You cannot fail to have noticed how the media keep going on about leaders or the lack of them. South Africa, editors and commentators constantly complain, needs leadership and President Zuma is not providing it.
They forget that when President Mbeki was very definitely providing it - on Aids and on Zimbabwe, to take just two examples - SA supposedly did not like it at all. Or could it be most South Africans are realistic enough to know they have in fact little say or influence on how their leaders tackle issues anyway?
To throw some light on the subject, David Bullard recently asked on this site if it matters who leads the ANC, which gave everyone a chance to pitch for their personal favourite. Mr Bullard could have spared himself the abuse and his readers the trouble.
In his book 'Eight days in September', Frank Chikane, who worked one way or another with all the presidents between 1995 and 2009 and should therefore know what he is talking about, admits:
'Polokwane did not radically change the policies of the ANC ... it was more about the removal of Mbeki.' And he goes on to add: 'Those who were thinking .. it would be easy to change policies .. failed to take account of the fact that the party's policies could not be changed without the approval of a national (party) conference.'
In short, SA's problem (or if you prefer 'challenge' - we all seem more comfortable with that word these days) is little or nothing to do with the quality of our leadership. It is due to the fact that SA is not the 'democracy' it is said to be, but rather a monocracy or party-state.