Zuma danger to democracy

DA city councillor in Johannesburg

Anarchy beckons. Not the benign, idealistic sort, where government is absent and people live in unfettered harmony. No, we face violent disorder, where no authority is recognised. Cynics suggest we’re already there. Not quite, but we’re on the way.

This is a sober assessment of the logical consequences when political leaders disobey laws and court orders. Much of this is about Sudanese mass murder “suspect” Omar al-Bashir. Yet disrespect for law has long been evident.

The manner of Bashir’s arrival and departure not only disregarded an order of the North Gauteng High Court. It also flouted the International Criminal Court (ICC) Act of 2002. This Act was passed by our ANC-dominated parliament. Democratic SA voluntarily bound itself to this ICC arrangement.

Until recently, South Africa has given no indication it intended to drop the ICC.

Now, various people in the ANC decide they don’t like the ICC because of a perceived bias against Africans, and the US is not a signatory. Whether or not such objections are valid, you cannot simply flout your own laws because you no longer agree with them. We cannot pick and choose which laws we shall obey and which we shall not.

The correct procedure is for the ICC Act to be repealed or amended by parliament. This must be done in line with the constitution and the standing rules of parliament. It’s not a matter to be decided by an ANC spokesperson, or President Jacob Zuma. Nor should our laws be bent at the behest of dictator Robert Mugabe, who sought assurances Bashir would not be arrested in SA. The credibility of the African Union is tarnished when it elects Mugabe as chairperson. Similarly, moral stature is forfeited when barring the Dalai Lama and according special treatment to Bashir.

Apologists for government’s actions cite diplomatic immunity, as if that trumps all. Yet the law is at best unclear. For example, this defence rests on the assumption the African Union is just like the United Nations, which it is not. Nor is it clear that the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act of 2008 would apply to a head of state on the ICC’s wanted list.

Zuma and company have undermined the credibility of our courts and parliament. The contempt they have shown did not spring, fully formed, onto a hitherto unblemished record.

Zuma has been doing this for more than a decade. His contempt for parliament stretches back to 2001, when he signed a letter torpedoing an arms deal probe. These days, he laughs when asked about the R246 million spent on “Nkaaaaandla”.

Zuma and his supporters undermine the courts in their attempts to shake off 783 corruption charges against him. The long refusal to hand over the so-called spy tapes, despite court orders, has been an example.

So the Bashir incident fits a pattern of disregard for law, even while paying mocking lip service to due process. But it is also a turning point. From here on, the question becomes more obvious: why should anyone obey the law? Why not anarchy?

That’s the danger Zuma poses. For the sake of democracy, he and his helpers must go.