Sunday Times

A Ramaphosa appeal could be a Thatcher moment for No 1

-

SIR Geoffrey Howe was a quiet and committed soldier of the revolution unleashed by Margaret Thatcher that not only transforme­d the UK but was partly responsibl­e for ultimately establishi­ng the market economy as the reigning dogma worldwide.

Self-effacing and mild-mannered, Howe served in some top positions, including as chancellor of the exchequer and foreign secretary.

The opposition Labour Party’s Denis Healey once said that to be attacked by Geoffrey Howe was “like being savaged by a dead sheep”.

But when Howe left the government after falling out with Thatcher over Europe, his resignatio­n speech in the House of Commons was the dagger that finished off his boss’s career.

He had, he said, been agonising over the conflict of loyalty — loyalty to Thatcher and to what he perceived to be the true interests of his nation.

In resigning, “I have done what I believe to be right for my party and my country”, Howe said.

It was a devastatin­g speech. Three weeks later, Thatcher resigned as prime minister, leaving Downing Street in tears.

We have arrived at such a juncture in South Africa. People have to choose between their love of country or of Jacob Zuma and his cronies.

The president has plunged South Africa into one of its worst crises by enacting probably one of the clumsiest cabinet reshuffles known to democracy.

Our optimism was initially revived when those close to him — Cyril Ramaphosa, Gwede Mantashe and Zweli Mkhize — seemed to criticise the manner in which the reshuffle was carried out. Theirs were not offthe-cuff comments. They were well considered. Mkhize released a statement.

Mantashe’s utterances were damning. “We were given a list that was complete and in my view as the secretary-general I felt like this list has been developed elsewhere and given to us to legitimise it,” Mantashe told a radio interviewe­r. His reference to “elsewhere” is generally assumed to mean the Guptas, Zuma’s friends and controller­s who are said to play the banjo to which he dances.

One of the ratings agencies, S&P Global Ratings, after speaking to new Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba, proceeded to downgrade the country.

But the downgrade doesn’t seem to have unnerved Zuma supporters. If anything, it has galvanised them. It chimes with their rejection of what they call “white monopoly capital” in favour of the gospel of the moment, the so-called radical economic transforma­tion. What these opaque phrases are supposed to mean nobody is able to enlighten us, not even Zuma himself.

The takeover of the National Treasury has been celebrated almost as if it’s a second coming.

That the people put in charge can hardly count seems immaterial. They tick two important boxes: they are from KwaZulu-Natal; and they, like their boss, are filled with love for the Guptas.

We should have known better not to expect the ANC to be enraged by Zuma’s reshuffle and the consequent downgrade. The party always sticks together or by its leader whether it has to do with Marikana, Esidimeni, or the social grants debacle.

When Zuma said, to howls of derision, that the ANC was more important than the country, he wasn’t hallucinat­ing. The events of the past few weeks have proved him right. The party has closed ranks around him even as the country groans under a crisis deliberate­ly created by him. Those who have expressed mild unhappines­s at the way Zuma carried out his reshuffle have been forced to grovel and apologise. We are, however, reassured by their friends that this is merely a strategic retreat. We shall see.

It’s a seminal moment in the country’s short democratic history. Does the ruling party, with all the instrument­s of the state at its disposal, exist to serve the selfish interests of its leader or carry out the mandate for which it has been elected?

With Zuma having vanquished his foes inside the party, the battle now spills into the streets and into parliament. But the people don’t elect the president and therefore cannot get rid of him. Only parliament can hire and fire him.

The ANC has instructed its MPs not to support a vote of no confidence in Zuma on April 18. But can known dissidents such as Derek Hanekom, Jackson Mthembu, Aaron Motsoaledi and many others still grappling with their conscience­s seriously oppose such a motion? Now’s the time to choose country over party. Zuma’s not worth the candle.

But it is Ramaphosa who needs to convince people that he has the stomach for a fight. If he wants to be president, this is the moment to show his mettle. A crisis always presents an opportunit­y, and this is the moment for Ramaphosa to redeem himself.

He needs to stand up in parliament with the whole world watching and tell Zuma to his face: “I love you, Msholozi. You’re my comrade. But I love my country more.” That would galvanise the people behind him and Zuma would be toast. In contrast, Ramaphosa would walk on water.

Otherwise, he should kiss his presidenti­al prospects goodbye.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa