S’thembiso Msomi on the lame duck who is also blind
Zuma should think back to Thabo Mbeki and give us a farewell speech on Thursday, not a state of the nation address
● And so we have finally arrived at the point in history where the ancient Zulu sages are proven right and Harry Gwala, the late liberation struggle militant and theoretician, is proven wrong.
We have written on these pages before how the former Robben Island prisoner used to say that while he knew that Zulu elders had the saying that ayikho impunga yehlathi, he actually knew one — and his name was Jacob Zuma.
Literally translated, impunga yehlathi is someone who hides in a forest forever until he ages and his hair turns grey. The Zulu idiom argues that there is no such person and that, no matter what he tries, the fugitive will eventually be forced out to face the consequences of his actions.
“You can run, but you cannot hide,” is probably the closest English expression to the Zulu idiom.
Gwala served 10 years on Robben Island with Zuma, and when they were released in the early 1970s, they worked together to revive the underground structures of the then banned ANC in what is now known as KwaZulu-Natal.
As a result, Gwala landed back on Robben Island to serve a life sentence, while Zuma escaped to Swaziland.
By the time Gwala got into the habit of calling Zuma impunga yehlathi — the ultimate survivor — it was the early 1990s and the two did not see eye to eye in terms of the strategic direction of the ANC following the unbannings and the subsequent negotiations with the National Party government.
Gwala never lived to see his erstwhile comrade rise to the highest office in the land, but his characterisation of the man as the ultimate political survivor seemed apt as Zuma survived scandal after scandal to almost become the longest-serving postapartheid president.
Almost, I say, because it looks like Gwala’s mpunga is now left with no option but to surrender. Zuma, the president who his legions of fans affectionately call Phunyuka Bemphethe — a Houdini in Western terms — is cornered and has no more tricks up his sleeve.
All he can now do is to delay the date of his fall — stop it, he can no longer.
The ANC — which over the years he has turned into his private defence force as he fought off opposition attempts to have him ousted from office over such scandals as Nkandla, the Guptas’ use of Waterkloof for their wedding guests, and reckless cabinet reshuffles — is no longer under his control, and wants him out.
Whereas a few years ago he would have shrugged off plans by opposition parties to bring yet another motion of no confidence in him before parliament, this time he must fear that a significant chunk of the ANC caucus will vote with the opposition.
This time last year he would have laughed off talk of impeachment proceedings, but now, in the changed political environment following the election of Cyril Ramaphosa as party president, Zuma faces the reality that the National Assembly can toss him out of power as a disgraced head of state with no benefits.
And then there are his legal woes.
For years, through various tactics, he has stalled the NPA’s corruption case against him stemming from his relationship with Schabir Shaik, his erstwhile financial adviser and friend.
But now, unless the documents he recently submitted to the NPA contain compelling reasons why he should not be prosecuted, it looks like the national director of public prosecutions will have him in court by the end of next month.
His fan base is also shrinking, with even the MK Military Veterans Association, the ANC Youth League and the ANC Women’s League having gone to ground amid growing calls for Zuma to be recalled.
All he is left with are some publicity-seeking fringe groups such as the Gupta-aligned Black First Land First and the National Funeral Directors’ Association, who insist that Zuma must serve out his term.
Clearly they do not have much support. The prevailing mood in the country since Ramaphosa’s election as ANC president in December has been one of eagerness to close the Zuma chapter. The sooner we see the back of him, most people seem to believe, the better.
Given that the writing is on the wall for him, it is puzzling that Zuma is digging in his heels and insisting that he should deliver the state of the nation address on Thursday.
What purpose would such a speech serve when it is clear that Zuma will no longer be in the Union Buildings come the end of winter?
Even if he was to pull one more trick or two to frighten the ANC out of recalling him, what is the point of him serving out his term when he is now Picture: Kevin Sutherland president in name only?
The recent changes in Eskom’s board and management, and a number of other developments within the state, show that Zuma is no longer calling the shots.
And so his state of the nation address would be a meaningless exercise aimed only at polishing the ego of a president whose time has truly passed.
Lest we forget, it was the same Zuma and his acolytes who, before the ANC recalled Thabo Mbeki from the presidency in 2008, argued that the 2009 state of the nation address, which was scheduled to be delivered by Mbeki, should be downgraded to a farewell speech as there was no point in a president who was left with only few months in office presenting a long-term government programme to parliament.
Perhaps the ANC officials who are said to be meeting Zuma this afternoon to persuade him to resign should remind him of this argument.
Like the generals who ousted Robert Mugabe from power in Zimbabwe, Ramaphosa has been insisting that “the transition” be managed in a manner that does not “embarrass” and humiliate Zuma.
But even in Zimbabwe, the generals and the politicians who supported them had to take drastic steps before the penny finally dropped for Mugabe that the game was up. In Zimbabwe’s case, they isolated Mugabe and rendered him powerless, so much so that he could not even convene meetings of his cabinet.
Zuma is not under house arrest, and there have been no military convoys rolling into Pretoria. But, politically speaking, he is as impotent as Mugabe was in the final days of his 37-year reign. There is no point in him pretending otherwise by standing before the nation to announce initiatives he’ll have no hand in implementing. We do support him when he does good things. But it doesn’t mean when people make an allegation against you, you are guilty of those things. Anything we do must be within the confines of the law. If the minister says things which are malicious and injurious to people, that is unlawful and should not be condoned by anyone.
What about the unlawful behaviour of your members?
We don’t condone that conduct by police officers. But this institution is highly regulated. It has got policies, it has got regulations, it’s got standing orders, it’s got everything.
So why are there so many rogue cops?
It means that the command and control environment is weak. But officers who are involved in crime are tried and found guilty.
Weren’t the protests because they have not been tried?
Just because they accuse them doesn’t mean these officers have done wrong.
Do you agree that in a case like this something needs to be done?
The politicians must do their job, and allow police officers to do their work.
How can officers not be removed with such serious allegations against them?
You can remove them, but you must use the rules to do so.
Can they remain with such serious allegations against them?
Just because there are allegations you can’t say they have committed these things.
They have not stopped drug trafficking and kidnapping in the area. Isn’t this enough reason for them to be removed?
They have never been implicated and their stations have been doing well until this political debacle.
Didn’t your own secretarygeneral say crime intelligence had verified the complaints of the community?
What he’s saying is that there is a problem with crime intelligence. Crime intelligence is weak.
Do you agree that swift action needs to be taken against rotten or nonperforming officers?
The management have got a tool to measure nonperforming police officers.
So do you accept this is a major problem?
I accept that there is a problem with discipline.
That’s putting it very mildly, isn’t it? According to police records 1 400 serving officers have criminal records.
You should find out how many have been convicted.
They’ve got criminal records, haven’t they?
Gauteng reported that they dismissed 802.