One step forward, two back with Teflon Zuma
WE have grown accustomed to the drill. A headline-grabbing scandal breaks, in the form of a court ruling or a damning public protector report.
The official opposition calls for a motion of no confidence in the president; liberation struggle icons plead with the ruling party to recall its leader and foundations named after ANC luminaries agitate for a national dialogue on the “worrying direction our country is taking”.
#ZumaMustFall marches are convened — sometimes by rightwing elements who immediately discredit the exercise by proudly hoisting the orange, white and blue flag that offends the sensibilities of millions who had suffered during decades of racist minority rule.
At other times, it is sections of the ANC that lead the marches.
Young men and women — many of whom had backed Jacob Zuma’s rise to power but now find themselves squeezed out of party structures by the disciples of the Gupta empire-in-the-making — organise “Occupy Luthuli House” protests.
The protests bomb, thanks partly to intimidation tactics by the Gupta-funded MK Military Veterans’ Association and what remains of the ANC Youth League.
In parliament, the no-confidence motion fails too as ANC MPs — including those who publicly admit the president is costing the party votes — choose to stand by Zuma rather than have the DA and the EFF take credit for his downfall.
In the midst of the crisis, an ANC national executive committee member or two develop a conscience and speak out against presidential excesses and the abuse of state institutions.
We wait for the next ANC national working committee meeting with bated breath, as commentators tell us this latest scandal or crisis is the proverbial straw that will break the camel’s back. After a couple of days of meetings behind closed doors, the national executive committee or NWC emerges with a statement telling the nation to wait for “processes” to unfold.
These “processes” often involve weeks of “consultations with branches” and other party structures; the president challenging whatever the finding is in a higher court or a judicial commission of inquiry that is being set up.
And so we wait. Everything quietens down; Zuma goes on another international trip. We forget. Until the next scandal breaks . . .
As we go through the same routine again and again, the question arises: Will our scandal-prone president ever leave office before the end of his current term?
One thing is now clear: he will never do so voluntarily. In fact, it is now clear too that the preoccupation of the Zuma presidency in this term is to ensure that he stays in power until the 2019 elections.
Much has been written about Zuma’s amazing ability to weather the political storm. Where most leaders would have fallen, Zuma staggers for a few paces and then goes on with life as if nothing has happened.
A Teflon Man; the ultimate political survivor; Phunyuka bemphethe; Mpunga yehlathi (which both speak to his ability to cheat political death) — are the terms used to describe him.
A history lecturer at the university currently known as Rhodes, Nomalanga Mkhize, even went as far as likening Zuma to uChakide, the trickster mongoose who — according to a famous Zulu folk tale — escaped hunger by manipulating a group of children into eating their own grandmother’s body parts GOING NOWHERE: ZumaMustFall protesters in the Company Gardens in Cape Town in April this year. Marches against President Jacob Zuma may capture the public mood of indignation, but appear to achieve little of substance in the longer term while thinking that they were having beef stew.
But the truth is that Zuma’s survival for this long is as much a function of his opponents’ lack of political killer instinct as it is of his tactical abilities.
The one mistake those who want him out of office often make, especially in the ANC, is to give him, whenever he appears cornered and weak, some breathing space in the belief that he will use it to throw in the towel.
It was the case with the scandal of a Gupta plane landing at a military airport for a private family wedding; the same in December when Zuma plunged the economy into crisis mode by firing finance minister Nhlanhla Nene and replacing him with Des van Rooyen; and when the Constitutional Court ruled against the president in the Nkandla matter.
In these instances, and many others, a cornered Zuma and his supporters bought themselves time by arguing that decisions should not be taken in haste while institutions of state or party structures look into the controversy.
While his opponents were lulled into believing such “processes” would force him out of office, Zuma supporters used the space to regroup and consolidate their power.
With every controversy, especially since Zuma began his second term in office, political pundits and opponents alike have incorrectly believed that he had become a lame-duck president.
Far from it. Instead, when one looks at what happened after Nenegate, it is clear that Zuma’s supporters believed that their best form of defence was to go on the offensive — sending a clear message to supporter and foe alike that Zuma was still in charge.
Hence the Hawks’ move to have Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan charged and their action against EFF leader Julius Malema.
Nenegate, the withdrawal of the charges against Gordhan and the president holding back on what some in the ANC were expecting to be a major cabinet reshuffle, also tell us something important about the modus operandi of those fighting in the president’s corner: when they realise that they may have “overreached” with their actions and that the backlash is too massive, they don’t mind retreating and waiting for the right opportunity to strike again.
The retreat dupes their opponents into a false sense of security while buying the president’s backers time to mobilise support for his continued stay in party structures.
In the run-up to the release of the public protector’s State of Capture report, Zuma’s detractors in the party had pinned their hopes on the document making damning findings against the president and his Gupta associates.
He feared the same too, so much so that he ran to the courts in a bid to have Thuli Madonsela interdicted from releasing it.
But once the report was out — making serious allegations against the president, the Guptas and Eskom — Zuma’s supporters saw a gap in Madonsela’s failure to make any definitive findings.
Predictably, her call for a commission of inquiry gave Zuma’s backers another opportunity to kick the can down the road.
Acting against Zuma, they argued at the NWC meeting on Monday, would be akin to putting the horse before the cart as the commission had not been set up yet.
Contrast this to the approach the party took in 2008 after a High Court in Pietermaritzburg ruling that found, among other things, that Zuma was a victim of a “political conspiracy” involving his predecessor Thabo Mbeki and others who did not want to see him become ANC president.
Although Mbeki and his cabinet expressed their desire to have the ruling challenged in court, the ANC decided not to wait. It recalled Mbeki from office on the strength of a judgment that was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The party has refused to take a similar approach to Zuma, reasoning that it may cause yet another damaging split within its ranks.
But the outcome of the August 3 local-government elections suggests that if the party keeps Zuma as president until the end of his term in 2019, it may lose Gauteng to a DA-led coalition and see its national support reduced significantly.
Since his opponents in the party have now failed to capitalise on the State of Capture report and remove him, their best bet is in December 2017, when the ANC holds its national elective conference.
Assuming that Zuma will stick to his word and not avail himself for re-election as ANC president, the ruling party would have a new leader by Christmas next year.
That being the case — and assuming that the next president does not come with the Zuma stamp of approval — those who fear getting to 2019 with Msholozi as head of state would find it much easier to have him recalled.
They would then hope that they can use the next 18 months to repair any damage they may have suffered in the eyes of the voters and that, by the time election day arrives, Zuma would have become a distant memory to those taking to the polls.
Calls for an inquiry gave Zuma’s backers another chance to kick the can down the road
Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za