Is the president immune to appeals of the people?

Instead of retiring in Nkandla Zuma is staying put

FORMER president Kgalema Motlanthe resurrected Ahmed Kathrada’s appeal to Jacob Zuma to step down as president of the country when he read Kathrada’s letter at his funeral. It was clear from the response of the overwhelming majority who attended his funeral that his moral appeal to Zuma was widely shared. Zuma’s response – or lack of response – came as no surprise. Once more he ignored Kathrada’s plea.

Kathrada’s appeal is just one of a growing number of similar requests since the Constitutional Court finding on Nkandla. These appeals are coming from within and from outside the ANC.

Up till now, it seems these appeals have had no effect or impact. Instead, the total lack of response by Zuma only contributed to a greater sense of moral despair, and to the demoralisation of South Africans.

For any moral appeal to succeed, there are a number of preconditions that must be met.

First, the person making the appeal and the person to whom the appeal is directed must share the same values.

Second, both parties must be willing to subject themselves to these shared values and norms.

Third, the person to whom the appeal is directed should change their behaviour if it is considered legitimate.

Should the person to whom a moral appeal is directed not subscribe to the values underpinning it, it is ignored.

The latter seems to be what has been happening to the appeals by Kathrada, Motlanthe and various others. Instead of retiring to Nkandla, Zuma stays put.

This situation inevitably raises the question as to whether there is any compelling reason for Zuma to respond.

Doesn’t he have the right to turn his back because he simply doesn’t share the values on which they are based?

But this is exactly where the problem lies.

The assumption made by people like Kathrada, Motlanthe and other ANC leaders is that there is a set of shared values in the ANC. These guided the ANC through the freedom Struggle and into the new democratic dispensation.

These values were personified by struggle heroes such as Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela, Kathrada and many others. It is to these shared values of the ANC tradition that people in the party appeal when they ask Zuma to step down. These people are convinced Zuma is not only contradicting these shared values, but actively undermining them.

However, it is not only members of the ANC who have moral ground to stand on when making the appeal to Zuma.

All South Africans do; it is in our constitution. It is underpinned by a set of values that all South Africans should honour.

In the first article of our constitution, these values are identified as being, among others, respect for the dignity and equality of all persons, respect for the constitution and the rule of law, non-racialism, accountability and openness.

The constitution further dictates that the president must not only respect the constitution and the values underpinning it, but should also always act in the best interest of the country.

Article 96 specifically places an obligation on the president not to abuse his position for private gain, and requires that he and members of the national executive avoid conflicts of interest.

All South Africans have the moral right to call on political office-bearers to stop abusing their positions and powers for private gain.

It is increasingly clear that Zuma has no intention of honouring the appeals.

It is equally clear that appeals by concerned citizens from across a wide spectrum of our society will not stop him from harming the values underpinning the constitution, and his oath of office.

With the prospect of another motion of no-confidence looming in Parliament, it is clear that such a motion has no chance of success unless a substantial number of ANC MPs have the courage to stand up for the values in our constitution that they committed to defend when they took their oath of office.

It is, however, ironic that ANC parliamentarians are reminded in the media that it is in their own self-interest to support the motion of no-confidence in the president.

They are reminded that if they allow Zuma to stay on as president until the end of his term in 2019, the ANC might suffer losses in that year’s elections, which, in turn, might cost some of them their seats in Parliament.

Could this appeal to their self-interest be an indication that there is no longer any public trust in members of the ANC to stand up for the values of the ANC and the values of the constitution in a no-confidence vote in Parliament?

Shortly after the former minister of finance, Pravin Gordhan, was fired last week, he indicated that his conscience would guide him if a vote of no-confidence was brought before Parliament.

Is it asking too much from other members of the ANC in Parliament to stand up for the values of the once proud ANC, and for the values enshrined in our constitution, when they vote for the motion of no-confidence?

Is Zuma immune to moral appeals?