Three cheers for South Africa:
One for president Zuma, one for the print media,
& one for the Democratic Alliance

“A week is a long time in politics” is attributed to Harold Wilson, the former Labour Prime Minister of Britain. What this is supposed to signify is that political fortunes can change very rapidly. If one week is a long time in politics generally, in South African politics three weeks is a life-time.

Three weeks ago President Zuma was a write-off – newspapers carried cartoons of his highly piled in-tray, suggesting that he simply wasn’t taking decisions. The general opinion was that the man is chronically indecisive. Suddenly, however, the following happened:

President Zuma announced that he would make public the report of a Commission of Inquiry into the South African role in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. The report was chaired by Advocate Michael Donen, SC and delivered in June 2006 but, notwithstanding enormous pressure down the years, has never been released. The background to the report is that in April 2004, the United Nations Security Council passed the resolution to establish a high-level inquiry to investigate the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. This report, frankly, severely compromised South Africa’s position at the UN. It identified illicit activities (in South Africa and elsewhere) by many contractors under the programme. Why did President Zuma suddenly release it? The answer, as much that is happening in South Africa today, seems to be the battle for ANC succession and the fact that the Donen Commission required both Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe and Minister Tokyo Sexwale to testify – precisely the two people who have been talked about as being potential successors to Zuma!
More surprisingly, President Zuma announced a judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal. The arms deal itself was concluded in the early years of the new government and from the outset was highly controversial with arguments as to whether the military hardware in the form of ships and airplanes was really necessary. It was a multi-million dollar transaction which sparked enormous speculation and has even been the subject of several books – notably Andrew Feinstein’s After the Party. Evidence has trickled out here and there of massive kickbacks and bribes involving very prominent people in South Africa – including possibly President Zuma himself. The reason he appointed the Commission was not out of any wish to cleanse the body politic of what has been a festering sore, but because of the brave actions and campaigning of certain individuals backed by the South African print media. Terry Crawford-Brown, for example, has singularly taken on the government to the point of ruining himself financially in pressing for an inquiry. Zuma and his advisors felt compelled to agree to appoint the Commission when, as a result of Crawford-Brown’s actions, the Constitutional Court has become involved. As Zuma pointed out to his Cabinet, it was better that he determine the terms of reference of the Commission than this be done by the Constitutional Court for him. Senior lawyers and others involved in the matter welcomed the appointment of the particular three judges who initially would form the Commission and welcomed also its terms of reference which are satisfactorily wide.

President Zuma’s next step was to suspend the National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele and fire Cooperative Governance Minister Sicelo Shiceka and Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde. President Zuma had been under immense pressure to act against them following Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s findings against them in separate investigations. It will be recalled that in Insight (15 September 2011) potential conflict between the Public Protector’s recommendations and call for action and Zuma’s need to act was discussed in terms of a possible major constitutional conflict. That has now been avoided. In fact, as The Cape Times said in an editorial “The reshuffle reaffirms the authority of Madonsela as citizens’ watchdog against state wrongdoing.” And, quite frankly, the print media in South Africa must take credit for applying the pressure in this regard. Zuma’s decision was long-overdue or as Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille said: “It was better late than never. Accountability is critical to making democracy work. If ministers abuse their power they must be fired.” While on the one hand these decisions could help change the perception that the President is indecisive or soft on corruption, the dismissals are not without political risk to him. Bheki Cele, who aside from his incompetence has proved to be an embarrassment to the country, is a strong player within the Zulu population of KwaZulu-Natal – where Zuma has a lot of support. However, there have been suggestions that Cele was beginning to turn against Zuma.

All these developments take place against a ruling party which is completely at war with itself primarily over political succession and whether Zuma should have a second term or not. Just how serious this is maybe gauged from what a group of ANC war veterans were reported in the Sunday Times (23 October 2011) to give as their reason for lobbying that the important national conference next year should not be elective, but a “non-elective” consultative conference. “What drives people in an organisation that is in a state of chaos, disintegrating and about to implode, to pursue with such heightened fervour and passion and zeal an elective conference that will, for all intents and purposes, lead to the organisation’s ultimate demise and destruction?” And Allister Sparks the veteran columnist says in more sober and reflective tones: “The African National Congress (ANC), following its heroic liberation struggle, has lost its way in government. The combination of internal divisions, rampant corruption, inefficient governance and President Jacob Zuma’s lack of vision, mean our hopeful new non-racial democracy is drifting aimlessly in a prolonged global recession.”

Allister wrote this in prefacing another important development of the last three weeks, namely the Opposition Democratic Alliance’s decision to elect Lindiwe Mazibuko as its leader in Parliament. The contest was between the 31-year old black lady MP – and the incumbent Athol Trollip, a 49-year old white male. The Caucus decided by a significant majority to support Mazibuko. In the end, like so many things in South Africa, the contest was regrettably but inevitably cast in racial terms. This is a very important development and one that warrants a separate brief.