Has Cyril crossed Rubicon?

WAS that Cyril Ramaphosa quietly crossing the Rubicon on Saturday evening?

After four years of sitting in the ANC top six and saying yes to nuclear energy, yes to Des van Rooyen and yes to Nkandla, Ramaphosa suddenly said no to the campaign to remove Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan.

It was a quiet and understated no, and also contained a lie: “Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa has offered his moral and political support to Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan in view of the legal processes unfolding around him and as he prepares to deliver the medium-term budget policy statement,” said a statement by his office.

It said Ramaphosa called on all South Africans to defend constitutional values; that the work the government and business were doing together should not be undermined; and that we should all conduct ourselves appropriately.

“Government is at one in its approach on this matter and calls upon all South Africans to approach these issues rationally and put the interests of the country first,” it concluded.

Even at this stage, Ramaphosa still thought it necessary to include some bull**** in his declaration.

Although late, the statement was nonetheless meaningful. It showed that in Ramaphosa’s assessment the ground is finally shifting. This, no doubt, is true.

Since Gordhan launched his offensive against President Jacob Zuma and the Guptas on Friday, dragging their dirty laundry into court, things have tilted precariously away from the president.

At the end of last week both former finance minister Trevor Manuel – who signed up for the struggle against the Zuptas, joining the campaign alongside Sipho Pityana – and several Treasury figures coincidentally used the words “the die is cast”, indicating that in their view, too, a point of no return has been reached.

Ramaphosa, previously impervious to all manner of wrongdoing by Zuma, must have feared being left behind.

But perhaps that has already happened.

His statement didn’t create much excitement, even in quarters where it might be expected to – such as in the Gauteng ANC – and stirred only predictable interest from journalists like me. Unlike Gordhan, Ramaphosa has not forged a role for himself as a leader in this next phase of the struggle.

Where does the fight go from here?

With more people signing up behind Gordhan and the public scandal set to grow as the banks respond to his application with details about the Guptas’ financial affairs, the recurring question remains whether in the weeks to come Zuma will fall.

For this to happen requires at least two things: the ANC’s national executive committee (NEC) must vote for Zuma’s removal; and an acceptable replacement must be found to make this vote possible.

While the parliamentary caucus has begun to make noises, it is unthinkable, even in today’s fractured and chaotic ANC, that it could remove him in a vote of no confidence without the NEC’s approval. For the MPs involved it would be political suicide.

The reality is that Zuma and his allies – the Premier League – still control ANC structures, with both the NEC and a majority of the branches in their grip.

So a hostile removal of Zuma is unlikely.

A tactical retreat, in which Zuma steps down in the hope of retaining control through his proxies and allies, is a growing possibility.

This may be part of a negotiated settlement in which the ANC’s provincial leaders from both sides get a look-in and negotiate a new top six, which includes a concession or two to the opponents of the Zuma camp.

The incentive for a negotiated settlement for all concerned would be averting an ANC split.

But neither a negotiated settlement nor a winner-takes-all scenario looks like it will have place for Ramaphosa, who has yet to achieve anything of significance in his four years at the top of the ANC.

Carol Paton is deputy editor of Business Day.