Cambridge, Massachusetts - The media is alive with speculation about Mamphele Ramphele's political ambitions. Is this more banging on the drum of desperation by the media, or can she learn from the error of those that preceded her?

Whether a party succeeds or fails in the Internet age is often present at its beginning.  And so there may be some useful lessons from the birth of the Independent Democrats and the Movement for Democratic Change (Zimbabwe). They, and even Cope, were founded on the cult of personality; charismatic leaders were sought to lead Zimbabwe and South Africa from the desert of failed politics.

Why did all three fail to meet their early promise?

In 2000, before Zimbabwe's presidential election, I was asked to consult to charismatic trade unionist, Morgan Tsvangirai and his new political party, the Movement for Democratic Change. I continued that work, sporadically, for four years.

The MDC evolved from the trade union movement to oppose President Robert Mugabe who in 2000 was a very similar beast to President Jacob Zuma in 2013. Political wily, Mugabe morphed from being a liberation hero 20 years earlier to a person divorced from the concerns of his people and interested in little more than furthering his own ambitions.

 And so Morgan Tsvangirai, a poorly educated trade unionist was inspiring with his integrity and his ability to mobilise and inspire significant numbers of people.

What most impressed me was the depth of his concern, and his love for, the working and unemployed poor of his country. In 2000 he would make diplomats and business wait while he listened patiently to peasants who petitioned him. 

But the MDC in 2000 was preparing to fight for presidential leadership with no policy documents, but for a hastily cobbled economic strategy written by Eddie Cross.

And here is the first lesson of political leadership: you can't form a political party around a symbol - one person - and hope that will bring miracles. It would seem self-evident, and yet it is astonishing how often this is ignored. To be successful a political party has to have a political strategy and a powerful leadership mantle.

Morgan Tsvangirai in 2000 carried the potential to be a second Mandela, but within a year he became distracted by the differing political directions being fired at him by the British and American governments, and the fat purses they proffered. And that is the second lesson for new political parties, don't become the puppet of your funders. You need the strength that comes from a political strategy or plan to stand your ground and project coherent direction. 

Your funders need to buy into your plan, not the other way around.

The third necessity is to know your personal weaknesses and how they may sabotage the future. Tsvangirai, always anxious about his lack of tertiary education promoted lawyers within the MDC. He ignored the powerful MDC Women's Assembly and its charismatic leaders - if he had embraced them they, with more than half the voting population behind them, could have protected him from his next error.

Tsvangirai started out wanting true freedom for his people, the lawyers wanted power, and as the views of the lawyers prevailed, and those of foreign funders, Tsvangirai began faltering; the party became factional, most often under those same power-hungry lawyers.

Many of those flaws were echoed in the formation of the Independent Democrats and Cope. Let's take Patricia de Lille; by 2003, it was clear that the 1999 arms deal was leading us into the future South Africa experiences today - corruption, political murders, and venal self-interest. The fiery Pan Africanist was seen as fearless and honest, and so she bowed to pleas to form her own party. At a meeting at artist Beezy Bailey's home in Cape Town, Professor Robert Shell produced research that showed she could do well. 

But fresh from the MDC experience I posited that a party could not succeed around an individual, it needed policies and strategies to give it direction, and good, shared leadership. De Lille, persuaded by flattery, believed her powerful personality was enough.

It was not; she worked exceedingly hard, trusted one loyalist in particular, and developed allies, but none with the strength to really oppose the ruling party or dent a well-established official opposition party.

And so we come to Mamphele Ramphele, she has one of South Africa's finest intellects, but no real recent background of working in communities. She can be abrasive and imperious and lacks the natural warmth of a Zuma, Tsvangirai, De Lille, Sam Shilowa or Terror Lekota - the latter two who were once respectively the most popular trade unionist in South Africa, and the most popular man in the ANC but for Mandela.

It is easy to say what you are against, but much harder to present what you are for, and to persuade others.

If Ramphele forms a party centered around herself, it is difficult to see how it can succeed. I asked an eminent Harvard political scientist with long experience in Africa and key State Department connections to give his assessment of her, his comment was brief: "I don't rate her."

Much has been made of a visit by Ramphele to Boston where she held a fundraising meeting at the home of a prominent judge and her husband, a former New York Times reporter with affection for South Africa. But the dismissive response of the Harvard expert, who did not want his name used because of his State Department connections, shows that Ramphele's supporters here may not be as many as her fundraising trip suggested.

It is also interesting to reflect on why Ramphele came to the United States to raise funds and garner support. Yes, she lived here for a time as a managing director of the World Bank, but in South Africa where 60-year-olds can lay down R10-million for their birthday bash, she should be able to get the money and strategic support needed to build her party. That is, if she has a real chance at succeeding and in not splitting oppositional politics at a time where it might make most sense to form a united front against corruption and stagnation.

De Lille became most successful when she discarded ego and opted for strategic alliances and she has proved a fine mayor for Cape Town.

If Ramphele merges with the Democratic Alliance, allowing the four most powerful women in South Africa to thrash a way forward before moving to parliament to whip out the thieves and heretics, real history could be made.

Ramphele and Zille have a history of working together. It would mean egos need to be constrained, and a whole new plan presented.

Past history should counsel Ramphele that the key to success is in restraining ego, not being manipulated by foreign powers, and having sound policies the nation buys into. Ramphele is an intellectual, but ivory tower personalities do not win political competition.

Those that ordinary folk believe will serve their interests have the greatest chance of success. Ramphele has a way to go to get working people to see her as a potential ally and heroine. 

And the final and most important point of consideration is this: autocracies run on the cult of personality, not democracies.

This article was published with the assistance of the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit (FNF). The views presented in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FNF.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter