It is not up to Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) members to answer the question in their song: "Ngcuka wenzeni u-Zuma? (Ngcuka, what has Zuma done?)".

It's not only that this is not an area of Cosatu's competence, but also that the early crafters of the South African democratic project had the foresight to predict that public passions would, from time to time, seek to supplant legal processes. In a country where most citizens have been underdogs for centuries, it is easy to see why there would be so much sympathy for Deputy President Jacob Zuma. The seductive appeal of popular acclaim would lead to the tyranny of the majority.

The early crafters of the democratic project had their own cynical reasons for insisting on the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. They simply feared and distrusted the masses, and wanted, in the words of James Madison, to protect "the minority of the opulent".

These cynical origins notwithstanding, this is a separation that has at times served a useful purpose by holding the power-wielders in check — holding to their faces the constitution they so fiercely profess to love.

That is the beauty of a constitutional democracy, as opposed to the thuggery and barbarism we lived under just over a decade ago. Even as we disagree about what constitutes the good life, we should never forget how this country was pulled kicking and screaming into the civilised world only a decade ago.

And so, thanks to the values of the liberation movements, we can call ourselves democrats.

But it is precisely because of that democratic legacy that we should let courts decide Zuma's fate.

If Zuma falters, the line of succession would suggest the next most senior person in the African National Congress (ANC), its national chairman, Mosiuoa Lekota. However, having said that, I cannot resist the temptation to speculate about what kind of president Zuma would become should he not be criminally charged.

He would emerge as the most powerful man in the country, literally a president-in-waiting. He would have mobilised the latent sympathies of a community that has always been on the receiving end of what they would perceive as injustices.

The kind of president he would be depends on answers to four questions: the first is whether Zuma's alleged corruption is only a once-off lapse in judgment.

We tend to have a punitive, unforgiving culture in SA, though we pride ourselves on reconciliation. This culture comes to the fore when the culprits are black: Winnie Mandela and Tony Yengeni. But when it comes to PW Botha the monster, Hansie Cronje the crook, or Darrel Bristow-Bovey the plagiarist, all we hear from the white community are pleas for forbearance.

If Zuma shows remorse for his lapse in judgment, we should give him another chance. But such forgiveness would have to be taken in conjunction with consideration of a second question: would Zuma come out of this experience a bitter man, ready to take revenge on those who "persecuted" him? This would lead to even greater degrees of polarisation, both in the ANC and SA at large.

A word of advice for Zuma — separate your personal feelings about "enemies" from the intellectual, political and social contributions they could make to your overall agenda. In short, compartmentalise, and you'll be a great leader.

Zuma's ability to compartmentalise will in turn depend on the answer to a third question: is he a democrat by disposition? Often we complain about today's centralised, authoritarian political culture. Just as bad, if not worse, would be decentralised authoritarianism — the kind we experienced with the intolerance of some of the civic movements of the 1980s. Would Zuma be the kind of president who could retain autonomy from his grassroots backers?

The fourth question is whether Zuma's lack of formal schooling would lead to insecurity about his ability to lead SA. Given his record, I see no reason to suspect such insecurities. He could well use his story of overcoming adversity as a leitmotif for inspiring the young and marginalised.

In recent weeks I have been arguing against the idea of an intellectual president. Such leaders tend to do the thinking for the nation, and produce a nation dependent on the leader even for the modulation of their breadth.

We need a leader who can call on us to think and act together — the true meaning of democracy. Cosatu must wait its turn, and its answers might still be answered. I said "still".

- Mangcu is executive director for social cohesion at the Human Sciences Research Council and nonresident WEB du Bois fellow at Harvard. He writes in his personal capacity.

With acknowledgements to Xolela Mangcu and the Business Day.