders are misunderstood or expectations are unrealistic. It is whether our understanding of leadership has caused us to misunderstand the human being.

Observe. Learn. Serve. Earn.

#CorporateHeritage #LeadershipLiteracy #TheAfricaIWant #BOAF