Two sides to the CR coin

RECENT criticism levelled against President Cyril Ramaphosa by his predecessors has triggered incessant debates across the nation.

This has even transcended the political spectrum. In an unco-ordinated development, former presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma individually took a swipe at him on various issues.

The two leaders were joined in their criticism by former caretaker president Kgalema Motlanthe.

Among other things, these former heads of state complained that the country was not being steered in the right direction.

They argued that Ramaphosa was corrupt, indecisive, inconsistent in his actions and generally lacked the astute leadership credentials needed to take the country out of the present predicament of the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment.

All these leaders painted a pessimistic picture about the future of South Africa. In not so many words, they tacitly advanced the view that the country would not prosper with Ramaphosa at the helm. Importantly, the image of the ANC would continue to be tainted – something that would cost the ANC dearly in the 2024 general election.

But, apart from his debatable leadership strategies, what has put Ramaphosa in the spotlight even more and dented his political image is the break-in and theft of money from his Phala Phala farm in 2020, which allegedly was not reported to the police as should have happened. There are other ramifications of this incident that have not assisted Ramaphosa’s defenders.

These include allegations of taking the law into his hands by tracking down the criminals, subjecting them to torture and subsequently bribing them to keep the theft a secret. Other issues such as not declaring the money at the SA Revenue Service, keeping large sums of cash in the house and in foreign currency, and other related accusations have not assisted Ramaphosa’s cause.

While different state institutions continue to ventilate these issues, there has been a state of euphoria which involves politicians and ordinary members of the public alike.

Some have decided to ferociously and unapologetically defend the president from what they consider to be unfair and unwarranted criticisms levelled against him.

They advance the view that such criticisms should have been channelled through ANC structures and platforms, as opposed to being laid bare to the public through media briefings.

On the other hand, there are those who fully agree with the former presidents and feel that the accusations are warranted. They blame Ramaphosa for failing to implement many of the ANC resolutions of the 54th national conference held at Nasrec. They argue that Ramaphosa has failed to better the lives of the people of South Africa since ascending to the presidency in 2018.

My aim in this article is not to embrace either of the two diametrically opposed viewpoints. I do not intend to promote one view at the expense of the other. Such would make it almost impossible for me to provide a balanced analysis of the responses to the accusations levelled against Ramaphosa.

My primary objective is to sound a warning that rationality and consistency should be the guiding factors when people engage on this subject. In a nutshell, my argument is that comments on whether Ramaphosa has done well as a leader or not should be devoid of emotions and subjectivity. They should draw from history, be consistent and rational.

When Ramaphosa assumed office as the country’s president, he gave the impression he was coming as a “messiah” to “rescue” the ANC and the country from everything that had gone wrong under his predecessor. This stance was encapsulated in phrases such as “nine lost years” under Zuma and “the New Dawn” that he was bringing with him.

Four years down the line, it remains unclear if the promised New Dawn has arrived or if the situation has deteriorated. The irony is that Ramaphosa was Zuma’s deputy – both in the ANC and in the country.

Therefore, if there were nine lost years, as he claimed, he was also part of that. Second, the issue of the New Dawn was misplaced.

There could not be a New Dawn from someone who came from the same organisation to implement the same policies.

The question becomes: Is there consistency in the criticisms levelled against Mbeki, Zuma and Motlanthe? Addressing members of the media recently, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, took issue with the former presidents and other critics who accuse Ramaphosa from the rooftop instead of following ANC channels. On more than one occasion, he complained about “innuendo” directed at Ramaphosa.

There are two sides to Magwenya’s concerns. On the one hand, he was correct in saying the ANC has channels to deal with such issues.

He even responded to media questions that these former leaders have a direct line to the president.

Pule Mabe, ANC spokesperson, also referred to the NEC as one of the appropriate channels through which concerns could be raised.

The other side of the coin is about rationality and consistency. For instance, did Magwenya and Mabe check if Mbeki, Zuma and Motlanthe did not touch base with Ramaphosa on the issues they later made public?

Specifically, was Mbeki wrong when he said they had suggested to Ramaphosa to temporarily step aside while the Phala Phala matter was being dealt with – to which the president responded by saying that the law must take its course?

When that suggestion was made, was it meant to judge the president before he was found guilty by any court of law, or was it meant to save the integrity of the ANC and to remove the mounting pressure from Ramaphosa’s shoulders?

Following criticism against Ramaphosa, provinces like KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo and North West came out openly arguing that what was done by the former leaders was not in line with the ANC’s processes. The ANC leadership from Limpopo even requested a meeting with Mbeki.

In principle, they were right. However, regarding consistency, they were found wanting. For example, where were they when Ramaphosa publicly blamed former president Zuma without following the same ANC processes? Did Ramaphosa not have a “direct” line to Zuma?

The ANC’s upcoming elective conference in December should not dissuade any of the commentators from remaining rational and consistent in the manner in which they ventilate issues.

The ANC conference will come and go, but South Africa as a country and the ANC as an organisation will remain. It is not advisable to make comments based on emotions, but devoid of rationality and consistency.