Is Zuma’s survival a victory?

WITH the recent triumph of President Jacob Zuma who has survived his umpteenth vote of no confidence in Parliament a few interesting trends emerge.

Again his supporters have called this a victory, which it is not.

Does this mean his association (or that of his family) with the Guptas is acceptable? And that the dealings with the Guptas and e-mails are just the work of some bored news reporter. In any other country these reporters would have be sued; why the silence Mr Gupta and Mr Duduzane?

Does this mean the 783 charges should not be reinstated?

When Zuma has to pay his legal bills, you will see how patriotic he is.

Does this mean the appointments under his tenure such as Hlaudi, Molefe, and the pensions’ disaster which occurred under his watch, are acceptable?

Strange, the nuclear deal has gone ice cold and there are no more meetings with Putin.

If one looks at the ANC under Zuma’s ascension: the formation of Cope and the EFF, and the loss of good leaders within the party who were sidelined as being pro Mbeki.

Examine the electoral losses of the ANC barring KZN: Tshwane, Joburg, Western Cape and Port Elizabeth. Is this a victory? For a president who could not deliver his own ward to the ANC, who lost so many metros, MPLs and MPs, Zuma has weakened the party, and will probably leave the ANC in a bigger mess than when he took office. To still act triumphant shows someone manipulating his party.

This has been the costly victory for Zuma but a massive defeat for the ANC. Durban North