Opinion / Columnist
Mnangagwa should learn from Ramaphosa's mature approach to international recognition
9 hrs ago | Views
On the global stage, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has long been an emblem of measured leadership and diplomatic tact, in stark contrast to his counterpart in Zimbabwe, President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
A recent development at the G20 summit exemplifies the differences between these two leaders, shedding light on the profound contrast in how they approach international recognition and their leadership personas.
Yesterday, President Cyril Ramaphosa assumed the chairmanship of the G20, a group of the world's most advanced economies, signaling South Africa's role in shaping global economic discussions.
Yet, what struck observers the most was not the grandeur of this event, but the sheer level of composure and humility with which it was handled by both Ramaphosa and the South African government.
Unlike Zimbabwe's government, which often elevates mundane events into moments of hyperbolic national pride, the South African media and public hardly made a fuss about the G20 chairmanship.
It was treated as a standard, yet significant diplomatic achievement—a natural progression in the country's ongoing commitment to global engagement and leadership.
In sharp contrast, the attention given to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) chairmanship, which was assumed by Mnangagwa in August 2024, bordered on the absurd.
The ZANU-PF government and state-controlled media spared no effort in making Mnangagwa's assumption of this largely ceremonial and rotational position seem like the crowning achievement of his presidency.
Mnangagwa's supporters went so far as to describe the SADC chairmanship as an “election” based on his “outstanding leadership”—a narrative that was repeated ad nauseam on Zimbabwe's state broadcaster, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC).
At every public appearance, Mnangagwa was hailed as the “SADC Chairman,” a title that he seemed to wear with a certain pride that could only be described as misplaced.
The embarrassing spectacle surrounding Mnangagwa's SADC appointment stands in sharp contrast to the quiet dignity with which Ramaphosa navigates international engagements.
In the run-up to South Africa's chairmanship of the G20, there was no delusion of grandeur or excessive glorification.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The ANC government did not trumpet this as a personal victory for Ramaphosa or the party.
Instead, it was framed as a testament to South Africa's continued role in global affairs and its contribution to shaping the world's economic future.
There was no attempt to position the G20 chairmanship as a personal triumph for the president, nor was there an effort to mislead the public into thinking it held some exclusive or special power over the world's largest economies.
For the most part, the announcement of the chairmanship was treated as important yet ordinary news—one among many other diplomatic milestones in South Africa's history.
The Danger of Inflated Leadership
Mnangagwa's behavior, as exemplified by his handling of the SADC chairmanship, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a true leader on the international stage.
In Africa, and indeed around the world, there are many ceremonial and rotational leadership positions that are often stripped of significant power or influence.
These roles, while valuable, are often temporary and do not reflect the merit of an individual or the greatness of a nation.
The SADC chairmanship is one such position.
It rotates between member states, and the chair's responsibilities are largely to facilitate dialogue, mediate regional issues, and preside over the periodic meetings of heads of state, as can be seen with the SADC Extraordinary Summit currently taking place in Harare.
Yet, for Mnangagwa and the ZANU-PF, the SADC chairmanship became an opportunity for self-aggrandizement.
By treating this position as a form of regional presidency, they not only misled the people of Zimbabwe but also made the country appear desperate for validation.
This inflated sense of importance surrounding the SADC chairmanship feeds into the narrative of Zimbabwe's leadership being disconnected from reality.
Besides, what has Mnangagwa to show for his term as SADC chair, except meddling in regional countries' internal democratic processes?
Did we not watch in utter horror as ZANU-PF top officials openly campaigned for then ruling Botswana Democratic Party before its defeat in elections early this month?
Is that not why Mnangagwa was booed by Batswana as he attended the new president Duma Boko's inauguration?
It is even worse in Mozambique, where there are credible reports that Zimbabweans, who are ZANU-PF supporters, registered to vote and actually voted in the country's October 2024 elections.
Is there any wonder why the election results, in which the ruling FRELIMO party's presidential candidate Daniel Chapo won by over 70%, have been outrightly rejected by the opposition leading to the unrest we are currently witnessing in Mozambique, where over 20 people have already died?
In fact, is that not one of the reasons there is a SADC Extraordinary Summit currently taking place in Zimbabwe to look into the ongoing unrest in Mozambique - problems whose genesis can also be attributable to the SADC chairman?
How ironic and embarrassing!
The truth is that Zimbabwe has more pressing issues to focus on - issues that directly impact the lives of millions of its citizens, such as economic instability, widespread poverty, and a national electricity crisis.
For any president, especially one presiding over a country with as many challenges as Zimbabwe, the goal should be to act with restraint, maturity, and humility.
Inflating the significance of a position like the SADC chairmanship not only misrepresents the power dynamics of the region but also risks embarrassing the country on the international stage.
Global leaders are not impressed by self-congratulatory rhetoric or hollow displays of power.
Rather, they are drawn to leaders who have the maturity to understand their limitations and the wisdom to prioritize substantive leadership over symbolic gestures.
The Ramaphosa Example
South Africa's approach to leadership, especially under Cyril Ramaphosa, offers a much-needed example of how to handle international recognition with dignity.
Ramaphosa, despite his own challenges in South Africa, has consistently exhibited a level of maturity that eludes many of his African counterparts.
When South Africa assumed the chairmanship of the BRICS group in 2023, another prestigious global role, there was no deluge of state-sponsored celebrations or self-congratulatory speeches.
Instead, the ANC government treated the BRICS chairmanship as a logical next step in the country's ongoing diplomatic engagement with emerging economies, and the media coverage was, for the most part, measured and sober.
South Africa's leadership role in BRICS was framed as a reflection of the country's collective achievements, rather than an individual's political victory.
Ramaphosa's calm and pragmatic approach to leadership has allowed South Africa to retain a certain level of credibility on the international stage.
Whether in the BRICS, G20, or other international forums, the emphasis has always been on cooperation and dialogue rather than on individual triumph.
South Africa has consistently emphasized its role in building bridges between different geopolitical blocs, all while being candid about the domestic challenges it faces.
This level of maturity is crucial for any African leader aiming to command respect both at home and abroad.
The Struggles of Mnangagwa's Leadership
In contrast to Ramaphosa's leadership style, Mnangagwa has yet to present a coherent vision for Zimbabwe's future that matches the expectations of the international community.
The specter of electoral fraud, state-sponsored violence, and accusations of human rights violations continue to haunt Mnangagwa's presidency.
Zimbabwe's political landscape is marred by a lack of genuine democratic practices, and the economy is in a perpetual state of decline, with millions living in extreme poverty, facing food insecurity, unemployment, and lack of access to basic services such as clean water and electricity.
In this context, the desire for international recognition may come from a place of desperation.
The constant references to his role as SADC chair can be interpreted as an attempt to offset domestic discontent and the mounting challenges Zimbabwe faces.
However, this approach is not sustainable.
No amount of international titles or ceremonial leadership positions can mask the reality of economic collapse and political repression at home.
If Mnangagwa truly wishes to elevate Zimbabwe's standing on the international stage, he must focus on addressing the root causes of his country's struggles—by improving governance, fostering economic growth, and promoting genuine political reforms.
For a leader like Mnangagwa, who faces growing internal discontent, international titles should not be treated as an end in themselves.
Instead, these positions should be seen as opportunities to advance national interests, to build diplomatic bridges, and to create real economic benefits for the people.
The lesson here is clear: international recognition should not be a tool for personal aggrandizement, but rather a means to achieve tangible improvements for the nation.
Conclusion: The Maturity of Leadership
In the final analysis, the contrast between Mnangagwa and Ramaphosa's handling of international leadership appointments serves as a cautionary tale for any African leader.
It is important to understand that power and prestige, in the form of international appointments, are not ends in themselves.
What truly matters is how these positions are used to benefit the people and advance the nation's interests.
Inflating the significance of ceremonial roles may provide temporary satisfaction, but it ultimately damages the credibility of the leader and the nation they represent.
Emmerson Mnangagwa would do well to learn from Cyril Ramaphosa's example.
Leadership is not about grandstanding or creating illusions of power.
It is about maturity, restraint, and a commitment to the people.
If Mnangagwa can shift his focus from self-promotion to genuine leadership, he may begin to find a way out of Zimbabwe's long-standing crises.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
A recent development at the G20 summit exemplifies the differences between these two leaders, shedding light on the profound contrast in how they approach international recognition and their leadership personas.
Yesterday, President Cyril Ramaphosa assumed the chairmanship of the G20, a group of the world's most advanced economies, signaling South Africa's role in shaping global economic discussions.
Yet, what struck observers the most was not the grandeur of this event, but the sheer level of composure and humility with which it was handled by both Ramaphosa and the South African government.
Unlike Zimbabwe's government, which often elevates mundane events into moments of hyperbolic national pride, the South African media and public hardly made a fuss about the G20 chairmanship.
It was treated as a standard, yet significant diplomatic achievement—a natural progression in the country's ongoing commitment to global engagement and leadership.
In sharp contrast, the attention given to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) chairmanship, which was assumed by Mnangagwa in August 2024, bordered on the absurd.
The ZANU-PF government and state-controlled media spared no effort in making Mnangagwa's assumption of this largely ceremonial and rotational position seem like the crowning achievement of his presidency.
Mnangagwa's supporters went so far as to describe the SADC chairmanship as an “election” based on his “outstanding leadership”—a narrative that was repeated ad nauseam on Zimbabwe's state broadcaster, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC).
At every public appearance, Mnangagwa was hailed as the “SADC Chairman,” a title that he seemed to wear with a certain pride that could only be described as misplaced.
The embarrassing spectacle surrounding Mnangagwa's SADC appointment stands in sharp contrast to the quiet dignity with which Ramaphosa navigates international engagements.
In the run-up to South Africa's chairmanship of the G20, there was no delusion of grandeur or excessive glorification.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The ANC government did not trumpet this as a personal victory for Ramaphosa or the party.
Instead, it was framed as a testament to South Africa's continued role in global affairs and its contribution to shaping the world's economic future.
There was no attempt to position the G20 chairmanship as a personal triumph for the president, nor was there an effort to mislead the public into thinking it held some exclusive or special power over the world's largest economies.
For the most part, the announcement of the chairmanship was treated as important yet ordinary news—one among many other diplomatic milestones in South Africa's history.
The Danger of Inflated Leadership
Mnangagwa's behavior, as exemplified by his handling of the SADC chairmanship, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a true leader on the international stage.
In Africa, and indeed around the world, there are many ceremonial and rotational leadership positions that are often stripped of significant power or influence.
These roles, while valuable, are often temporary and do not reflect the merit of an individual or the greatness of a nation.
The SADC chairmanship is one such position.
It rotates between member states, and the chair's responsibilities are largely to facilitate dialogue, mediate regional issues, and preside over the periodic meetings of heads of state, as can be seen with the SADC Extraordinary Summit currently taking place in Harare.
Yet, for Mnangagwa and the ZANU-PF, the SADC chairmanship became an opportunity for self-aggrandizement.
By treating this position as a form of regional presidency, they not only misled the people of Zimbabwe but also made the country appear desperate for validation.
This inflated sense of importance surrounding the SADC chairmanship feeds into the narrative of Zimbabwe's leadership being disconnected from reality.
Besides, what has Mnangagwa to show for his term as SADC chair, except meddling in regional countries' internal democratic processes?
Did we not watch in utter horror as ZANU-PF top officials openly campaigned for then ruling Botswana Democratic Party before its defeat in elections early this month?
Is that not why Mnangagwa was booed by Batswana as he attended the new president Duma Boko's inauguration?
It is even worse in Mozambique, where there are credible reports that Zimbabweans, who are ZANU-PF supporters, registered to vote and actually voted in the country's October 2024 elections.
Is there any wonder why the election results, in which the ruling FRELIMO party's presidential candidate Daniel Chapo won by over 70%, have been outrightly rejected by the opposition leading to the unrest we are currently witnessing in Mozambique, where over 20 people have already died?
In fact, is that not one of the reasons there is a SADC Extraordinary Summit currently taking place in Zimbabwe to look into the ongoing unrest in Mozambique - problems whose genesis can also be attributable to the SADC chairman?
How ironic and embarrassing!
The truth is that Zimbabwe has more pressing issues to focus on - issues that directly impact the lives of millions of its citizens, such as economic instability, widespread poverty, and a national electricity crisis.
For any president, especially one presiding over a country with as many challenges as Zimbabwe, the goal should be to act with restraint, maturity, and humility.
Global leaders are not impressed by self-congratulatory rhetoric or hollow displays of power.
Rather, they are drawn to leaders who have the maturity to understand their limitations and the wisdom to prioritize substantive leadership over symbolic gestures.
The Ramaphosa Example
South Africa's approach to leadership, especially under Cyril Ramaphosa, offers a much-needed example of how to handle international recognition with dignity.
Ramaphosa, despite his own challenges in South Africa, has consistently exhibited a level of maturity that eludes many of his African counterparts.
When South Africa assumed the chairmanship of the BRICS group in 2023, another prestigious global role, there was no deluge of state-sponsored celebrations or self-congratulatory speeches.
Instead, the ANC government treated the BRICS chairmanship as a logical next step in the country's ongoing diplomatic engagement with emerging economies, and the media coverage was, for the most part, measured and sober.
South Africa's leadership role in BRICS was framed as a reflection of the country's collective achievements, rather than an individual's political victory.
Ramaphosa's calm and pragmatic approach to leadership has allowed South Africa to retain a certain level of credibility on the international stage.
Whether in the BRICS, G20, or other international forums, the emphasis has always been on cooperation and dialogue rather than on individual triumph.
South Africa has consistently emphasized its role in building bridges between different geopolitical blocs, all while being candid about the domestic challenges it faces.
This level of maturity is crucial for any African leader aiming to command respect both at home and abroad.
The Struggles of Mnangagwa's Leadership
In contrast to Ramaphosa's leadership style, Mnangagwa has yet to present a coherent vision for Zimbabwe's future that matches the expectations of the international community.
The specter of electoral fraud, state-sponsored violence, and accusations of human rights violations continue to haunt Mnangagwa's presidency.
Zimbabwe's political landscape is marred by a lack of genuine democratic practices, and the economy is in a perpetual state of decline, with millions living in extreme poverty, facing food insecurity, unemployment, and lack of access to basic services such as clean water and electricity.
In this context, the desire for international recognition may come from a place of desperation.
The constant references to his role as SADC chair can be interpreted as an attempt to offset domestic discontent and the mounting challenges Zimbabwe faces.
However, this approach is not sustainable.
No amount of international titles or ceremonial leadership positions can mask the reality of economic collapse and political repression at home.
If Mnangagwa truly wishes to elevate Zimbabwe's standing on the international stage, he must focus on addressing the root causes of his country's struggles—by improving governance, fostering economic growth, and promoting genuine political reforms.
For a leader like Mnangagwa, who faces growing internal discontent, international titles should not be treated as an end in themselves.
Instead, these positions should be seen as opportunities to advance national interests, to build diplomatic bridges, and to create real economic benefits for the people.
The lesson here is clear: international recognition should not be a tool for personal aggrandizement, but rather a means to achieve tangible improvements for the nation.
Conclusion: The Maturity of Leadership
In the final analysis, the contrast between Mnangagwa and Ramaphosa's handling of international leadership appointments serves as a cautionary tale for any African leader.
It is important to understand that power and prestige, in the form of international appointments, are not ends in themselves.
What truly matters is how these positions are used to benefit the people and advance the nation's interests.
Inflating the significance of ceremonial roles may provide temporary satisfaction, but it ultimately damages the credibility of the leader and the nation they represent.
Emmerson Mnangagwa would do well to learn from Cyril Ramaphosa's example.
Leadership is not about grandstanding or creating illusions of power.
It is about maturity, restraint, and a commitment to the people.
If Mnangagwa can shift his focus from self-promotion to genuine leadership, he may begin to find a way out of Zimbabwe's long-standing crises.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
