Isolated Zuma hears hollow thud of his political destiny
The vulnerable-looking president can take little comfort from the loud ANC applause when this week’s motion of no confidence was defeated, writes Jan-Jan Joubert
THERE is a long established rule of thumb in British journalism for measuring the trouble an unpopular but entrenched party leader is in: the deeper the trouble, the longer and louder the applause by the faithful at political party gatherings. The strength of the applause is inverse to the strength of the leader’s position.
It seems contradictory, but over the years it has proved quite reliable, and the reason can be summed up in one word: defiance. In times of crisis, members of political parties with staying power rally around their leader — weak or not.
In times of crisis political parties do not blink and show weakness. They put up a brave face, show they will not be dictated to and solve problems through internal processes. To budge in times of adversity is to join failed political parties on the rubbish heap of history.
Up to a point, of course. Then, they kick the leader out.
The British rule of applause might well be helpful in solving South Africa’s favourite political parlour game: will President Jacob Zuma stay, or will he go? How can the ANC caucus have full confidence in the president, given the country’s present position? Are its members merely uninformed?
The trouble Zuma finds himself in is undeniable and of his own making. It is the stuff of nightmares, which was clear from this week’s poorly timed motion of no confidence — predictably defeated in the National Assembly on Tuesday — and from the content of the speeches ANC MPs chose to make on the day.
What did they say, and what did they not say? Yes, they opposed the DA motion of no confidence. But did the ANC propose to amend the motion to a motion of full confidence? They did not. Between them, ANC MPs Mathole Motshekga and Pule Mabe could not rustle up a single defence of Zuma.
It was left to Small Business Development Minister Lindiwe Zulu to list the president’s undeniable earlier accomplishments: jailed for his beliefs, long service to his political party, his role in the peace processes in KwaZulu-Natal and the Great Lakes region, his unlikely recent elevation by UN secretarygeneral Ban Ki-Moon to head the High Level Commission on Health, Employment and Economic Growth with French President François Hollande.
It escaped no one that not a single one of these accomplishments has much to do with the Zuma presidency.
None of the ANC speakers could find words to defend or explain away how his family and friends, notably the Guptas, have flourished on his watch; the massive financial cost to us all of his apparently rogue decision to fire Nhlanhla Nene (languishing in Kranskop, no Brics Bank job in sight yet); his farcical ducking and diving about the upgrades to his Nkandla home which we paid for; and his astounding and self-serving turnaround on these matters in the glare of the Constitutional Court — and there are other such issues in the public domain.
The ANC caucus is not made up of dumb automatons. They are not unaware of these matters. They are individuals who represent constituencies, with the political wherewithal to win elections, which is more than most of their outspoken opponents can claim.
Individually and off the record, ANC MPs are actually very outspoken, although many are inhibited by the belief that their phones are tapped.
“There is a climate of fear in the caucus. We do not know who the president will throw under the bus next,” said an experienced MP.
“If there is a complete vacuum of leadership at the top, someone will step in, even if it is the judges,” said another.
In the meantime, the best in the cabinet use the lack of direction and policy drift to do their jobs better, knowing that this, too, shall pass, and there is a country to run.
What the speeches of Motshekga, Mabe and Zulu had in common was that they asked MPs to rally around the ANC as an organisation, and its view of its ideal self. MPs had to grit their teeth and take one for the team. And they did.
Also, they may not approve of Zuma, but they certainly do not approve of what the DA, EFF or smaller niche parties offer either. Each of those alternatives comes with its own set of problems, contradictions and weaknesses, as any thinking South African surely knows.
The matter at the heart of the Zuma leadership conundrum boils down to a structural one unique to the ANC, and to what former US president Bill Clinton encapsulated as the central political question of “compared to what?”
The ANC is essentially a nationalist and interest-driven grouping. Much of its power rests in what it sells to voters as the inevitability of its rule — that South African history since 1912 has predetermined its ascent to power. That notion of inevitability is diluted when an ANC president is recalled.
Power was lost through the 2008 Thabo Mbeki recall. The ANC is still paying the price in the in- evitability stakes. In fact, the image of invincibility may never be regained. The party cannot, at this stage, afford a repeat.
Structurally, it is not up to the caucus to recall an ANC president anyway. The democratic centralism according to which the ANC functions limits that option to the party’s national executive committee or to elective ANC conferences. It is a completely different world view to the one espoused by the DA, which provides for more individual freedom of choice among MPs — although that is lessening under its current leadership.
To get to Clinton’s point, if Zuma were to be recalled (which is unlikely, but given the Mbeki example not impossible), the question is who will replace him? In 2008, there was a ready, willing and able caretaker president available in Kgalema Motlanthe. This time around, there is no such option.
Barring an unforeseen backroom deal, a bruising ANC leadership battle is expected at the ruling par- ty’s national conference next year. In that battle, Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa is likely to be a contender, or at least a player. To hand him the presidency now by a vote in the National Assembly would be unlikely. He has his own demons to tame. Marikana springs to mind.
The most likely scenario, then, is what journalist Sam Mkokeli has so elegantly called the “belled cat” option. Zuma will not be removed, barring another unexpected catastrophe. But he will be closely monitored as interest groups assert themselves, circling the remains of a once-stellar political career.
South Africa realises the dire position it is in, as the measured DA and EFF responses to the budget show.
No one wants to derail the train now and cause a failed state. The country will most likely muddle through, as we tend to do, and avoid disaster.
But Zuma will find what so many in comparable positions in Britain and elsewhere have found: the applause of the faithful will not be able to hide the truth that power has been lost and another political career has ended in rejection.
Motshekga, Mabe and Zulu asked MPs to rally around the ANC and its view of its ideal self Zuma will not be removed, barring another catastrophe. But he will be closely monitored
Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za