Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Print
E-mail
Tags
Long-term outlook has changed dramatically
President Jacob Zuma’s latest sex scandal threatens completely to overshadow his State of the Nation address on Thursday, despite the importance of a number of issues he should be addressing. The scandal seems to significantly have weakened Zuma’s position in the ruling ANC Alliance, with all Alliance parties toning down their reactions and not coming to his defence. It seems a second term as president is now no longer a given. However, should this or a any other scandal cut short Zuma’s presidency, for South Africa the sting in the tale of this saga lies in the question of who could succeed him.
On Thursday, President Zuma will deliver his second State of the Nation Address to Parliament. With the effects of the global economic crisis and South Africa’s recession still central; with the eyes of the world on South Africa’s hosting the Fifa Soccer World Cup; with a damaging nationalisation debate raging; with the government having failed to deliver on its promised job creation; and with local government in a state of paralysis, to name but a few issues – Thursday’s speech promises to be vital.
Unfortunately for Zuma and the government, much of what he will have to say will be overshadowed completely by the ongoing national rage and public outcry over his personal conduct; conduct that seriously is affecting his position of power within the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and his option of serving a second term as president.
At the same time, however, there are those in the ANC who are closing ranks around their president, rejecting the outcry and the accusations – causing critics to say this is further proof of a Zuma-fied ANC selling out on its own core values and principles.
The latest scandal-induced outcry followed revelations a week ago about Zuma’s fathering of an illegitimate child with the daughter of a friend, and his subsequent apology to his family, the nation and his party. The affair, however, raised questions about his responsibilities as president, the moral leadership (or lack thereof) which he is providing, the wider consequences of his behaviour and the example he is setting in a country with the highest HIV/Aids prevalence rate in the world.
Condemnation has come from all quarters, not only from the political opposition, and this has been peppered with calls ranging from demands for Zuma’s resignation to calls that he should undergo therapy.
So far, Zuma has responded to only one call, namely that he apologises to the nation for his behaviour. This he has done, albeit while attempting to minimise the gravity of his conduct by trying to shrug off the outrage by calling it a private affair, and by an attempt to shift blame for the affair to the “mischief’ of the media and others. In short, while saying he is sorry, Zuma finds it extremely hard to take responsibility.
It is not the first time that Zuma has come under fire for his sexual exploits. In 2006, he was acquitted on a rape charge, but admitted to having had unprotected sex with the complainant despite having known that she was HIV positive.
Upon his acquittal in the 2006 rape trial, Judge Willem van der Merwe found him criminally not guilty of the rape, but in effect found him morally guilty of irresponsible sexual behaviour, saying it was “totally unacceptable” for a man to have unprotected sex with a woman who was not his regular partner. Citing a poem by Rudyard Kipling, the judge counselled Zuma to mend his sexual ways – advice that apparently fell on deaf ears.
Following his rise to power in 2007, Zuma had to undertake to senior ANC colleagues that he would desist from any conduct in his private life which could subject the ANC to another scandal such as that associated with the rape case. It was his reneging on that undertaking and the latest embarrassment caused to the party which is said to have angered senior ANC leaders. In fact, so serious was the situation that Zuma was forced last week to withdraw from his public engagements for two days to allow the ANC to implement damage control.
Many have rejected Zuma’s apology as too little too late, while others have pointed out how he has qualified his 'guilt' and tried to shift the blame.
On 9 February, the National Interfaith Leadership Council (NILC) declared that Zuma’s apology should be accepted, he should be forgiven and the country should move on. However, the NILC was formed by an influential close confidante of Zuma, namely Rhema Bible Church’s Pastor Ray McCauley, and others from the religious sector seeking greater political favour with the current political power elite. And a number of the 20-odd council members – at last count, at least four – are ANC MPs.
It will be recalled that McCauley also offered his popular Johannesburg church as an election platform to Zuma last year. And while McCauley and his NILC are now turning a blind eye to Zuma’s polygamy and sexual infidelities, they have been campaigning actively (and lobbying Zuma and associates) for the reversal of the laws legalising abortion and same-sex marriages. How much weight can be given to such double standards?
Zuma’s apology is his third, the other two having been in connection with his sexual behaviour as exposed by the 2006 rape case, and his statement that gays should be beaten up.
Zuma’s conduct has been also in contravention of Clause 130 of the ANC’s own Strategy and Tactics document adopted at the party’s 52nd national conference held in Polokwane in 2007. That clause states: “And wherever they are to be found, ANC cadres should act as custodians of the principles of fundamental change, winning respect among their peers and society at large through exemplary conduct. They must be informed by values of honesty, hard work, humility, service to the people and respect for the laws of the land”.
While none of Zuma’s most vocal supporters in the ANC Alliance has criticised him in public, there has been private criticism aplenty, and a marked toning down in public 'support' for him by organisations such as the ANC Youth League (ANCYL), Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), while none has come to his defence.
The ANC and these organisations have said simply that they accept Zuma’s apology. Cosatu also accepted the apology, but did not come to Zuma’s defence, while the SACP steadfastly refused to comment at all. The usually vocal Young Communist League (YCL) has also been quiet. The ANCYL had earlier said that an “elder” member of the ANC’s private affairs should not be discussed in public, but later merely accepted Zuma’s apology and said it was time to move on. There was none of the usual vocal grandstanding and public display of support for Zuma from ANCYL leaders such as Julius Malema.
Zuma’s implied views on women and his reckless sexual exploits certainly go strongly against the grain of two of his biggest supporting, albeit diametrically opposed, constituencies. It certainly is not condoned by South Africa’s large Christian community, of which Zuma professes to be a member. It also clashes directly with the policies of the SACP and Cosatu, which decisively supported Zuma’s successful bid to topple Thabo Mbeki and become president of both the ANC and the country. Both the SACP and Cosatu reject tribalism and sexism, among other things.
Then there is the question of international perceptions. In all South Africa’s major trading partners, this kind of behaviour by a president would promptly have led to his dismissal. The question many are also asking, is: what does this say about the soundness of judgement by a man leading Africa’s largest, most modern and most sophisticated economy, and one of only a handful of true democracies on the continent?
In inner ANC circles, there has been much talk these last few days that another scandal would, or should, be the end of Zuma; that the party cannot afford any more such scandals; and that Zuma should serve out only his current term and forget about a second. But when this issue was probed by the media over the weekend, some in the Alliance started closing ranks around Zuma, uncertain, it seems, about how to handle this.
Cosatu spokesperson Patrick Craven merely says that the union's position on two terms for Zuma has not changed; and an ANC spokesperson has been quoted as saying that the matter will have to be settled at the ANC’s 2012 national conference; the SACP will not comment, while the ANCYL merely said that this issue must not be turned into a “national crisis”.
From no quarters has there been a trace of the kind of enthusiasm or support previously afforded Zuma, either as president or for a second term.
However, it remains to be seen how this will all pan out. Should Zuma be prevented from serving a second term, or should another scandal cause his early departure from the political stage, the question arises: who will succeed him?
Against a backdrop of the current factionalism and tensions in the Alliance, particularly the struggle between the centre nationalists and the left-wing communists – and given the early emergence of succession struggles in the ANC which threaten to dwarf those that occurred between Zuma and Mbeki in 2007; there are no clear contenders who appear to have sufficient support for the job.
Nominees at this stage could be anyone from Tokyo Sexwale, Kgalema Motlanthe and Gwede Mantashe, to Blade Nzimande, Julius Malema and a host of other equally unlikely candidates.
For South Africa, this is the real sting in the tale of the Zuma saga.
While Zuma’s comrades have treated him with disdain since his inauguration as President, the public has been largely lulled into complacency by the highly effective PR machine built around the mascot President. The revelations about Zuma’s extra marital affair have reminded people about Zuma’s disturbing tendency to bed his friends’ children. This has dealt a fatal blow to Zuma the mascot and now all that remains is Zuma the lame duck. The question is, given all that we have to achieve as a country, can we afford a President who is a lame duck four years before his term is to end?