Some subjects of the Great White Queen are outraged that she had to billet at home, then host at a state banquet, an ill-educated African tribesman with unusual sexual habits. As the Daily Mail put it, “Jacob Zuma is a sex obsessed bigot with four wives and 35 children. Why is Britain fawning over this vile buffoon?”
Unfortunately for Her Majesty, the dancing polygamist — who at his rural retreat prefers leopard-skin and white takkies to the sober suits of his philosophising predecessor — is improbably the leader of the most important country in sub-Saharan Africa. And South Africa is also a leading light in the Queen’s cherished pet project, the Commonwealth.
The tabloid spleen over whether President Zuma is a sex fiend or merely an entertaining buffoon is diverting, but essentially irrelevant. After a lifetime at it, Lizzie is pragmatic about the demands that the nation’s commerce and geopolitics impose on her social diary.
The queen hosts, at most, two state visits a year. Over 58 years, however, this adds up to lavishing hospitality on an array of unsavoury thugs whom the British government of the day was romancing. These included Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu; Mobutu Sese Seko, plunderer of Zaire; Robert Mugabe, plunderer of Zimbabwe; and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whose harem and number of offspring rival that of Zuma.
There was also Hirohito, the unrepentant emperor of wartime Japan, whose soldiers savagely abused Allied prisoners-of-war. Hirohito’s controversial 1971 visit had the crowds turning their backs on his horse-drawn carriage trip up the Mall to Buckingham Palace and inspired Private Eye’s memorable cover, ‘There’s a nasty Nip in the air’.
In any case, the queen cannot afford to be too precious about sexual idiosyncrasies. After all, her heir apparent once expressed a heartfelt desire to be reincarnated as his lover’s tampon.
Fortunately, the influential Financial Times has been more positive about the visit. Alec Russell, the FT‘s world news editor and author of After Mandela — the Battle for the Soul of South Africa, dismissed depictions of the visit as comic opera.
Russell argues that it is easy to underestimate Zuma, “to be diverted by the cartoonish caricature”. But it’s a measure of Zuma’s canniness that he returns on a visit invested with “all the pomp that Britain can muster”, while just over two years ago during the leadership battle, Zuma was “all but barred, even from the SA High Commission”.
As usual, Queenie’s instincts are good. Historical, trade and tourism ties between the two countries are strong but the Brits are aware that Zuma’s government is increasingly looking East for the future. Or as Russell delicately puts it, “there are suitors from elsewhere with less intrusive demands”, who see SA not as the failed rainbow nation but “an emerging market with countless opportunities, and an obvious gateway to Africa”.
What everyone is waiting for from Zuma is leadership. It has been sorely lacking at home and now he has fluffed the chance to exhibit it on the international stage that former president Thabo Mbeki bestrode with such confidence.
It is difficult to imagine a less suitable issue for Zuma to highlight while in Britain than the lifting of ‘smart-sanctions” against Zimbabwe. Firstly, it is not going to happen: the United States has just announced their retention for at least another year. Secondly, to lift sanctions will not “facilitate progress” as Zuma claims, but will weaken further the already precarious position of the opposition in Zimbabwe’s coalition government.
A few years back, Zuma used to deride Mbeki’s appeasement of Mugabe, promising a harder, unilateral line. That has not happened. Not because circumstances have improved in Zimbabwe, but because SA’s genial president is incapable of making difficult, controversial decisions.
Meanwhile, one must hope that the roving-eye consort of Britain’s stoically monogamous GWQ didn’t pick up any kinky polygamous ideas chatting with JZ.
Your disingenuous argument about strategic interests to counter the China is absolutely inconsequential. The British ruling class are hypocrites, as demonstrated by the array of “thugs” they hosted over the years of the disintegration of the British Empire and their fixation on their ex-colony, Zimbabwe. This predictable behavior from this pitiful bunch is doing what it has ALWAYS done, even during apartheid – simply protecting its financial interests.
Now are now pulling out all the stops to entertain Zuma for ONE AND ONLY ONE reason – to protect their ill-gotten gains that they’ve accumulated over the centuries under imperialism and apartheid. Remember their vile foreign policy that had the collective effect of supporting the apartheid government, even after the the US economic sanctions began to tighten its grip in the late 80s. British multi-national corporations operated freely in apartheid SA and still control a large part of the SA economy.
The N word (nationalization) sends shivers down their spine…oops, I mean gives them goosebumps since most royalty are really spineless creatures, aren’t they?
Please learn to appreciate other peoples practices such as polygamy , traditional medicine and animal sacrifices and you will fit better in SA.
I have lived in the rural areas where polygamy is rampant and you will never get those people to stop. Its like the belief in ancestoral spirits or belief in Jesus , Mohamed or such.
You people are barking against the wind. Polygamy is legal and here to stay. Deriding it makes you look as though you want to instill your own values onto african people.
Go to the rural areas and try to talk about it. they will ask you so where your problem is. White people who do not practice polygamy seem so riled by it. The black people are cool with it. Its a none issue – leave it already The vast majority of black people know someone who is a polygamist, are from a polygamous history or are polygamists themselves or admire polygamist.
These are the people who vote in droves in SA.They could never disqualify anyone because he is a polygamist or kill a bull ritually. This is why Zuma is so popular among black people.
Please study and learn what makes other people tick.If you go to india make the cow sacred.In australia eat the kangaroo (although its on our national emblem and we hate seeing kangaroos used in boxing matches).
Please try to have respect
One has to wonder why Jacob Zuma would call for the removal of sanctions on the cusp of President Obama’s renewal of the same for another year. His spin doctors are making a fool of him. He should change them immediately.
One also has to wonder why Jacob Zuma has softened his stance towards Mugabe since coming into office – to the point of almost looking as if he is supporting Mugabe.
Bearing in mind Tokio Sexwale’s expressions of unending unconditional ANC love and brotherly support for zanupf at the last zanupf conference, I can only conclude one thing. Mugabe must know far too much, has theatened to spill beans and thus is forcing brother movements like the ANC into “compliance” with anything zanupf does, including gross human rights abuses (quiet diplomacy still reigns). Being held to ransom does come to mind.
So it begs the question, who is really in charge of affiars in SADC and Southern Africa?
Answer: Mugabe, of course.
There can be no other explanation that causes such political silence on the can of worms that has forced 4.5 million people to flee across the Limpopo and take jobs from South Africans.
It seems obvious that the downstream acts of xenophobia by poor south africans is a much lesser threat than the threat of Mugabe spilling the beans on the ANC.
You’re right! QE3 (the person, not a ship) has staying power and broad shoulders. With her brood, she’s seen and heard it all. I doubt one chubby black man fazed her in the least.
I’m glad Zuma brought up Zim sanctions. Apart from the fact that Brown is probably the first person ever to say ‘No’ to Zuma, it’s time someone told him to finish a job he’s meant to do: mediate.
He’s certainly not getting much else done around here. His personal life takes up far too much of his time. So next time in business anyone is tempted to tell a woman she can’t have time off for a sick child, please remember Zuma’s example.
Zuma’s leadership, though, is not to be decried. He led an entire country up the garden path…
Sweet Dave! They have little to do with anything but what the UK government wants. And QEII can only advise and may not be listened to even so.
Dave Harris
You are a total cook. I don’t believe you even live in Africa. The Brits pulled out of Africa because African colonies were costing them too much (all those hospitals, schools, roads, sewerage works, railways etc etc). Once they had lost India they had no interest in Africa. They wrapped it up in clever words “giving independence” etc.etc.
Then the Russians and the Americans turned Africa into a battleground (neither of whom had ever BUILT anything or lived in Africa with Africans!)
William
My bet is that the Conservatives will get their revenge on Labour when they get into power.
It is Zuma’s support of Mugabe that has upset the Brits – which is why the media went for him. His sex life was just the excuse.
SA should be a beacon of hope for the African continent. Whether it lives up to its promise remains to be seen. SA needs to decide between the Botswana model of stability, good governance and responsible leadership or the Mobutu Sese Seko model of plunder, corruption, nepotism and chaos. Among the people the signs are positive. Among the leadership they are less clear.
a guy called Julius Ceasar referred to England as “treacherous Albion” in “de bello gallico”.
Later repeated by the French reference to “Albion perfide” somewhere in the 17th century.
Ever since, they have build their “British Empire” on false promises and trying to keep this group together in the Commonwealth for their own good.
They have seen what happened to Belgium after they let go off the Congo.
I would have admired Zuma if he had worked on the Zim issue with the threat to move out of the Commonwealth. The old apartheid government survived without membership with this outdated body.
I like the way every blogger, commentator and fool always tries to drag the Zim question into their pieces, without the slightest first hand knowledge of contemporary Zim politics. It’s interesting how we, Zimbabweans, are being made to believe that embagoes on our state enterprises are indeed “smart sanctions”. What’s smart about an entity charged with the responsibility of providing power to the entire economy not being able to access finance and other assistance? We’re also told of Mugabe being a plunderer of the Zimbabwean resources yet none has been able to point a finger at a single tangible evidence of the plunder. You can blame Mugabe about a lot of things, but certainly not being corrupt.
Polygamy is alive and well in most cultures in different forms and under different names.
The Western society has developed into practices of “swinging” and “poly-amore” (also called “serial monogamy” or “open relationship”) or just the more hidden “affair”.
Many people have always looked beyond the stranglehold of the traditional marriage as (supposedly) defined by God.
Zuma? If his tradition or culture allows him what he does, who are we to make a meal out of it. Serious concerns? Or just jealousy?
@Haiwa Tigere
Your comments certainly strike a chord with me – I think that it is important that we get to know and understand each other’s viewpoints, beliefs and cultures, and devlop a spirit of tolerance PROVIDED the exercise of those beliefs and cultures take places within the ambit of the law and constitution.
I have been fortunate to travel the world quite extensively, and have come to realsie that many people’s beliefs and cultures are very different to my own.
This does not make them better, or worse, it just makes them different!
Whilst I agree with you that presidents Zuma’s adherence to many traditional African practices is one of the things that makes him so popular (“one of us” – “man of the people”)with (especially rural) black people, I would personally much prefer it if his popularity was based on some worthwhle achievements as leader of our nation – growing the economy, eradicating corruption, reducing poverty, building houses, sorting out public health services etc.
If he did these things (and there seems little evidence that he will), then although ritual animal slaughter, polygamy and invoking the spirits of the ancestors is not for me personally, I would not care too much how much Zuma engaged in these practices.
Darl,
How do you explain Mugabe’s yearly ‘earnings’ of 5% of Zimbabwe’s GDP, and his obscene wealth and spending. To hold onto political power, he STOLE two consecutive national elections, and invoked the STEALING of white owned farms.
You state that he is not corrupt. I know that the state of public healthcare is practically non-existent in your cesspool of a country, but get thee hence to your nearest lunatic asylum, pronto.
QEII may be scrupulously monogamous but rumours about Prince Philip’s extramarital affairs have been circulating throughout his marriage to the Queen. So it’s not surprising that her children should get up to things frowned upon in a so-called monogamous culture. But it doesn’t stop there – her marriage and Prince Charles’s marriage were both arranged, not exactly the norm in British culture.
Anyway, what does it matter what she says and does? Although not a rubber stamp and devoid of influence, she merely does what the government of the day wants her to do.
I’m afraid I LOL at the people who say we should RESPECT politicians. um, NO. Zuma can have as many wives as he wants, but DO NOT ask us to censor reporting on them!! And my bet is we have LOTS more entertainment coming as his many kids pop out everywhere asking for overseas shopping trips and fancy cars “just like Tokyo’s and Patrice’s kids, Daddy”. My personal QUOTE OF THE YEAR was the pom paper that said “Zuma was greeted by Mrs Queen with the usual pomp . . . “
Dear Benzol,
I am curious. What did happen to Belgium after the Congo became independent???
Great article i really like it.
What about Diana Spencer’s promiscuity? Charles is and has always been far more contint. Why can’t you compare Zuma to someone whose sexual practices were not too varied from his- Princess Diana of Wales.
Diana Spencer compared to Jacob Zuma? Are you for real?
For a start, Diana had a much better body than poor old JZ. And the only reason I suppose Ms Lipinsky thought she was comparably promiscuous must be as a result of the millions lecherous males oglying over her very fine form on TV. But sleep with them, in your dreams Phillipa…. in your dreams….
Zuma will continue to support Mugabe for as long as it pleases Malema for him to do so. Malema pulls the strings and Zuma dances to his tune. Zuma is good at dancing and singing but not much else unless you feel that his contribution to the population explosion is a virtue? The ANCYL put Zuma where he is and they can take it away with equal ease. The ANCYL thinks that Zuma should have a second term? Well that cannot be based on performace unless the above mentioned singing, dancing and having babies is the only criteria.