Using President Thabo Mbeki as a punching bag is becoming a favourite pastime among some of us. And because of the mistaken assumption that the independence of thought is grounded on the notion that one should, as a matter of principle, never agree with the government, we are unable to expose the abuse of our president as a stress ball.

Take the saga of the investigation by the Scorpions of Deputy President Jacob Zuma as an example. Some convoluted argument has been made that Mbeki has allowed the investigation of Zuma so that he would stay on for a third term as president.

The reason for this conclusion clearly suggests that Mbeki as president should have told the Scorpions chief Bulelani Ngcuka to stop his investigation of Zuma.

But can anyone imagine what outrage, and rightly so, the media, opposition parties and in fact anybody who treasures our democracy could generate at getting the news that Mbeki ordered the Scorpions to stop the probe?

There would be screaming headlines - "Mbeki undermines the independence of the Scorpions", "Zuma is above the law - Mbeki", "ANC top brass are untouchable - Mbeki". What did Mbeki do? He simply urged a speedy investigation of Zuma. Otherwise, he has been silent on the matter, and rightly so.

I would have imagined that rational thinking South Africans would have welcomed the investigation of Zuma. The point being that the system works. Our democracy works.

Nobody, including the deputy president, is above the law. If he is innocent, and by the way he should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, our independent courts will clear him should the probe reach that stage.

I would have thought that the Mbeki administration would get nods of approval for taking a rather bold move to subject the second most high-ranking government official to a probe.

I would have thought that the decision was particularly important that a few months before the election, the ANC could risk its unity as a ruling party to continue the probe. That in my book should count for something. It should count in favour of Mbeki and his party.

This does not mean that they are doing the nation a favour by investigating Zuma. In fact the credibility of government, the commitment to fighting all sorts of maladministration and corruption is consolidated by the probe. It means that Mbeki is prepared to walk the talk on his anti-graft stance.

But to turn around and insinuate that Mbeki is allowing the Zuma probe to pave way for his third term in office is to be disingenuous.

This view also assumes that there is a leadership crisis in this country. It assumes that if Zuma is eliminated from the presidential race, the nation would beg Mbeki to stay on like happened in Namibia where the constitution was changed to allow President Sam Nujoma to serve a third term.

Mbeki has never sent signals that suggest that he cherishes the idea of a third term and to use his position on Zuma to create a contrary view is totally mis-leading. It is to abuse him and this is unfair.

It has been claimed that Mbeki does not allow potential threats to his power.

The so-called plot to oust him by three businessmen - Tokyo Sexwale, Mathews Phosa and Cyril Ramaphosa - which came to naught is often cited as an example of Mbeki's grand plan to paralyse potential threats to his grip on power.

It has also been suggested that he does not seem to be keen on grooming a successor. In this regard, he is caught between a rock and a hard place.

If he were to openly endorse and anoint his heir apparent, he would likely expose himself to all sorts of criticism by those who believe that potential candidates should be given a fair and equal chance in a democracy. He might also expose his party to divisions led by various cabals.

On the other hand, his reluctance to express a preferred candidate for the country's most top job may be interpreted as signs of wanting to stay in power for a little longer than the current constitution allows.

There may be a need for an open debate on the possible next president but this should be conducted within bounds of logical reasoning.

Mbeki's name should not be dragged through the mud to make a point. Certainly on the Zuma debacle Mbeki has so far done nothing wrong that warrants the vitriolic attack on his integrity.

In fact, on this issue, he deserves our collective praise. But we can't do that, can we? If we say Mbeki is correct, we are afraid that his enemies will call us his lap-dogs.

And to retain our "independence of thought" we have to join the bandwagon of his critics. I refuse to be conditioned.

With acknowledgements to Khathu Mamaila and The Star.