Price too high for ANC action
Expect no help from weakened and discredited institutions, a poisoned parliament or time-serving fat cats in the ANC, writes Ralph Mathekga
POLITICAL analyst Ralph Mathekga examines Jacob Zuma’s Night of the Long Knives, and says there is little chance of Zuma being axed by his own party. “The cost of doing the right thing within the ANC is too high for anyone to live with”
THURSDAY was South Africa’s Night of the Long Knives, when President Jacob Zuma purged his detractors from key cabinet positions and replaced them with loyalists.
All roads lead to the December conference at which the ANC is expected to elect Zuma’s successor. By removing Pravin Gordhan from the finance ministry, Zuma has ensured he will go to the elective conference stronger and bolder.
With Malusi Gigaba heading the finance ministry, Zuma does not have to worry any more about a National Treasury that says no whenever he proposes megaprojects.
Gigaba has no finance credentials, and his performance at the ministries of public enterprises and home affairs was mixed at best.
I am not surprised that Zuma finally made his move; what surprises me is his patience and the level of preparation that went into this reshuffle.
As far as is known, Zuma wanted to remove Gordhan from the moment he appointed him to replace the short-term record-holder Des van Rooyen.
Zuma disowned Gordhan from day one, saying that Van Rooyen had been the most qualified minister to set foot in the Treasury.
But Zuma was aware that he had to wait for favourable conditions to remove Gordhan.
He waited for more than 14 months, laying the groundwork to repel any adverse reaction by the private sector, particularly the banks.
At the moment, the banks are trying to find their way out of the legitimacy crisis they have been embroiled in since being found by the Competition Commission to have orchestrated a currency pricefixing scheme.
Banks are on the back foot, and they will have to pick their battles carefully.
They have to decide whether to confront Zuma about his decision to fire Gordhan — or kneel before the government as they negotiate a settlement penalty for their transgressions.
The banks cannot do both; they have to decide what’s a winnable battle.
The rand had already taken a knock by the time rumours that Zuma would be firing Gordhan and other ministers started gathering momentum.
Unlike when Zuma fired Nhlanhla Nene in December 2015, Zuma’s PR machine is ready to deal with the fallout: it will label any adverse response by the markets a deliberate act of sabotage, a manipulation of market tools to undermine South Africa’s sovereignty.
This narrative fits neatly into the existing idea that Zuma is being victimised because he dares to confront the powers that be in South Africa — for which read “white monopoly capital”.
Unlike the amateurish job and the poor level of preparation that went into the removal of Nene, Gordhan’s removal was preceded by meticulous planning and a clear strategy to repel narratives that question Zuma’s mental soundness in making such a decision.
While everyone is plotting how to get rid of Zuma, it should be expected that he is also planning how to further consolidate his hold on power and ensure that he remains the most influential shareholder in ANC Inc.
He has put effort into this project, and he will not be dislodged easily.
And the removal of Gordhan positions Zuma firmly in the driving seat en route to December.
Zuma’s willingness to show that he is still firmly in charge has both material and symbolic significance for the long-term agenda he has always been committed to.
Symbolically, this sends a message to ANC branches that those who doubt who is in charge can now see for themselves.
This helps Zuma’s hegemony within the ANC to remain intact in a way that allows him to anoint his successor.
No one wants to be associated with a loser; Zuma will now appear to be a winner in the eyes of branch members who might be undecided as to who to support at the elective conference.
ANC branch members will deem it unwise to vote for a candidate who is not recommended by Zuma because ultimately no one wants to waste a vote on a hopeless candidate.
This is the psychological leg of the war Zuma finds himself in, and he takes it seriously.
The removal of the duo of mavericks from the Treasury (Gordhan and Mcebisi Jonas) and their replacement with Zuma’s yes-man Gigaba is a step that also materially benefits Zuma’s plan to install his successor when his term expires in December.
With Zuma loyalists in charge of the distribution of resources in the country, Zuma can finally defray any financial costs that might come through as he pushes for the installation of a leader in the ANC. This completes the picture.
There appears to be no recourse against Zuma within the ANC.
There is said to be a small window involving MPs whose appetite for mutiny against Zuma might be on the increase.
But for this to succeed would require an unthinkable scenario: one in which opposition parties reach out to disgruntled ANC MPs.
The partisan high horse that opposition parties in parliament often ride when dealing with Zuma means there is no way under the sun for humility to prevail to the point where co-operation between the ANC and opposition parties is possible.
South Africa’s political system — including all parties — lacks sufficient maturity for opposition parties to co-operate with ANC MPs.
The motion of no confidence against Zuma falls flat as an option to even threaten him.
The other avenue for recourse against Zuma that has also been spoken about a few times is the possibility of mass resignations from the cabinet.
This is not only unimaginable but actually downright laughable.
The vast majority of South Africa’s politicians, particularly those in the ANC, do not know how to earn a living outside being employed in the government through the ANC. They have never had to confront this challenge.
This makes it difficult for them to abandon their careers just to join forces with a few disgruntled members, particularly as some of the members who have been fired are actually wealthy and able to survive financially.
Economics is the most divisive factor in life, even more than race or any other category you can think of.
The chief element missing among Zuma’s opponents within the ANC is the willingness to live with the adverse consequences of a political project.
Mass resignations from Zuma’s cabinet will only be possible if members carry themselves as a collective and show that they are ready to live with those consequences.
But for many of Zuma’s detractors in the ANC, it is just too inconvenient to take up a meaningful fight against him.
This explains why people prefer to scratch the surface and disengage when it gets too tough and uncomfortable.
This is the reason the situation might continue as business as usual: the cost of doing the right thing within the ANC is too high for anyone to live with.
Mathekga is a political analyst and director of research at Mistra
Banks are on the back foot, and they will have to pick their battles carefully For many, it is just too inconvenient to take up a meaningful fight against Zuma
Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za