Share

The tyranny of Jacob Zuma leadership

The dawn of democracy in South Africa was supposed to have placed constrains on ‘politics of leadership’ and ushered in:  “Leaders publicly accountable and establishing an institutional mechanism through which they can be removed.” 

Why Nelson Mandela is still revered nationally and internationally, it is because he espoused ‘virtues of leadership’. He supposedly succeeded in uniting a somewhat indifferent people to pull in the same direction.

Why Jacob Zuma is somewhat despised and controversial, it is because he espoused the ‘dangers of leadership’. He supposedly succeeded in dividing society even his own political party into a culture of leaders and followers. A culture of deference in which leaders ‘knew best’ and the public needed to be the flock.

With Jacob Zuma at the helm accountability had become a fallacy and institutions established to enforce “checks and balances” had been rendered obsolete. His leadership had defied democratic principles and dictates and ushered in the following:

-       Patronage politics in which some would even kill to be part of the flock.

-       The concentration of power to his leadership had resulted in him attaining and now revering ‘cult stature’. As a result, the so-called security upgrades at his Inkandla home were allegedly completed corruptly at his own behest, discretion, appeasement and amusement. Not forgetting Guptagate!

-       The Inkandla final report of the ANC Parliamentary Ad hoc Committee proved how Zuma leadership had engendered subservience and defense of the indefensible.

-       Zuma leadership emphasis on ideas flowing down from the top, rather than up from the bottom. As a result debate and argument in his own ANC, society and the National Assembly had been narrowed.

The 21st August 2014 EFF demand of Zuma to “pay back the money” was unorthodox, yes it directly challenged and stripped naked his supposed cult personality stature.

That defied the so-called sanctity of Parliament – Before then, Zuma had cultivated a form of ritualized idolatrization, as a consequence, his flock in the ANC Caucus were itching to physically confront EFF Caucus in defense of Zuma.

The name Lindiwe Zulu is the consequence of ritualized idolatrization, and of how Parliament had now degenerated into a TV theatre of filibustering and near physical confrontation.

Nelson Mandela envisaged ‘unity in diversity’ had encouraged inert and directionless groups to pull in same direction. As a result the country had realized a Government of National Unity (GNU) after the 27th April 1994 first democratic elections. While Jacob Zuma, pursues politics of patronage and racial nationalism.

The Mandela GNU was shattered when the National Party withdrew its support. Probably Tony Leon had foreseen what the National Party FW De Klerk could not. Nelson Mandela and ANC Government National Unity was the co-option of smaller opposition parties into ruling party. As a consequence, to date the likes of Inkatha had lost their identity and National Party became extinct.  

The consequence of GNU, the DP was left alone to robustly debate and engaged the ANC, and a case in point was the Sarafina 2 scandal.

I had to relate to the past in order for us to understand the present, so-called Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa brokered ‘Peace’ with opposition parties in Parliament.

Ramaphosa had said: “We have agreed that we are going to address various matters that have to deal with application of the rules and matters of principle. The current processes with respect to the earlier disruptions in the House will be held in abeyance until the committee has completed its work.”

The above statement meant – Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) MPs facing suspension without pay from Parliament after chanting “pay back the money” to President Zuma wereconditionallyoff the hook.

I have a serious problem with Cyril Ramaphosa conditional ‘Peace Treaty’ and my reasons are as follows:-

-       To my knowledge, the so-called “disruptions” were rightful calls to Jacob Zuma to account and take responsibility for the inexcusable and insatiable corruption at his home.

-       On the 13th November 2014, it was known before the sitting of the National Assembly that, the Inkandla ANC Ad hoc Committee final report was a whitewash.

-       With the Speaker of Parliament allegedly wanting to stifle debate about the Inkandla report and the ANC Caucus envisaging its adoption a mere formality, it was right of the opposition to force the House to debate the report in what today the Speaker called “filibustering by the opposition.”

Cyril Ramaphosa had traded the salaries of EFF MPs for a promise by opposition parties that they will respect Parliament’s rules in future. Such “Treaty” is tantamount to blackmail. A price had been put on principle!

Cyril Ramaphosa intentions only materialized when on the 20th November 2014 when DA wanted to have a debate about Jacob Zuma absconding his responsibilities. Again, the ugly side of Zuma leadership had again taken precedence over principle!

Cyril Ramaphosa counter response was to revoke the ‘conditional immunity from sanction’ he had granted EFF. That proved, there was a monetary price to pay if the opposition parties continued to demand Zuma be accountable and responsible to the ‘People’.

The ‘Peace Treaty’ in the name of Parliament tranquility was nothing but ANC attempt to co-opt the opposition into an Assembly of National Capitulation (ANC).

Jacob Zuma and ANC had been shaken by the United Opposition which had been forged to pursue common objective(s) after the 07th May 2014 general elections. Today’s shaken and frightened Jacob Zuma is a consequence of a United Opposition.

Cyril Ramaphosa literally bought Zuma a less than 48 hours reprieve, but not principle. But when the DA wanted to pursue its mandate, then Cyril Ramaphosa cried foul and revoked the conditional undertaking not to sanction EFF.

The EFF and a Unified Opposition are being held to ransom by the ANC and if they were to capitulate, then the tyranny of the majority would have prevailed and South Africa would dive further into the abyss of elective dictatorship.

What the RSA Constitution had envisaged was a rule by the People in a Democracy, where; 

-       a system of decision making was not only based on the principle of majority rule

-       but a system of rule that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks upon the power of the majority

-       a system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their participation in political life

But instead the ‘People’ had been replaced by ruling party dictates, domination and strict discipline expected of each ‘Party Representative’. An attempt is being made by the ruling party to immobilize the ‘People’.  As a consequence, South Africa is now a victim majority tyranny. An elective dictatorship!

“The National Assembly is elected to represent the people and to ensure government by the people under the Constitution (Chapter 4, Section 42 (3) RSA Constitution, 1996).”

The hype behind the RSA Constitution is a fallacy because the Constitution is flawed in the sense that, National Assembly members are nominated by their respective Political Parties and not directly elected by the ‘People’. Thus today we have the majority party dictatorship!

Also after the 21st August 2014, the so-called “rules of engagement in Parliament” were exposed for what they were exactly – Rules to curtail robust debate and protect the Executive from being held accountable and responsible to the People.

The mandate of the opposition is to hold the ruling party and government accountable and responsible to the ‘People’ they purport to represent. It is of National interest, importance and patriotism for the opposition parties never to betray principle and their mandate to robustly debate and condemn without reservation inexcusable issues e.g. Inkandla and Guptagate.   

The opposition parties have an unconditional constitutional mandate from those who to hold the ruling ANC and the Executive accountable and responsible. That mandate must not be on condition, the cult personality status and ego of Jacob Zuma remained intact.

Now or never, EFF must prove their sincerity and principle in calling for Jacob Zuma to: “pay back the money”. Under no circumstances must the EFF and other opposition parties capitulate for a few Rand more. No, to the Assembly of National Capitulation (ANC)!

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
Who we choose to trust can have a profound impact on our lives. Join thousands of devoted South Africans who look to News24 to bring them news they can trust every day. As we celebrate 25 years, become a News24 subscriber as we strive to keep you informed, inspired and empowered.
Join News24 today
heading
description
username
Show Comments ()
Voting Booth
Should Siya Kolisi keep the captaincy as the Springboks build towards their World Cup title defence in 2027?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
Yes! Siya will only be 36 at the next World Cup. He can make it!
26% - 1122 votes
No! I think the smart thing to do is start again with a younger skipper ...
29% - 1290 votes
I'd keep Siya captain for now, but look to have someone else for 2027.
45% - 1988 votes
Vote
Rand - Dollar
18.96
-0.1%
Rand - Pound
24.12
-0.0%
Rand - Euro
20.62
-0.2%
Rand - Aus dollar
12.40
+0.2%
Rand - Yen
0.13
+0.3%
Platinum
911.84
-1.3%
Palladium
1,018.92
-4.4%
Gold
2,161.91
+0.1%
Silver
25.15
+0.5%
Brent Crude
86.89
+1.8%
Top 40
66,252
0.0%
All Share
72,430
0.0%
Resource 10
53,317
0.0%
Industrial 25
100,473
0.0%
Financial 15
16,622
0.0%
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes Iress logo
Editorial feedback and complaints

Contact the public editor with feedback for our journalists, complaints, queries or suggestions about articles on News24.

LEARN MORE