The Democratic Alliance’s (DAʼs) federal congress, held last weekend, included a two-way leadership contest that pitted the incumbent, John Steenhuisen, against former Joburg mayor Mpho Phalatse and was noticeably dissimilar to the approach taken by the governing African National Congress (ANC).

Phalatse had put her hand up weeks before the congress. So too had the little-known Lungile Phenyane, who withdrew at the eleventh hour.

Openly declaring one’s desire to lead is the diametric opposite of what happens in the ANC, whose members are supposedly devoid of ambition and will not seek leadership positions unless they are nominated by the rank and file. I recall an interview in which Penuell Maduna, a former Cabinet Minister, vowed he would never again accept any leadership position other than as a sweeper at the party’s Luthuli House head office.

The exact timing and context of the interview escape me, but it could have been in the turbulent period following the recall (read sacking) of Thabo Mbeki as State President in September 2008 and the subsequent in-sympathy resignation of some of his Ministers. By then, Maduna had been out of government for a while. He had served as a Deputy Minister from 1994 to 1996 and as a full Cabinet Minister from 1996 to 2004.

The Maduna anecdote serves to illustrate that you don’t just become a leader in the ANC; your name has to be put forward first, and it’s up to you to turn down the nomination – which Maduna was certainly going to do, as per the interview whose timing I cannot remember – or proceed to election and hopefully emerge victorious. So, as far as leadership election goes, the DA and the ANC are like chalk and cheese. But I wouldn’t go as far as saying the DA is unique in South African politics; I’m not quite sure how the other political parties handle these matters.

By implicitly or explicitly discouraging party members from openly expressing a desire to serve in a leadership position, the governing party goes against a widely supported philosophical framework that is used to evaluate the ethical soundness of the conduct of individuals – ethical egoism.

This framework, which is as old as the hills, dating to the days of Plato, holds that self- interest plays a role in the actions of an ethical person, whose actions benefit others as well. In other words, there is no ethical dilemma when a politician is driven by self-interest, as long as his being in a position of leadership yields a world of good for broader society. Of course, I’m talking about ethical self-interest here.

I recall, about a decade-and-a-half ago, an African Presidential hopeful explaining how ethical self-interest works in politics. The fellow, who is of the bookish type, said American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – from physiological needs at the base to safety, belonging, esteem and self- actualisation at the apex – should be updated by adding an extra layer at the top, namely legacy. He added that, after he was gone, he wished to be remembered as someone who changed his compatriots’ lives for the better. So, this is what really motivates these people – the ethical ones, of course, as stories abound of some whose preoccupation once they are in public office is to line their own pockets.

Instead of ethical egoism, the ANC prefers the utilitarianist approach, which assumes that an ethical person is motivated by a desire to do the greatest good to the greatest number of people, while not necessarily worrying about his or her own self-interest.

Such people, I’m afraid, are few and far between. When wannabe leaders thrust their hands up, political parties must just let them be.