Political leadership is a troublesome role. One with often conflicting demands and which has the tendency to place its subjects in impossible and unenviable positions.

Ask any African leader, and if they’re honest, they’ll tell you. Even if they won’t publicly admit it to you, deep down they know the score.

Ladies and gentlemen, poisonous chalices … are in fact real. Especially if one’s economy is relatively small and weak. And there are relatively few people about who are tasked with the job of growing and strengthening that small and weak economy.

On one hand, it’s an established principle that a leader is elected by the people (or representatives of the people) to implement what politicians like to call a ‘mandate’. And which to an extent it is (sometimes as much as it is not – subject for another day). On the other hand, there are the realities of society (and public office) you have found (which “function” under a mountain of layers of allegiances, conventions, laws, bureaucracies, personalities .. and even customs), all of which are in flux, and some of which do not sit particularly well with the others.

So there’s often no guarantee that, if elected (or chosen by a party to replace your predecessor) you will be able to implement or change anything that matters to anybody to any considerable degree. In fact, one could say that the mere suggestion that you want to “transform” something, anything,… speaks more about your naivety (and ignorance about how government actually works) than about anything else. And it can be interpreted as a naked and shameless display of your arrogance (and ego), characteristics that are not always enviable in a leader.

Let me give you an example of a scenario that is more likely to be faced by some of the larger western economies in the world, but whose consequences would touch everybody.

If someone who is running for elected office in the UK, or in the US says they will champion a green agenda, to save the planet, etc, and will for example force car manufacturers to start making electric cars only, and that by some arbitrary year … 2030, 2035 maybe 2050, no new cars are to be sold in the realm, that are powered by petroleum fuels.

As much as such a lofty ambition may be noble, appealing to large numbers of Eco-conscious people, including some…who are pejoratively called ‘tree huggers’… and as much as it is true that greenhouse gas emissions need to be kept under control, nevertheless, how practical such a policy is in the real world, often reveals the interdependent dynamics of modern society in our globalised world. And it often reveals who truly holds power. When most economies are still significantly dependent on petroleum fuels and petrochemicals, and when oil companies continue to wield so much power and influence, can you truly de-tangle one’s country from the complex matrix of black gold?

So, whatever your response to the above question, your fantastic leader, as eloquent as they may be, will soon enough realise that they in fact need the oil companies more than they first thought. Because…God forbid if this little green agenda pissed off one of the larger ones, or if several of them in cahoots suddenly pulled the plug …not in 4 years time (when your term of political office has already run out ~ and the carbon emissions problems is someone else’s to contend with), but in 2 months time. And if they suspended production or supply to your country, and neighboring countries for a few … months. Here, let’s imagine a scene in a movie where some bored, fat, sweaty and smelly honcho in an oil field somewhere in the middle of nowhere suddenly decided to flick the ‘off switch’. Perhaps following orders from their superior who had some beef with one of your leaders, or who has some other sinister score to settle (these dudes are often seen dressed in a white traditional attire, head covered in a red and white Shemagh; or they can resembles one of those suited and cold-faced bodyguards you see hovering around Vladimir Putin)…, things would get a lot more than just a bit tricky, very quickly for you and the people of your country.

So of course if this hypothetical suspension of sales or production was extended, then maybe after a few years the oil producer’s economy would also begin to struggle. I say after a few years, because the chances are …if their economy is dependent on oil, they probably have financial reserves to keep them afloat for a few years without your money. Or they can sell the surplus to someone else with whom they don’t have as much hatred as they have for your leader. Thus, the oil producer’s economy might struggle a little bit, but only until they find other customers. And certainly not as much (or as immediate, AND sudden) as our idealist leader’s economy would do. And probably for not as long.

Anyway, if you think about it, as soon as global market catches wind of a reduction or disruption in supply (and in the absence of an increase from somewhere else), a few annoying things will start happening almost immediately.

The price of crude oil will rise. Within weeks Petrol and Diesel will become more expensive, and there will be shortages. Food prices too will shortly follow upwards. As will transportation costs. People will start taking a much closer look at the money they spend, and assuming nothing changes, they’ll start reducing spending. If the situation is not rectified within a few weeks, as had been the case during the COVID19 pandemic, these dynamics will negatively affect your economy, and may lead to job losses (so your welfare payments bill for supporting your unemployed people will rise). Businesses will start closing (since people have stopped spending), and economic stagnation will follow. In the worst case scenario industrial action and civil unrest (including by the same people who encouraged you to toss the oil companies away) will be the order of the day. And as the leader at the helm of all this chaos, some wicked person might decide put a bounty on your head.

To add insult to injury, some of your comrades in parliament, who sit under the same party banner as you, will start questioning your decisions and baying for your ‘blood’. As will the opposition parties, who will feel empowered by the many negative economic indicators. The media too, previously your best friends, will start denouncing you and calling you names. They’ll invite all your enemies on air – to make you look incompetent (even if in truth you are very much capable). Tax revenue collections by your country’s revenue collection body will decrease, which will probably necessitate raising taxes(or more borrowing), to balance the books – both unpopular moves that will surely upset many voters. So, soon enough you will have low approval ratings, and you will have become a liability to your own political party.

Oh, and the price of by-products like bitumen too will rise (so even infrastructure projects like building roads will start to cost more).

All these headaches just because some idealistic policy you thought was great rubbed an oil producer or two the wrong way?!

So then, although the above describes a simplified and unlikely scenario, thinking in broader terms, is it all worth the trouble?

Much more importantly, what does it tell us about the world in which we live in, and our dependence on oil? To add to that, if you are a developing country, and you observe dynamics similar to the above at play, what should be your long-term strategy?

https://x.com/EnergyInsights/status/1875470655719956552

The answer to that matters because as Malawi faces yet another fuel crisis (one of too many in recent years) that’s been on-going for a few months now, and that’s taking place in the absence of any such (nefarious) external factors, you have to wonder what our long-term plan is for building resilience against these internal shocks, beyond government borrowing and emergency fuel procurement. Because so far and considering the repetitiveness of these fuel crises, there is no evidence that such a plan exists at all.