Proof, if more were needed, of Zuma’s moral poverty
NELSON Mandela said this about leadership: “Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice all for the freedom of their people.” Today, the former president’s words hold a mocking ring, for we see exactly the opposite of sacrifice, and indeed evidence of a lack of real leadership, in his successor, Jacob Zuma. The man who now leads the party of Mandela and who stands on the cusp of being re-elected as president of our republic is the antithesis of what is good and noble and worthy of our respect and admiration.
This week, public protector Thuli Madonsela spent three hours detailing the extraordinary sequence and consequence of our president’s inability to act as a “real leader” of his people.
The report speaks of vanity, a lack of accountability and a government bent on appeasing its president rather than following the dictates of good governance.
The Nkandla report further underlines doubts about Zuma’s fitness for office — a familiar refrain of his time in government.
His axing by former president Thabo Mbeki in light of the evidence that emerged from the trial of convicted fraudster and Zuma ally Schabir Shaik could not stop the ascent of this deeply flawed man to the highest office in the land.
Even now, he continues to evade basic questions about the evidence that he provided in order to have corruption charges dropped against him. Nkandla lays bare the flaws of a man of moral poverty.
The opportunistic Economic Freedom Fighters and Democratic Alliance have rushed to lay criminal charges against Zuma. This is nothing but a pre-election ploy to shore up votes on May 7.
No serious political consequences will, in the short term, arise from the laying of those charges. Similarly, calls for Zuma to resign or for parliament to impeach him will fall on deaf ears.
Mbeki was ejected from the Union Buildings by the Zuma-led ANC for a tenuous case of manipulating the state machinery for political ends. His “recall” was made possible by the fact that he had lost control of the party at the Polokwane conference in 2007.
In stark contrast, Zuma’s current strength in the ANC makes him safe, for now.
In the meantime, senior government officials will be sacrificed at the Nkandla altar. In December, national police commissioner Riah Phiyega described the swimming pool at Nkandla as a “fire pool” because it would be used for “fire-fighting”. She must now be disciplined, according to the ANC’s Gwede Mantashe.
At the party’s press conference, Mantashe said: “Officials who have gone public with inaccurate information must be censured, like the information and description of the swimming pool as the fire pool, and the details given to explain this matter constitute a misrepresentation of facts. The minister of police is expected to take appropriate action in this regard.”
Yet, at the time of the multidisciplinary press conference in December, pulled together to defend the astronomical expense of Nkandla, no one from the ANC disputed the myriad claims and statements made by various officials. Like Mantashe’s briefing, it was clearly a cynical attempt to protect the man from Nkandla.
ANC treasurer Zweli Mkhize said this week — clearly in relation to Zuma — that “Madiba was in his own league. You’re not ever going to have another Madiba. It’s not fair to be comparing anyone with Madiba.”
It might not be fair, but it is certainly a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And in the comparison between Mandela and Zuma, the latter falls woefully short. So short that he should not enjoy the privilege of occupying the corner office in the Union Buildings.