UNDERSTANDING POLITICS OF WISDOM, APPLYING CHESS TECHNIQUES:A CASE OF PROF. PETER MUTHARIKA

By Al Bashir bin Abdul Aziz In politics, foreseeing future moves is the basis of victory. Just like in chess, the pieces that make up the chessboard have differentiated value by their greater ability to attack. In politics, some positions have more value than others, due to their political influence, or their robust budget. Therefore, […]

The post UNDERSTANDING POLITICS OF WISDOM, APPLYING CHESS TECHNIQUES:A CASE OF PROF. PETER MUTHARIKA appeared first on Malawi Voice.

By Al Bashir bin Abdul Aziz

In politics, foreseeing future moves is the basis of victory. Just like in chess, the pieces that make up the chessboard have differentiated value by their greater ability to attack. In politics, some positions have more value than others, due to their political influence, or their robust budget. Therefore, more is always expected from these high-value pieces.

In both cases, the sacrifice of pieces is used as a strategy, being in chess to take a piece of greater value from the opponent and in politics for party composition.

This approach to politics demands political wisdom.

Political wisdom always acts as a jugular vein between the ruler and the ruled and the lack of same one or the other way lets the whole system fall numb.

These similarities of chess and the political game are not mere coincidences.

The case of Democratic progressive party (DPP) leadership has revealed the legitimacy of the long debated theories concerning the relevance of some party individuals. These individuals were just mere pawns who arrogantly set themselves up as political leaders, and forgetting their low value, tried to become kings.

Many times, people do confuse confidence with competency. DPP’s inhouse battle has exposed some hypocritical individuals who arrogantly manipulated the systems of the party and forced themselves as great/good leaders.

“Good” leadership is generally accepted as being both ethical and effective, on the other hand “bad” leaders tend to fail on one or both counts.

They either breach accepted principles of ethical or moral conduct, or they act in ways that detract from achieving desired results.

This distinction helps demystify leadership by highlighting that the qualities we least admire in others are also what scholars have long flagged as danger signs in leaders: arrogance, vanity, dishonesty, manipulation, abuse of power, lack of care for others, cowardice and recklessness.

Notably, though, bad leaders can appear charming, confident and driven to achieve, despite seeking power for selfish reasons.

Numerous studies have identified the ways in which narcissists and what are sometimes called corporate psychopaths can be highly skilled at manipulating people into believing they’ve got what it takes, but will typically lead in destructive and dysfunctional ways.

There is also a tendency to confuse competence – the actual knowledge and skills needed to perform a leadership role – with confidence. Good leaders tend to be relatively humble about their abilities and knowledge.

This means they’re better listeners, more sensitive to others’ needs, and better able to collaborate effectively.

Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika has showcased much wisdom in the way he has handled the battle within the party.

His patience has permitted a smooth elimination of unwanted individuals in the party. Such a high level technique of handling matters that seem to be conflictual is what constitutes wisdom in leadership.

The post UNDERSTANDING POLITICS OF WISDOM, APPLYING CHESS TECHNIQUES:A CASE OF PROF. PETER MUTHARIKA appeared first on Malawi Voice.