History is littered with examples of great leaders. But whether they emerged from the metropolis of North America or the conurbations of Europe or squalors (slums) of the Islands or the favelas of South America, they all were considered great leaders because of the change they brought to their nation’s economies. But most importantly, because they showcase freedom!
 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt served as US president from 1933 to 1945, practically the longest serving president in America. He rose to the occasion to salvage the US from the depression years. In April 1935, he created the Works Progress Administration (WPA). WPA provided jobs for the unemployed. The key feature of Roosevelt’s WPA projects is that it did not syphon the private sector. Instead, WPA cooperated with the private industries. It built post offices, bridges, schools, highways and parks. It also gave work to artists, writers, theater directors and musicians. WPA was followed up by the National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act) which also created the National Labor Relations Board to supervise union elections and prevent businesses from treating their workers unfairly. In August 1935, Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act (SSA) of 1935, which guaranteed pensions to millions of Americans. SSA also set up a system of unemployment insurance – government became involved in the provision of critical care to needy children.
 
Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz created an egalitarian society in Cuba where the word “empowerment” acquired its highest honour. In no uncertain terms Castro declared, “I am not important, the people, not public, are.” And from 1961 he embarked on a remarkable educational/literacy campaign. The Cuban learned how to read and to understand their culture. Universal access to education and increased investment in people (human capital) remained a norm throughout his reign. Between 1989 and 1994, Cuba became a tourist hub for many Westerners – and still is. By 2008, tourism in Cuba was a viable industry. He revolutionized the health sector. The concept of “universal access to healthcare” was perfected in Cuba. There is no nation on the globe that can boast of having consistent surplus of medical personnel like Cuba. In Castro’s Cuba, doctors and nurses had become a humanitarian asset. Castro’s “Polo Cientifico” and the investment in the bio-technological sector has borne dividends for the island. Cuba opened up to foreign direct investment (FDI) in a big way. In joint venture arrangements of state firms vis-à-vis the fruitful collaboration in nickel, oil, gas and electric power generation with Sherritt International, and etc., Cuba emerged as a self-sufficient island in agriculture and, to some extent, mining and tourism.

Unemployment, especially after the 1993 recession, was hugely curbed. It is important to appreciate here that between 1989 and 1994, Cuba’s falling from grace from the Soviet’s subsidies as well as a 40% slump in income per capita, meant that Cuba had to look within itself for survival; Cuba remained t that closed from the international world mainly due to the US embargo on Cuba. But the resilience, work ethic and determination of the Cuban people under Castro helped them to rebrand by “depenalizing” the use of the US dollar, as well as legalizing the farmers’ markets, and liberalizing self-employment.
 
After the Treaty of Versailles signed on June 28th, 1919 (five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) Germany came out of the First World War deflated, impoverished and depressed. However, by means of two five-year plans, Hitler had reduced unemployment to 6%, attaining the highest possible standard of living for the Germany people. His fiscal policies fostered trust and confidence, to encouraging the private sector to hire and invest. This led to consumer spending “with an eye to the future.” By 1936, unemployment was brought down to its end. After taking power, Hitler and his new government launched an all-out assault on unemployment. They stimulated the private industry. This they did mostly through subsidies and tax rebates. They also introduced marriage loans, massive public-works programs which promoted housing, railroad construction and various projects.
 
Despite the aforementioned, why is it that although the three leaders greatly accomplished much for their people, only Roosevelt stands out as a historically recognized national transformer? I would like to propose three reasons. First, both Castro and Hitler did a lot economically for their people, under the circumstance. However, Franklin Delano Roosevelt has entered the annals of history as the greatest of the three because he honoured the rule of law. While both Castro and Hitler were great orators and economic planners, they ruled as tyrants and denied their people true freedom. The lesson for Zambia is that in true democracy, great economic architecture should move in tandem with the allowance for people’s liberties. Freedom is true empowerment.
 
Second, in free societies, the end does not justify the means. Although debatable, it is widely agreed by many observers that both Castro and Hitler had reshaped their countries’ economies. By 1936, in Germany, everyone had employment. By 2008, in Cuba, nearly over 95% of Cubans could read and write. These are phenomenal feats anywhere on the global. But these successes have been suppressed because of what the ends entailed. Hitler’s madness led him to autocratic rule, committing the world’s nastiest atrocities (holocaust) and subjecting the entire country to ignominy. Cubans under Castro lived in fear, and generally without true and democratic freedom. Castro had single-handedly ruled Cuba for nearly 50 years since the revolution of 1959! During all these years, democracy was permanently non-existent. He may be loved for standing up to the Americans, but overall, when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Cubans in the long run have not enjoyed freedom as citizens of the free worlds have. Castro himself admitted in, History Will Absolve Me, thus, “Once upon a time there was a Republic. It had its constitution, its laws, its freedoms, a president, a congress and courts of law.

Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people…had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they would do so. Public opinion was respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums and public meetings.” Although Castro accused Fulgencio Batista of having erased the freedoms the Cubans enjoyed, he, Castro, did very little, if not nothing, to sustain these rights and freedoms.
 
Last, Western states like the US and freed African nations have practiced historical injustices such as discrimination or tribalism, but the rule of law has always trumped the rule of men. Economic liberalization and political competition in most Western and democratic states worldwide have freed the citizens to be innovative and to thrive in economic enterprise. It is important to note that when people’s political freedoms are suppressed, even in the presence of good economic policies, productivity is hampered and the resultant effect is disillusionment.
 
Had both Castro and Hitler erred on the side of freedom and liberty, with the prudent economic policies they had in place, perhaps, Cuba and Germany would have emerged as some of the most powerful nations of the known world during the respective reigns of these two leaders. From Cuba and German we learn that strong, charismatic, intelligent and influential leaders are needed to revolutionize the nations. However, from the Americans we learn that strength, charisma, intelligence and influence tempered with the magnanimous qualities of liberality, fairness and compromise, as well as with freedom, are of great and sustainable impact on the people as a whole. African leaders in general and Zambian politicians in particular, must set very strong economic agendas (vivid economic plans on how to end poverty and liberate the people from shame and disillusionment) but at the same time must respect the laws of the land while protecting freedom and promoting the liberties of individual citizens.

By Charles Mwewa

Charles Mwewa is author of Zambia: Struggles of My People and has recently begun running a weekly column in the Zambian Eye called, “Law & Development.”