The recent reports of Mbeki’s alleged misdemeanours in the Sunday Times, along with the elevated rhetoric from those in the Zuma camp over the last week, have surprised and rightly concerned many. Rumours of Mbeki’s involvement in the arms deal have been whispered and deliberated in the corridors of ANC power for some time now, but the timing of the “leak” of this report is in no way coincidental, and forms part of a wider campaign to force the country to accept the final option open to guarantee Zuma’s freedom.
Last week’s decision by the Constitutional Court to allow the damning documents seized from Zuma’s home and office saw Zuma’s last real chance for freedom spurned. So what is left for Zuma? The answer to that question has been coming for months now, certainly ever since Polokwane, and we are currently ringside at the final outcome. The last page of the Zuma playbook is a blanket amnesty for all those involved in the arms deal, thus ridding Zuma of his presidential shackles and damning Mbeki by implication.
Against this backdrop, one can more clearly understand the rhetoric that has been flying around in the media over the last week. Hear Umkhonto we Sizwe Military Veterans’ Association’s assertions of “No Zuma, no country” and a mobilisation of long-defunct MK platoons; see the SACP’s Blade Nzimande stating that the Zuma case is “raising the political temperature, which is not good for our young democracy”; listen to ANC Youth League president Julius Malema saying that “Zuma must be president whether there is a court case or not”; or see ANC secretary general, Gwede Mantashe, in his various thinly-veiled threats against the judiciary.
This is a clear lifting of the political atmosphere with one endgame in mind — to raise the spectre of a guilty verdict for Zuma leading to a breakdown in our democracy, and by proxy making a blanket amnesty the “safe” option. In essence, it is an extreme measure to make the unpalatable palatable. Unfortunately, it smacks a bit like terrorism, using the threat of a minority (research has illustrated that Zuma does not hold the support of the majority of the rank and file ANC membership as the president of South Africa, regardless of Polokwane’s position in the anti-Mbeki battleground) loud enough to present its cause as the view of the majority.
However, it is here where the voters of this country, and the ANC, find themselves in the post-Polokwane landscape, and where we see the acute vision of a party at war with itself. Much of the political environment of the last decade — and the next — is being condensed and packaged into a thousand small decisions that will be taken over the next few months, and it is undoubtedly a critical test of both our leading party, and of our nascent democracy.
If the nation as a whole falls for this blackmail then it is indeed time to pack for those who can. The rest, can only hope for the best.
I sincerely hope that the judiciary system is more robust and does not cave in at the first blast of the machine gun.
Further hope that the nation reaches the next election in fairly good shape and get rid of this bunch of infighting little ego’s with mass support of the brainless hooligans.
The collective intelligence of the nation should be able to weather this storm or put it in the ANC teacup where it belongs.
Fair analysis…Good on you Jonty!
None of my friends and aquaintances, including the black ones, have any respect for Zuma at all. It is all smoke and mirrors by the ANC to protect themselves from corruption charges.
I totally dislike Mbeki – but in all fairness it does not appear that he personally benefitted.
What we must NOT allow is a bunch of corrupt bullies to intimidate or blackmail us!
and JZ’s tax fraud just gets lost in the wood work.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=95895&sn=Marketingweb+detail
” If the trial of Jacob Zuma is blocked, what then for the ruling party?
In The Afrikaners: Biography of a people the historian Hermann Giliomee recounts how, in the run-up to the April 1994 elections the head of the defence force, George Meiring, held a series of meetings with General Constand Viljoen, the leader of the Afrikaner Volksfront and a predecessor of his.
The Volksfront was planning to disrupt the elections – it could raise a force of tens of thousands to do so – and Meiring was trying to dissuade Viljoen from pursuing this course of action. At one of these meetings Viljoen said: “You and I and our men can take this country in an afternoon,” to which Meiring replied (unanswerably), “Yes, that is so, but what do we do the morning after the coup?”
Such considerations are all too often forgotten when politicians become obsessed with achieving some desirable short term objective. The Americans, for instance, would have saved themselves much trouble if this question had been properly canvassed before the invasion of Iraq.
Equally, it is not a consideration that the current ANC leadership seems to be paying much attention to in their mad rush to protect Jacob Zuma.
Last week’s decision by the Constitutional Court to dismiss the ANC president’s challenge against the validity of the search and seizure warrants used to procure evidence against him was really his last best hope of scuppering his prosecution legally. Nonetheless, the ANC seems determined to press ahead with their efforts to block his criminal trial, by whatever means necessary.
Over the weekend the front page lead of Saturday Star was “Zuma will walk free.” The newspaper stated that Zuma “will not go on trial for corruption” as the ANC was considering either “amending the constitution to prevent a sitting president from being prosecuted” or passing a “blanket amnesty for all involved in the controversial arms deal.”
The SACP and COSATU were in a strong political and moral position post-Polokwane. They were relatively untainted by the abuse of power and corruption which had marred the Mbeki-era.
The left-leaning UCT academic, Anthony Butler, could plausibly claim back in March that the so-called “communist conspiracy” of Polokwane “saw erstwhile Leninist revolutionaries rescuing liberal democratic institutions from an Mbeki-ite factional project that threatened to submerge them.”
Several months on those two organisations have seriously compromised their moral standing by (inter alia)
pressing for the closure of the Scorpions and, more recently, by mobilising against the judiciary.
The paradox is that Zuma’s most vociferous supporters seem to be the ones with the least confidence in his innocence -
hence their determination to prevent his case ever coming to trial.
Presuming the ANC manages to block Zuma’s trial – through fair means or foul – and thereby ensure his accession to the state presidency, what then? With what kind of moral authority will such a Zuma presidency be able to govern South Africa? Can the citizenry of a country really be expected to respect and obey a government which openly flouts its own laws?
Corruption poses a huge problem not just for the country, but for the ANC’s long-term survival as well.
It has seriously corroded the organisation’s ability to deliver services to its own constituency. And the battle for the spoils of office – which have come to encompass tenders and state positions – has become a source of huge internal conflict.
In a recent article in the Financial Mail Carol Paton described the increasingly brutal contest for positions in the regional and provincial structures of the ANC.
The struggle, Paton writes, “is to gain control of two things in municipalities and provinces: the deployment of public representatives and state officials; and chains of procurement.”
The more honest elements in the new ANC leadership may recognise the problem.
But their current actions are going to leave them in a weak position when it comes to doing something about it post-2009.
They are squandering their authority, setting a dismal example, and depriving themselves of the one effective corruption combating organisation left to them (the Scorpions.)
Then there is the ‘arms deal’ which is sitting in their midst like an unexploded bomb.
The new ANC leadership would have been well-advised to put as much distance as possible between it and themselves.
This they could have done, had they not decided to make Zuma’s cause their own.
Now they will be much closer to the centre of the blast when that bomb goes off – as it is likely to do soon.
If there is one thing that will bring a premature end to the ANC’s seemingly impregnable electoral majority, it is corruption.
As Aristotle noted over two millennia ago:
“The people do not take any great offense at being kept out of the government – indeed they are rather pleased than otherwise at having leisure for their private business – but what irritates them is to think that their rulers are stealing the public money; then they are doubly annoyed; for they lose both honour and profit.”
The entire Zuma-strategy of the current ANC leadership seems predicated on the belief that its popular support can be taken for granted.
An article in ANC Today on Friday noted that – contrary to the claims of the Sunday Times – the organisation was not “in possession of any survey that indicates that voters have ditched the ANC, or plan to ditch the organisation at the next election.”
Still, sooner or later, the new ANC leadership is going to rue their current actions.”
SA has failed to reduce the scourge of corruption
from SABCNews.com
The Public Service Commission says corruption has turned South Africa into a sick society and the establishment of an Anti-Corruption Forum in 1999 has not served as a deterrent.
Yazeed Kamaldien
Protest provides clear picture of a divided ANC
THE ANC’s Western Cape leadership staged a rally in solidarity with party president Jacob Zuma yesterday — but fewer than 100 people turned up.
@Jonty
Completely agree with your analysis. Good article.
@Cynic
You make some cogent points clearly. Thanks for your post.
Excellent post. The current players risk trashing our country for a short-term win. Not something a good leader would gamble on.
We need some unifying and visionary leaders. Where are they?
Mbeki may not have benefitted but he sure as hell helped cover it all up. Do you think Bulelani Ngcuka didn’t talk to Mbeki before deciding not to prosecute Zuma. That had Mbeki’s fingerprints all over it, and it was only when Shaik was found guilty that his hand was forced.
Parliament (which before Polokwane was little more than Mbeki’s personal rubber stamp) quashed every attempt to even start investigating the arms deal.
You think Mbeki didn’t know that our ex Defense Minister Joe Modise was skimming a little off the top? Mbeki might be an idiot but he ain’t stupid.
Much as you would do anything to try and make sense on Zuma being guilty of selective corruption morality, we will equally do the same to ensure that you don’t, all of a sudden, lecture us on what is good for our country and how to intereprete our own constitution, and judiciary system. It is still us who posess clarity of thought on the direction our country needs to take – we did not just arrive here through a stroke of the pen – it was heavy, ask your granny, he/she will tell you if honest enough this time around
I posted this on another forum the other day.
“It is my wish that poor Mr Mandela who suffered all those years as a result of the injustices of the apartheid system, in his future years, does not have to suffer the global indignity and embarrassment, of having to observe his beloved ANC degenerate to a level, that would actually make its predecessors vision of separate development, look justified by comparison.”
My question is: Are there no people within the ANC structures who can counter the abyss into which the current leadership is leading them with the enthusiastic support of their sidekicks or, are they powerless as is the growing perception of the public in general?
Surely it is time that they should be voicing their position on the protection of the principles that they fought so hard to see coalesce and ensconced in the new SA.
Who knows how far the Zuma camp are prepared to go to avoid a trial? Will they still manage to convince enough voters to support them, having subverted the judiciary and constitution? It is a big political risk they are taking, but they know that it is their last chance to enrich themselves and therefore they are prepared to sacrifice everything in persuit of their goals. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. They are caught in the horns of a Molema.
CYNIC
Meiring went futher than that – when asked what he would do if soldiers muntineered against the new SA he said “Shoot them, the order has already gone out.”
Separate topic Jonty (can’t find your email): at the time Mark Shuttleworth went into space, you did the marketing for him. I contacted TBWA and suggested a radio ad that Mark might record from space to promote SA. Tagline: “You don’t have to go into outer space to find your inner space. Just come to Soutyh Africa.” I thought it was a valuable opportunity – Mark’s space trip – to market SA as a destination, piggybacking on international press. The opportunity (my small voice whispering through the thunder of traffic at the time) though was lost.
Masquerading opinions as facts in order to support your analysis is not the way to support and aegument. You speak of “research” (not cited adeqautely referenced) that was done that apparently shows that the majority of ANC members do not support Zuma. I fathom to understand how “perception surveys” or polls can ever be the best test of support than the actual vote of ANC members themselves in their own elections wherein every member had a right to nominate and vote and Zuma won by a huge margin. In American elections surveys are regularly proven wrong. Survey’s prior to the New hampshire primaries indicated that Obama was leading Hilary by a margin of 10%. Hilary won the primary. That is why your “research” are called opinion surveys. There are manner opinions in your analysis which are stated as facts.
Even your forecasts and predictions about future events are stated as facts. You postulate that Zuma wants blanket amnesty when even his supporters like Blade have been calling for a Judicial enquiry on the arms deal. You are prepared to characterise the ANC as a party at war with itself. If it was in another democratic party in a similar context like in the US, no one in their sane mind would call the recent battle between Obama and Hillary as an indication of war. No matter how bitter the rivalry for the Democratic Party Presidential contests was. Furthermore, before Brown tookover from Tony in the UK, Tony was facing discontent within his own Labour Party. No imagery of wars were offered to explain this democratic phenomenon.
Separate opinions, fiction and facts. The potjiekos of those is not good for the mind.
What the ANC is lacking right now is leaders who are not primarily self-serving but rather leaders who are interested in serving all their fellow citizens not just their cronies.
If the guy is guilty, then he is guilty. Bottom line.
If the results are fair and Zuma is found rightfully innocent, then I would gladly accept his Presidency. If not, then the law must follow through and prosecute him.
We cannot have leaders of this country who are dishonest and corrupt.
If there is threat of the youth league going to war, then government needs to step up, protect and stop violence.
Creating violence is a crime on its own.
Its time we as South Africans start doing things properly and make this country an amazing place.
Zero tolerance for criminals
It appears that you guys are talking among yourselves in the theatre of your intellectual/ academic myopia.
Smuts was stunned when he lost the election in 1948. He had not expected it at all – even although people like Ray Alexander had warned him that he was out of touch with his people.
What makes you so sure that South Africans won’t do it again?
now that we are all concerned about this country, please lets go vote and encourage all others to do the same.if we do not do so our land is gone(you know what I mean)