I always enjoy looking at a contrarian point of view that challenges the status quo of opinion in order to round out a debate on an issue, especially one that is largely emotive. Over the years, contrarians have often proved to be right in the face of a majority that builds a collective consensus through a group-think mentality. And so this brings me to Jacob Zuma.
About a year ago I wrote a post on my blog about Zuma, relating specifically to the “white fright” about Zuma becoming president of South Africa. I reread it again recently and it seemed to still have plenty of relevance as a debating point, and thus I’ve updated it and republished it on the Thought Leader forum.
Let’s start with three current elements of the anti-Zuma opinion within this issue. The first is the widely held belief among the white elite that if Zuma comes to power in South Africa, we will immediately begin a slide to a non-functioning and socialist state, beginning with the repealing of our macroeconomic policies and the dismantling of political centralisation.
The second is the view that we do not have a robust enough democracy in South Africa that is able to stop him from pursuing any agenda he so chooses. The third is that should he be given the presidency, South Africa will become the laughing stock of the world, with the result of lost credulity on the world stage and a loss of all we have fought so hard to build.
Let’s continue with the ground rules. Firstly, I harbour no favour for a Zuma presidency and believe that he holds little to a leader of the international quality of Mandela or Mbeki. Secondly, I make and see no excuse for his failings in terms of allegations of corruption and sexual misconduct or his bigoted comments regarding gay people. My point here is to provide a contrarian view to the three broader elements of the status quo mentioned above.
So the hypothesis, then, is that if Zuma comes to power, it will not push South Africa into a heavily socialist, backward country and ruin the economic freedom and development so hard fought in the past decade.
I base this initial segment of the hypothesis upon a few key facts from Zuma’s past. Firstly, one has to realise that Zuma is riding Cosatu’s coat-tails primarily to achieve his aim of reaching the presidency. This has been borne out in Cosatu’s recent decision to endorse Zuma as its preferred candidate.
Further, Zuma had been deputy president of South Africa for six years, and sat by and supported the ANC’s commitment to the current — and by emerging-market terms, substantially capitalist — macroeconomic policies. As an aside, it’s also important to note that, as Markinor surveys have shown, less than half of Cosatu’s base would support a Zuma presidency in their individual capacities, so it’s no foregone conclusion.
However, should he come to power, he will need much more than Cosatu’s backing alone. But I think that people misunderstand Zuma’s political savvy — he’s built a significant power base, as can well be seen, and he’s built it in direct opposition to the type of leader Mbeki is, because he cannot beat a leader like Mbeki on the same terms. He has to take another approach, to build a differentiation as it were, and this is by way of populist support, and thus, pandering to populist ideals.
I don’t think Zuma accidentally procured populist support; I think he’s courted and nurtured it as his vehicle to power. Think of how carefully he has taken risks to appeal to the poorer man in the street, without completely alienating himself from the corridors of power. Think of how he has taken great pains to appeal to the Afrikaans electorate through carefully stage-managed appearances with Steve Hofmeyr and public support during the De la Rey uproar.
Does that mean that if he comes to power, he has to adopt an entirely populist approach politically? Not necessarily. The current ANC voting bloc is impressively forgiving of its president — a hangover from the as-yet-intact “liberation party” principles of our nascent democracy. I believe that Zuma undoubtedly knows this, and may well understand that he can pay lip service to his populist base and make some fairly demonstrative moves, but will not need to (and — I will explain — will not be able to) push through a socialist populist agenda.
This final point finds relevance in the fact that in modern South Africa, many of our largest and most influential businessmen (vis-à-vis Messrs Sexwale, Ramaphosa et al) are former ANC struggle leaders who hold large sway in terms of influence of party faithful and the ANC’s upper echelons.
There is simply too much riding on the success of our economy to alter its course to a significantly more socialist one. Small changes can be made, such as the extension of the income grants, but the sway of these ex-leadership businessmen — and presidential challengers — will be fully brought to bear on the ANC upper echelons should this go any further.
Then there is the issue of South Africa’s democratic institutions, most notably the press. The South African press has a largely negative view of Zuma, and one cannot underestimate the power of the press to sway influence in the succession battle. This naturally makes the December 2007 ANC conference a critical time for the press’ influence, as once the ANC presidential candidate is chosen there, power is largely a given.
However, if Zuma does take power, the press will undoubtedly give him a very tough time on political issues and can be a significant power in shifting voting patterns in municipal elections and in shifting electorate views. The ANC is also well aware that it is in the early stages of a very difficult time for the party, with different factions both in the tripartite alliance and the party splitting its unity. The press can only further divide these factions, and should Zuma try to force through socialist reforms, I think that the press would raise the stakes and make it very difficult for him to do so without doing notable damage to the ANC’s future strength.
I think if Zuma comes to power, he may well tip the scales back a bit from our current position in terms of a truly capitalist macroeconomic policy, but we need to realise that will most likely not be anything that will harm the long-term success of the country. Countries such as France, Germany and Canada are successful with macroeconomic policies that are largely more socialist than ours, and nobody tolls the death bells for them.
There will undoubtedly be some capital flight as foreign investors perceive greater political risk and move money from emerging economies, but should the economy stabilise, this will undoubtedly return. Likewise for the rand, but again, our economy has shown to be very resilient to internal shocks in the past. Assuming for the sake of argument that Zuma is given the ANC presidency in December, should he communicate more effectively to business leaders subsequent to the AGM on what type of president he will be, he may go a long way to protecting against this capital flight in the interim.
Finally, there are the electorate themselves. The white elite generally view the black majority as a homogenous voting bloc, which is far from the truth. Surveys have shown that Zuma has divided the black electorate and while they will probably not shift votes from the ANC to other parties, they may abstain from voting and will probably be very vocal in their opposition to what they perceive will be Zuma policies if he is elected. This will also be a handicap for Zuma as, within the ANC philosophy, there is no single person bigger than the party, and there will undoubtedly be much pressure on him Zuma internally to respect the party’s historical strength as one that represents the largest proportion of the non-white majority.
On the third and final point, we are not alone in having leaders with questionable pasts, where examples abound. Former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had many allegations of graft against him before and during his presidency, alleged ties with the Mafia and many accusations of propaganda and abuse of power during the run-up to his election. Nobody stopped talking to Italy.
Look no further than George Bush for the best example. No matter what a disaster he is, there are few countries not willing to make a presidential visit to the US. The point is, a president of a country will be judged on what he does in office (vis-à-vis Berlusconi), and if the country is of strategic importance — as South Africa is economically and politically — then countries will still retain strong foreign relations (vis-à-vis Bush).
One needs to remember that this is what happens in a democracy — it’s the will of the people as a whole, not your vote individually. In the US, many on the far left emigrated from the country, such was their disgust that Bush won the 2004 election. That was not the right response there, and it’s not the right response here either. If you don’t like something in a democracy, you own it! It’s your democracy — get out there and change it. Campaign for the other guy, write letters to the press, donate to a competitor’s campaign, do something about it.
Sadly, I feel that too often the white elite fall into the “Chicken Little” mentality, where they are continually waiting for the sky to fall. The Zuma presidency is the latest such event that is “doomed make us like Zimbabwe”. But before we listen to the dinner-party talk and believe it, or buy into the group-think mentality, take a moment to challenge that view and check those assumptions.
A Zuma presidency will undoubtedly not be ideal for our country, but let’s wait and see how bad it is. It may not in practice prove to be nearly as dire as many believe, and I contest that our democracy, its institutions and our economy are much stronger than many believe. I can tell you one thing, South Africa will still be a great place to live …
The problem with Zuma is more his most vocal supporters. People like the ANC Youth League, who have extreme views at the best of times.
Cosatu is putting everything at stake, even damaging their alliance with the ANC, just to endorse a Zuma presidency.
Why? What has Zuma done for them? Surely they have spoken, behind closed doors, where Zuma has promised them something in exchange for this support.
It’s the hidden motives here that are so scary.
Capdog,
I’m not sure that Zuma has had to promise anything to Cosatu, their move is sheer desperation. One must remember that Cosatu has gone from an organisation of great influence within the tri-partite alliance, to an organisation that struggles to bring any policy pressure to bear. Along comes Zuma, who they see as an anti-Mbeki man who can only be better than the staunchly pro-business leadership currently on offer. All Zuma has to do is to dangle the carrot of influence in front of them to get their vote. But importantly, his previous policy lines have been incredibly blurred, allowing him to pander to the crowd without taking any really decisive action. With that in mind, I’m not sure Cosatu has a hidden agenda, I think they’re just desperate for a leader who will actually give them an ear, let alone change policy.
This is a very interesting article and I agree with many of your points.
In the South African media way too much editorial space has been wasted on trashing Zuma and too little on examining what his policies actually are.
I believe you are quite right in saying too much economic progress is at stake for a Zuma presidency to undo much. The more South Africa has moved into the global market, the more difficult it will be to pull out.
Where I disagree with you,. Jonty, is in your assesment of his leadership. I think Zuma is actually a very good leader; he certainly is an astute politician, even with all his personality flaws.
Will the English speaking media affect a Zuma presidency campaign? I don’t actually think so. I suspect the majority of South African voters are not much influenced by it, to be honest.
And anyway, the most important thing is that elections are free and fair. To the outside world, whether South Africans choose someone with a dodgey past or not is actually irrevelant. What is important is the person/party with the most votes is our leader.
Thomas G
SA student in The Netherlands
I am just wondering why so many people are trying to see the bright side of a Zuma presidency. Is it because he might win, and we should be comfortable with it? I am not knocking Jonty, but asking a wider question.
Ebrahim-Khalil,
If I can answer for myself, it’s simply to try to get people to challenge their assumptions. I hear talk around dinner tables and braais all the time where the same hysterical comments about Zuma arise, most of which are in my opinion, hugely inflated. Again, I’m certainly not in favour of a Zuma presidency, but I’m also not in favour of one-sided debate that goes unchallenged. Hence a contrarian view to stir some debate and try to develop some introspection of opinion.
Cheers
Jonty
Jonty, thanks for the reply. In my world rather than people complaining about the downside of a Zuma presidency, suddenly people are changing their opinions and becoming very supportive of a Zuma presidency. It happens when people smell a victory. Personally, I think the ANC should allow the candidadates to test their ideas with the public, as I argued in my blog.
Ja, maybe some of us are kind of subconsciously preparing ourselves for a Zuma presidency. But I still think Jonty’s right in that he won’t be as bad as many poeple make out. And anyway, a little planning ahead could be quite handy.
Think about it: Zuma would be way more approachable than Mbeki, which would be great for the media. With a bit of strategic maneuvering now by some sharp editors the English media could possibly have more access to him than Mbeki. Now that would be new.
Also, wouldn’t it be great to have a press conference by South African president for a change? We’ve been missing so much in the last 8 years.
By the way, Ebrahim, I totally agree with your blog about a more transparent ANC candidates debate. After all, that’s where the most interesting politics happens in South Africa, but it’s all shrouded in secrecy! It really is a pity.
But Jonty, since you definately know more about this than I do, does the English media have a big influence on the voting majority? That seems to be the crux of your arguement for keeping a Zuma presidency in check. (Would be great if it was true.)
Thomas,
Realistically, not as much as I would hope (!), but I also think that it’s not just the English media that has a distrust of Zuma. Commentary coming out of traditional language media has also shown some unhappiness with Zuma’s progress. My greater point is to say that we do have a very strong and vocal press in this country, which will be brought to bear against Zuma should he stray far from the garden path.
Hi Thomas and Jonty,
Personally all the candidates scare the living daylights out of me
I am personally not sure what Zuma or any of the candidates stand for. I would like to have them spell out what there policies are. I worry that we will simply accept someone to lead us, when we do not know where he (they) will take us. Check out my article called “Why Adrian Mole is more important than Browse Mole”. which (I hope) explains why we need to know what the candidates want to do.
Jonty,
That’s promising to hear your opinion. I must say the SA media does seem to be in a healthy state.
Ebrahim-K, couldn’t you or one of your fine colleagues do some research and possibly write a piece on the policies of the candidates? Or would that kind of info be too difficult to uncover and therefore just speculation?
Jonty, nice idea. Let me think about it. And yes it is difficult to get their policies.
Ebrahim-K the policies of all the candidates is the ANC policy. The only difference would be their plan/vision on implementing the policies.
Azola, I wish it was as simple as that. But, it is not. ANC policy is wide and I agree must provide a framework, but public policy is much more detailed, leaving a future president with a high level of descretion.
Jonty, at least you have the honesty to call yourself a “pseudo jouno”. It’s about the only time you seem to have the courage to take an honest look at things.
I dont’ have the time for a lin-by-line deconstruction of your article, so just a few comments…
In your first paragraph you immediately sets your tone by dismissing the concerns about Zuma as “white fright” – thus using the good old race card to de-legitimise the concerns (would that make sensible black people who share the same concerns white?)
Then you say people fear a slide into a non-functioning state if Zuma comes to power – completing missing the reality that it’s happening already.
You somehow seems to think that Mbeki is a leader of “international quality” (not to mention having the gall the compare him to a true statesman like Mandela) – presumably you’re unaware that the former’s AIDS stance has already made us a laughing stock in many quarters internationally.
And of course you can’t resist dragging out that hoary old SA denialism trick – erm, but other countries, like Italy, have leaders with questionable pasts. Which presumably means that it’s ok for us to have one?
I could go on…
Wow!! This is such an amazing like article thing… I’m doing a speech at school on the exact same topic as your like article thing and your like article thing has helped me out alot. Thanks! You’re my hero now…
I really do not know whats going to happen to South Africa with the Zuma Government.Most people who are inlove with this guy are crazy and they very opportunistic.The ANCYL President is willing to take up arms how mad can a fat young man be.Mbalula was singing praises of Zuma because he wants a sit in Parliament.The ANCWL is also aiming to get positions because if the Mbeki Camp doesnt win ,the women who have been put in power by Mbeki are getting a boot thats just politics for you.If the do not like you ,you are out good Job or not.
its a crazy world with Zulu all of them are fools not an intch of good leadership.Does Zuma even answer any question properly he cant even prepare for a speach for goodness sake and he wants to lead the country.
One thing forsure manto will go I think he will just resign if Zuma takes over that will be a record broken because Mbeki has secrets that he doesnt want the tressure to reveil that is why he can not remove the tressures wife no matter what Mbeki will not be removed.
guilty or not the rape trial is still with him whereva he goes people see a rapist and who the hell in their right minds wants to be represented by a man like that unless you want to have all the womens rights movement protesting sies South Africans.
and Please go to Clicks and you will find that next to the Shelf of Condoms there is baby oil,