“To be or not to be, that is the question” that confronted Hamlet in William Shakespeare’s classic tragedy of the same name. Hamlet is confronted with two important considerations, which pose to him a predicament of sorts; whether to reprimand his mother or protect her; to love Ophelia or reject her; to kill Claudius or continue agonising about it. Indecision is Hamlet’s tragic flaw.
The nature of leadership is decisiveness. The ability to make unpopular decisions when populism and inaction are the most alluring alternatives in the midst of difficulty is a mark of good and exemplary leadership.
Nelson Mandela once said, “It is absolutely necessary for a leader to make decisions without consulting anyone.” Mandela made these remarks when reflecting on events that led to the “talks about talks”, when he initiated preliminary negotiations with the apartheid government during his imprisonment.
The ANC espouses the concept of “collective leadership” which assumes collective responsibility and accountability, though in practice it tends to promote collective lack of accountability; as has been consistently demonstrated by Jacob Zuma through his chronic indecisiveness. Populists and the indecisive people like Zuma thrive on unnecessary adulation and sycophancy, and generally prefer the protracted process of “consultation” when immediate action is required. As a leader you cannot please all people all the time. Make those unpopular decisions in the interest of progress.
Mandela himself admitted that in 1985 when he unilaterally launched negotiations with the PW Botha’s apartheid government was highly unlikely that the ANC leadership would have agreed to negotiations when militancy appeared to be the preferred alternative. He defied the ANC and his own previous stance that “prisoners cannot negotiate” in the interest of advancing the cause of the oppressed masses.
Cyril Ramaphosa, then a powerful trade unionist with the National Union of Mineworkers, said: “We thought he was selling out. I went to see him to tell him, ‘What are you doing?’ It was an unbelievable initiative. He took a massive risk.”
Perhaps what Mandela did not know was that Thabo Mbeki had already been secretly engaging with prominent Afrikaners to discuss the possibility of entering into negotiations. He met with Tony Bloom, Frederik Van Zyl Slabbert, Willie Esterhuyse and other Afrikaner intellectuals and businessmen in 1987 at Dakar. Esterhuyse had attended this meeting with the blessing of his handlers at National Intelligence, which was led by Neil Barnard. Barnard had been facilitating talks between Mandela and with PW Botha.
Mbeki explained that, “the problem at the time was that there was a strong difference of opinion in the ANC about the possibility of [anything] other than an armed seizure of power … There were some people who were not only sceptical but hostile to the idea. They saw it as selling out, treachery … you couldn’t convince them about the fact that in reality the struggle was evolving away from an insurrectionary path.”
It appears that insurrectionists like Joe Slovo and Christ Hani could not imagine anything but the seizure of power. Had the nauseating obsession with process of consultation been complied with all during this critical period of the struggle for liberation, freedom may not have come as soon as it did. As Richard Stengel wrote in the Times magazine, a leader must lead from the front.
The problem we currently have is that a supposed leader in the name of Jacob Zuma is neither leading from the front nor from the back. He is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Our very own Hamlet. South Africa desperately needs leadership. Government is plagued by extreme corruption and lack of service delivery. The ANC in their discussion documents for the forthcoming national general council claims to be concerned about “corruption, power struggles and moral decay”. We are all seriously concerned as well. However, despite all these concerns nothing is being done by government nor is the president showing leadership in addressing these issues. Nor is he even pretending to be providing leadership. We cannot keep debating issues. A debate is remedy that President Lover Lover consistently prescribes for all societal problems. (**blank stare**)
As one columnist indicated, we have a presidential white elephant. Our economy is continuing to bleed jobs while our peers in the developing world are showing remarkable recovery from the recent global financial crisis. What the public desperately clamour for is the president to exercise the same enthusiasm and commitment in discharging his constitutional duties as he does in conducting extra-marital affairs. We have been hearing about evaluation of the performance of Ministers for a long time now; and there has not been any traction. How difficult is it really to assess their performance? Who assesses Zuma’s performance? And how do ministers perform when some like Ebrahim Patel don’t seem to know what their job description is.
The question of who is responsible for macroeconomic policy reared its head again at the recent Cabinet lekgotla; instead of finally giving direction, Zuma suggested a special Cabinet meeting to sort out the “economic roadmap”. It is not clear how exactly that would resolve the issue of who is actually responsible for macro-economic policy. Zuma’s inaction and indecisiveness borders on serious dereliction of his constitutional duties. He is enjoined by the Constitution to develop and implement national policy. Failure on part of government is failure of the president to discharge his constitutional mandate. Our Constitution does not make provision for a ceremonial president. If the task at hand overwhelms Zuma; he may follow on the example of his idol, Nelson Mandela, and delegate day-to-day function of running government to his deputy. Mandela focused on nation building and reconciliation when his deputy Thabo Mbeki ensured that the national executive discharged their duty of service to the public.
Jacob Zuma should no fear in anyway that the public would judge him if he admitted his inadequacy as President. We have already judged him. What we need now is action on part of government to fulfil its commitment of a better life for all.
South Africa is still very much polarised along racial lines. It appears that Zuma’s government pinned its hopes on the hosting of the Soccer World Cup to bridge the racial divide; forgetting that the collective euphoria arising out of such epic events are momentary. Perhaps in the spirit of “collective leadership”, Zuma and his Cabinet suffered collective amnesia in respect of the fleeting impact that 1995 Rugby World Cup had. For Zuma to ask us to keep flying the flag is an insult to the process of reconciliation. Patriotism should be inspired by achievements of government; and the general hope of a better future, not a misinformed instruction by the president.
It does not assist Zuma’s cause as president to allow his supporters and defend their singing about killing “boere”. Challenges confronting society do not need misguided militancy but clarity of purpose towards making South Africa a united and prosperous nation.
If “to lead or not to lead” is the question confronting Jacob Zuma. We urge him to consider the former or go back to Nkandla and look after his wives and concubines. He must stop behaving like an adolescent that thrives on adulation from peers. The greatest peril of populism in a country with high unemployment, high levels of poverty, entrenched corruption and lack of service delivery is that we become the victims.
We may just need collective therapy to overcome this tragedy.
I am not sure it is entirely fair to President Zuma to place the blame for lack of leadership at his feet. Is this nor a more fundamental issue – namely that the ethos of the ruling party is not so much collectivism or democratic centralism, but that the party is above the president, who is above parliament, which is above the government, which is above the state, which is above the people. In a classic democracy, the hierarchy is exactly the other way around. I suspect President Zuma is doing the best he can under the circumstances, knowing that the Party is the source of all wisdom and all authority.
Behind you 100%, couldn’t have put it better. This level of indecisiveness makes everyone in SA frustrated. We cannot move forward without a clear direction and all we have currently is a lot of mixed messages.
Spot on TM and very sharp…. “We urge him to consider the former or go back to Nkandla and look after his wives and concubines. He must stop behaving like an adolescent that thrives on adulation from peers.”
Please write an article on VIRODENE and BEETROOT next.
Well written! It’s a pity that it won’t be acted upon – too many gravy train commuters?
Couldn’t put it better myself. Someone said that we’ve weathered this recent economic crisis as (relatively) well as we have, in spite of Zuma, not because of him.
We all have different management styles and all is ok IF we understand our style and its affect on those we have control over. So JZ’s style is not neccessarily wrong if he chose a deputy who complimented his style. Perhaps that is where the problem is – the deputy and head of state are not complimentary. Nelson relied on his deputy whereas JZ does not rely on his deputy or his deputy is not strong enough.
People like Mandela, and arguably even Mbeki, took up the presidential cloak with some sort of vision for the nation. You might not have identified with that vision, but at least they had a national vision. They had some dignity.
Zuma and his cronies have no vision and no dignity. Most of them have no passion for the nation—only for themselves. Zuma’s “Bring me my machine gun” chant that brought him to power is testimony to his vacuous national aspirations. His passion is in the past.
His entire public life is a testimony of crude unprincipled self-interested action, whether one considers his corrupt actions as vice-president, his adulterous relationships, his appointment of cronies to protect him from prosecution, his family businesses, his extended tolerance of Malema, his banning of the Dali Lama and embrace of Ray Macauly, etc. etc. The man is an out-and-out opportunist.
Shame on the ANC for selecting him as their leader!
“Hamlet”: the ideal analogy.
For Shakespeare’s audience, the illegitimate accession to his brother’s throne and marrying of his brother’s widow must have been a reminder of Henry VIII (Katherine being Arthur’s widow and HVIII trying to wriggle out of the marriage). The delegate rigging within the ANC refers, with the matrimonial/sexual escapades of Humping Dumpty matching those of HVIII. Okay, he hasn’t quarrelled with the Pope. Only the Dali Lama.
The play within the play reminds of the ANCYL sleaze with the ANC sleaze congress gerrymandering; how appropriate the “outing” of Claudius (with the play) when the ANC is imposing the Cover-up Bill.
Claudius killed democracy by poison in the ears, the ANC has taken control of SABC for just that purpose. The snooping behind arrasses reonates withy the conspiracies and spies vs spies within the ANC and its abuses of the NIA.
Hamlet’s indecision lead to many deaths and much gore. Need I refer to the HIV and infant mortality or the racist- (so-called xenophobic) deaths ANC dithering has caused.
The recurrent theme in Shakespeare’s plays is the good guy gone bad. Henry being the archetype (started as good-looking, tennis- & music- playing, 6 foot, Renaissance prince Hal; ended as despostic proto-Mugabe ANC role model, having debased the currency and slaughtered many “Men For All Seasons” along the way).
Remember when Zuma was a Good Guy with even Malema prepared to die for him?
I pafrtly agree, but the allicance structure and the heteroenous natous of his backers have made it very ddificult for JZ to strike out boldly in a new direction. And boy do wee need it. Someone needs to hang a sign saying “Its the economy, stupid”, in Parliament.
@Mark,Chico, J. Zuma said before the election in SA that he had no knowledge of running the government. He said that the only thing he would do is whatever decisions the party makes, he would follow them. The ANC selected Zuma to stand for the president of their party and the people voted for him. The problem is not Zuma because he has very little power and must follow the party decisions. This is one of the flaws in the constitution of SA, the president isn’t directly elected and has very little power. One must not forget what happened to Mbeki and that the party removed him prior to the last election. I think the people should stop treating Zuma like he is Louis the 16th of France prior to the French revolution.
Either you deliberately confuse your reader or your eulogy of Thabo Mbeki’s efforts is out of place. You wrote “Mandela himself admitted that in 1985 when he unilaterally launched negotiations with the PW Botha’s apartheid government ” and later “Thabo Mbeki had already been secretly engaging with prominent Afrikaners….in in 1987 at Dakar” You get my drift 1987 is before 1985. Ish bro get your facts right. I love the scorn you reserves for Jacob ‘Sex Machine’ Zuma.
When I initially read this article, I sort of liked it, probably because of my personal views on JZ’s appropriateness for the responsible role as President of the RSA. But, when I read the article two and three times over, I fail to understand what it is the writer desires action to be taken on.
To juxtapose Madiba and Mbeki’s singular acts of decisiveness with the ongoing leadership of a fledgling democracy is probably a bit unfair, especially because we have the benefit of hindsight.
The reality is, JZ inherited the leadership of a very different ANC from that which Madiba and Mbeki could “defy”. There is just no comparison between an underground liberation movement and a ruling party with huge resources and organisation at its disposal.
Therefore, are we calling for decisiveness without the need to consult, even in the face of issues that may be against the interests of the some of the people, or even the people as a whole? To be or not to be? I guess that remains the question?
I understand that the view on leadership represents an opinion piece, without any scholarly value on the use of different leadership styles for different situations, which the writer may very well expand on in future. But, let’s do that before we relegate JZ to Nkandla.
Was Madiba’s “ceremonial presidency” unconstitutional? If so, wouldn’t JZ’s? Let’s have a national debate on the kind of leader we need at this conjuncture of our nations evolution, and ensure our president receive the professional help from handlers who can impart these to him, rather than a banishment order.
If Africa evolved from a communal consultative mode of engagement, is the ANC approach not perhaps at a cross-road with African traditional leadership and western-style democracy, which more often is no democracy at all?
To be or not to be, let’s evaluate and discuss the question.
@James, Wal and Fergie, I can appreciate your inputs, as they are devoid of an emotional dislike of JZ, but rather an objective criticism of his perceived shortcomings as President, which Fergie has reminded us was admitted by JZ upfront.
Did the writer get the timelines wrong, maybe they are not necessarily linear in his mind. If they are linear, the former may have influenced the latter.
1985 or 1987 is not the point. This article is highlighting the gravity of our president’s indecision. We, as the population could not be bothered by the intricacies of his presidency and its relationship with the ANC. Not all of us voters are literate you know, in fact the maority of us are illiterate. All we know is that Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma is the president of the republic and thus we expect him to lead. Therefore Sentlentle is correct in his assessment of the man who is supposedly in charge. I’d rather have a Mandela and Mbeki who regulary flouted the ill-concieved governance by Luthuli House programme and took matters in their own hands. The difference between the three is quite obvious. You don’t have to like Mbeki to realise that he lead, and you don’t have to hate Zuma to realise that he doesn’t and actually doesn’t even know how to lead. Remember the man can’t even run his office and I can’t imagine that he needs the ANC to do that either. If Zuma did say that he doesn’t know how to run a country and the ANC still put him in the presidency anyway, that tells a lot about what this organisation has become. What does he mean anyway by not knowing how to run a country, he was a deputy president for pete’s sake.
Zuma promised us when he was electioneering last year, that he would crate 500,000 jobs in his first year. Well he succeed in doing that, or so he told the nation but, the fact that during the same period the country shed 980,000 odd jobs was of no matter to him. And, of course he has not shown anyone where and how those jobs were created? Words are easy, delivery is more difficult. Perhaps they were created to serve all his many wives and households? Accountability is not a word in the Xhosa or Zulu vocabulary, so as JuJu would say it does not exist. The only way for a “Man For All Seasons” to remain as such is to continued to say the right things to the right audience but to delver nothing. As Zuma knows “Tomorrow Never Comes” so he is happy to wait that long but we are not. All the government is good at is setting up committties to discuss things that need the input of other committees, who need the input of other committees, and so it goes on, and just like our justice system, nothing ever happens but the Gravy Train grinds on regardless. Zuma is toothless and worthless because he has too many people to satisfy and he simply cannot satisfy them all so he satisfies none.
@fergie: I see things as follows:
1. I agree substantially with Sentlese that the country needs a better leader.
2. The primary responsibility for this lies with members of the ANC—and the more influential they are, the higher their responsibility. It was their choice to select an incompetent as their leader, and therefore also the country’s president.
3. However, it is wrong to exhonorate Zuma. Ag shame, poor Jacob: by his own admission, he has no knowledge of running the government, but then along comes the ANC and forces him to do so! I would have thought that as a matter of humility and integrity, one should refuse to take up an office if you know that you don’t know how to fulfill its mandate. But that’s not what Zuma does. Just as he is lured into sex with the daughters of his friends, so too he is lured into public office by his comrades. If Zuma is a victim, it is of his own poor judgment. The problem is that the country has to suffer the consequences.
3. I think that the problem lies less with the constitution than with the unsophisticated electorate. The ANC’s choice of Zuma was, I believe, precisely motivated their opportunistic but (correct) calculation that the electorate would support a traditionalist Zulu, despite his incompetence. That is precisely why I think senior party leaders are largely to blame for our malaise.
Eish—apologies for 3 X 2 instead of 4
A small group of us in conversation today decided that the person for president is definitely Sebb Blatter. We may not like him, he may not even be South African, but he certainly got things moving in this country. Perhaps Zuma has realised that it’s all too easy to find himself going the same way as Mbeki — his main agenda is to stay as popular as possible; unfortunately, the only place that’s working is in the ANC, where everyone now goes their own sweet way. As many of our countrymen who own guns have realised since 1994, owning one often leads to finding it used to kill you. He must be desperate to stay clear of the machine gun he was calling for.
What happened to Trevor Manuel? Has he simply lost his economic edge or is he now ignored? His low profile at a time when he could be of some use is frightening!
@Chico,a small group of people control the ANC and most of the people have no voice in the party. This is why Malema is allowed to travel over the country creating tension because he has control of a large number of delegates in the ANC. SA is a flawed democracy and the people have no voice in running the government. When the government was setup in 1994 the people who wrote the constitution didn’t want the masses to have a voice in the government. In a way I can understand why the framers of the constitution did this to keep a Mugabe style government from developing. In Mandela’s book, he said while he was in prison, he studied what other Africa governments were doing wrong and didn’t want SA to make the same mistakes by setting up the wrong style government.
Well written article,But might agree with @Owen that president and his deputy must complement each other,the problem with collective decisions is that sometimes no decision is taken,or that we dont agree.With most of my relationships I sometimes had to make a decisions by myself, like someone said for progres’s sake,to sit around hoping things will change does not work,for as long as u do it for the beterment of the relationship
good piece
A brilliant piece!
History will forgive one who makes a decision whether wrong or right decision as that can be rectified. But history will not forgive the one who never made a decision.
JZ knows Power is a transcient thing and sooner than later it will pass on to another. What will be his legacy? Unfortunately as an Africa in Diasopora, this seems to be deja vous to some of us
Ag shame… this was such a ‘nice’ piece and then you had to go and introduce race again… always the ‘race card’ rears its head… mutter mutter.
Why must our President be a “white” elephant? Hm. According to all the logic he should be a “black’ elephant. Surely, had the ancient king of Siam [Thailand now] seen fit to give a black elephant “to a courtier he wished to ruin” with such a ‘burdensome’ gift [ ref: Brewers] a black elephant would have done as well as a white one, both being equally rare.
Frivolity aside, the issue is really one of governance rather than leadership… He is a congenial enough leader, and his overt horniness is refreshing. It’s just that no one is scared of him; so few bother to do their jobs and too many people are getting away with it.
The sad truth is that the former regime were ‘kolektively’ themselves such mediocrities they failed to recognise that they were usurped by other similar mediocrities: and now that we are beginning to recognise their fallibility there is nothing they or anyone else can do about it… Basically you need a real elephant to do an elephant’s job and regrettably they all seem to have been poached..
Great article my man.Maybe I’m biased against JZ and cant see anything good coming from him.The fact is all his supposed supporters complain about his indicisiveness-COSATU,ANCYL,SACP (though in a nicer way). The guy just cannot make up his mind, looking at his history has has never took charge of his life there was always someone doing this and that for him.I just hope we see the last of him in 2014 before the country slide further into darkness.
TL is supposed to be where intellectual pieces are posted, debated and critiqued, it’s not meant to be a domain of gutter journalism. Your article belongs to the later. Attack Zuma on the shortcomings you have observed but do not involve his wives or Inkandla since you article has nothing to do with them. Offer us a well balanced, critiquing and cold-blooded attack on JZ. But PLEASE, give alternatives rather than just bashing the man only.
Your argument is feeble, disingenuous, hate-driven and void of truth. Decision making that you argue that Zuma lacks is something that our former presidents failed to make during their own terms (it can also be argued that the ANC as a whole failed to make break or make decisions before and after 1994). You fail dismally to point out various variables that have led to a SA that we know today.
You argue that Mandela focused on nation building and reconciliation and Thabo Mbeki ensured that the national executive discharged their duty of service to the public. Mandela’s nation building exercise did not create jobs for millions of our people nor put food on the table for the hungry. Your article today proves that Mandela failed in that quest and the so-called rainbow nation never existed. If Mbeki ensured that the executive discharge its duties we would not be debating (service delivery, economic policy, xenophobia, AA, BEE etc) this today.
Cont…
Cont..
Corruption in our country did not start with a Zuma presidency. The Nats government and the civil servants were corrupt. The ANC government inherited that. An astute reader like your self should know that during the transition period (of governments) corruption become rampant in the infant stages. You should have mirrored that with legislative apparatus aimed at curbing corruption. Furthermore, when we talk about corrupt politicians we must give the same criticism on the corruptors who happen to be the leaders of business.
You argue that JZ must give SA the economic direction but you fail to state that our former presidents failed dismally to influence the economic direction of our country. The RDP (ANC economic policy) was replaced by GEAR (influenced and parachuted into our country by Harvard Univ scholars, WTO and the World Bank). You fail to acknowledge that the ANC is a broad church deriving its membership from all classes which means that any decision taken must be representative and adopted by most of the stakeholders.
Cont…
Furthermore, the ANC has created a new elite class and a very broad black middle class which if not accommodated in decision making pertaining to the economy may abandon it. It’s a dilemma that even your favorite president may find challenging. Lastly, when the people voted for the ANC they were not looking for a messiah nor for an intellectual that will agree to any economic policy approved by the west but they wanted someone that will engage SA and the stakeholders within the ANC to come to the decision that we all agree upon.
On the issue of racial schism, you made me laugh at your ignorance. Mandela rode on the 1995 Rugby World Cup why not Zuma. Patriotism is subjective to each individual it is not only inspired by achievements of government; and the general hope of a better future as you allude but by first acknowledging that SA is our country and work together for its success. It is a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself, of belonging to a great nation. It is born of our passion and love for our country. It makes us fear for her, defend her, sacrifice for her.
The question is: What have you done for your country to show patriotism?
Zuma is a man (and hence his personal corrupt lifestyle is to the point) but he is also a symbol. As a symbol, he legitimated throwing out Mbeki and replacing Mbeki with something else. The point about replacing a government is that you expect the replacement to be better. What Mr. Diakanyo is pointing out is that the replacement is worse.
Part of the reason why it is worse is structural — the breakdown in party discipline and personal responsibility in the ANC. This did not all come from Zuma, but undeniably he made as much use of it as he could during his long campaign for the Presidency. He has done nothing to reverse it. Hence he is more responsible for the structural crisis in South African politics (for the problem goes beyond the ANC) than most.
Meanwhile, as President, he has conspicuously failed to give leadership, or to mobilise the public in support of positive or productive national goals. Nor has there been any policy improvement since the Mbeki government; the policies are essentially the same, with all their flaws, and where the policies of the past worked, under Zuma the lack of leadership and failure of governance makes matters increasingly dysfunctional.
Mtimande, the truest patriot is the person who is prepared to stand up and criticise bad leaders, for the sake of the country. Sentletse is quite right to question why the leadership lacks vision. I am a patriot but my heart sinks at the current incompetence and corruption and lack of direction from the top. I will not seek refuge in easy patriotism. I will do whatever I can to improve the lives of those around me, but I will also do my duty in calling leaders to account.