Eish… here come those chick­ens again!

The Star Early Edition - - LETTERS - David Net­shi­tavhani

THE ANC con­tin­ues to de­vour it­self try­ing to pro­tect one man, thanks to the de­bil­i­tat­ing ef­fects of fac­tional pol­i­tics be­set­ting the func­tional ma­chin­ery of the or­gan­i­sa­tion.

Pres­i­dent Ja­cob Zuma is pro­tected by those close to him in the na­tional ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tee un­der the pre­text that the or­gan­i­sa­tion can­not af­ford an­other split. But the real rea­son is that they are fear­ful of the ex­po­sure of their own com­plic­ity in state cap­ture and cor­rup­tion.

This blind loy­alty has been the ANC’s Achilles heel and threat­ens to di­vide the once great move­ment in the run-up to the wa­ter­shed De­cem­ber congress. In the lat­est na­tional ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tee meet­ing, the or­gan­i­sa­tion took a de­ci­sion to keep the pres­i­dent un­til his term expires at the much-awaited congress.

As if that was not enough, the or­gan­i­sa­tion has warned of dire con­se­quences to those who vote against the party line in the par­lia­men­tary mo­tion of no con­fi­dence in Zuma.

This de­ci­sion could haunt the ANC in the event the er­ratic pres­i­dent is en­tan­gled in fur­ther un­eth­i­cal con­duct which might cause his cronies to jump to his de­fence be­fore the con­fer­ence.

The pres­i­dent is prone to scan­dals, as ex­pressed by SACP gen­eral sec­re­tary Blade Nz­i­mande in his ad­dress to the 14th party congress.

Con­gru­ent with the de­ci­sion to keep him, the ANC might be forced to de­fend him in the event of any mis­de­meanour be­fore the con­fer­ence. This goes a long way in pro­ject­ing the ANC, in the eyes of the voter, as an ar­ro­gant party hell-bent on de­fend­ing Zuma, come hell or high wa­ter.

The vot­ers’ re­course lies in the univer­sal suf­frage guar­an­teed by the con­sti­tu­tion and which the rul­ing party has the duty to re­spect.

The ANC got a taste of this in last year’s lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­tions in which the rul­ing party lost some of the coun­try’s most strate­gic met­ros.

The ANC could ig­nore the warn­ing signs, but at its own peril, if the lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­tions re­sults are any­thing to go by.

ANC veteran Joel Net­shiten­zhe has likened the un­con­di­tional pro­tec­tion of the delin­quent Zuma to a fam­ily that, for the sake of unity, tries to pro­tect one of its crim­i­nal mem­bers. He cor­rectly ar­gued that this act can­not be said to be in the name of unity, but sim­ply com­plic­ity with the crime.

The pres­i­dent has filed an ap­pli­ca­tion to re­view and set aside for­mer pub­lic pro­tec­tor Thuli Madon­sela’s State of Cap­ture re­port. And lately the new pub­lic pro­tec­tor, ad­vo­cate Bu­sisiwe Mkhwe­bane, in an un­prece­dented move, crit­i­cised the pres­i­dent and said the ap­pli­ca­tion lacked any prospect of suc­cess.

Mkhwe­bane fur­ther said the pres­i­dent had no right to de­cide which judge would over­see the state cap­ture in­quiry. The ini­ti­a­tion of this in­ves­ti­ga­tion into state cap­ture, which the pub­lic pro­tec­tor is more likely to or­der, will in­evitably fur­ther heap more trou­bles on Zuma.

The prover­bial chick­ens will come home to roost if the ANC na­tional ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tee dares to pro­tect Zuma on this one.

The ANC should self-cor­rect and re-jig its tor­pe­doed im­age, lock, stock and bar­rel to ar­rest its in­creas­ingly de­clin­ing for­tunes and pub­lic trust.

Zuma and his close con­fi­dantes con­sider all as vit­riol on the part of his de­trac­tors, even cit­ing con­spir­acy the­o­ries in­clud­ing a sup­posed regime change agenda on the part of the West.

If the West does not want him and the SACP, which is an em­bod­i­ment of com­mu­nist ide­ol­ogy in the coun­try, does not want him at its events, then who wants him? Your guess is as good as mine. Tshisahulu, Vhembe re­gion, Lim­popo

CRY­ING FOUL: How much longer can Pres­i­dent Ja­cob Zuma be pro­tected by the ANC? the let­ter writer asks.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.