SA doesn’t deserve imperial rule, return to democratic presidency is vital
THE acclaimed American historian and author Arthur M Schlesinger jr coined the term the “Imperial Presidency”, concerning which he wrote a fascinating book with this term as its title.
In his book he expressed two profound concerns about democracy in the US: First, that the US presidency, particularly under President Richard Nixon, had become uncontrollable and, second, that it had exceeded its constitutional limits.
To a great extent, Schlesinger’s book was an incisive critique of the Nixon presidency involving the executive aggrandisement and abuse of power that became manifest flowing from the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s inglorious resignation as a result from the office of president.
In similar vein, the South African journalist and author, Brian Pot- tinger, wrote a celebrated account of the first 10 years of the presidency of PW Botha, in which he recounted how an increasingly frustrated and besieged autocrat, designated by the press as the “Groot Krokodil” (great crocodile) treated the highest and most esteemed political office in the land.
It is becoming increasingly clear that with President Jacob Zuma, history appears to be repeating itself in a most bizarre and unsatisfactory manner.
It has become manifestly clear, for instance, that Zuma does not consider himself bound by the ANC’s much-vaunted tradition of collective leadership.
This was apparent when Gwede Mantashe, the ANC’s secretary general, was left virtually speechless when asked to explain the 12th cabinet reshuffle to the media.
Zuma appears to justify his controversial reshuffle involving the firing and hiring of ministers by virtue of presidential prerogative.
Furthermore, the farcical arguments pursued by his lawyers in the High Court last week in relation to the public protector’s report on state capture reflect a disregard for the constitutional obligations he has as president of the Republic.
In all of this, Zuma is playing a dangerous and manipulative strategy to evade at every cost legal and constitutional accountability, as he has done in fighting off for years corruption charges until September when he amazingly conceded in the Supreme Court of Appeal that the dropping of those 738 charges had indeed been irrational after all.
The mind boggles at the effrontery of his conduct and the inestimable harm done both to the office of president and the country by such conduct.
Over approximately the last two years Zuma has survived the most turbulent period of the office of presidency since the inception of democratic rule in 1994.
He has done great harm to the country and its people, that has resulted in a state of chronic crisis for both South Africa and the ANC, as a once great liberation movement, that occupied the high moral ground, with an enviable reputation, both domestically and internationally.
So for instance, he dismissed the highly respected and competent Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister in a manner that impacted on the economy in no small manner.
He was subsequently found to have been in violation of his oath of office by the Constitutional Court, he disregarded the public protector’s report on state capture and unceremoniously dismissed Pravin Gordhan, a second esteemed finance minister, and his competent deputy, Mcebesi Jonas.
All of this was done with minimal or virtually no meaningful consultation with the ANC’s leadership and alliance partners.
What is categorically clear from the present sorry saga and debacle is that South Africa does not deserve a kind of imperial presidency, which Zuma has manipulated the highest office to become.
It is essential that the country returns to a democratic presidency, as envisaged by the constitution and its values and the ANC’s own constitution, with its emphasis on collective leadership.
All is, however, not gloom and doom, since the electorate is the ultimate sovereign and has the opportunity to pass judgment at the 2019 general election.
Prior to the local government elections on August 3 last year, South Africa could have been accurately described as a dominant party state democracy.
This flowed from the fact that the ANC secured 63% in the local government elections of 2011. In the election of last year, its support diminished to 53.91%.
A paradigmatic change has occurred with its support having dwindled to below 55%.
The results last year illustrate in no uncertain terms that the days of ANC hegemony in South African politics are over and that what is emerging is a system of strong multi-party democracy.
The emergence of a strong multi-party system in place of ANC hegemony in our political system is a welcome change.
What must also be taken into account is that the ANC performance has for some time been in decline, bearing in mind that the ANC, after being in office for more than 20 years, and the Zuma period of imperial presidency must of necessity have an influence on the election results in 2019.
South Africa is a country of infinite potential with inordinate human and natural resources. I
t requires a president committed to the constitution and democracy to realise that potential.
South Africans, who have achieved an exemplary democratic system of government premised on the values of equality, non-racialism and liberty for all, at great cost, need to deepen it and extend its benefits to all the people of this land.
What is not required is political expediency and naked political ambition, based on an irrational racial nationalism, as exemplified by the Zuma imperial presidency and all the maladministration and corruption that it encapsulates,
George Devenish is retired professor of public law and one of the scholars who assisted in drafting the Interim Constitution of 1994.