Opinion & Analysis

So, former deputy president Jacob Zuma will indeed get his day in court. He learnt yesterday that he was to be charged on two counts of corruption arising out of his relationship with convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik.

We have never really believed Zuma seriously wanted to be tried, just as we are sure his many vocal supporters do not fully understand the serious possibility that, in pushing for charges to be laid against him, he could land up in prison.

Be that as it may, the die is now cast. We trust there will be no deals, no plea bargains, no neat sidesteps. Zuma, to take him at his word, wants it that way. In protesting his innocence, he displays no individual moral or ethical appreciation at all of the poor judgment he showed in his friendship and financial relationship with Shaik. Perhaps a judge will be able to make it all clear to him.

And what a judge that will have to be. No Rhodesians, no whites. Better someone who understands the “cultural context” in which a businessman gives money to a politician and the politician gets the businessman contracts without any problem ever arising. If the people surrounding Zuma believe that a black judge would somehow see the whole thing differently, they are in for a rude awakening.

Still, charging Zuma is dangerous. If you take the view that what we already know about his financial dependence on Shaik renders him unfit to run the country, then charging him is very risky.

What if he gets off? Any lawsuit is a minefield of technicalities, any one of which can trip up a prosecution. And a weak Zuma prosecution could get hammered, whatever the outcome of the Shaik appeal.

A trial creates a formal structure within which Zuma could be found not guilty (or innocent). That will not mean he has not behaved extremely badly but it will probably mean he will be the next president, whatever party bosses may want.

This newspaper has been extremely critical of Zuma. It is in no way personal. In fact, he is a genuinely nice man — far more approachable than his former boss, which partly explains the apparent support for him.

But we truly fear for the future of the country if Zuma were ever to lead it. Not because of his ideology — he has none to speak of. Not because of his policies — he has none of those either. But simply because we know that, under pressure, he took money from a man who sought (and got) political favours from him in return. Given the opportunity and the political power, how could we be sure he will not do it again?

It is so difficult being a public figure in SA now. In the new SA we are supposed to be better behaved than in the old. It is a good thing, however inconvenient. Zuma had an unwritten covenant with the people, perhaps especially the poor. That was that he would always act in their interests. Instead, he put his interests first and broke his promise.

In the meantime, SA is tense. Zuma’s supporters hog the talk shows with inane argument (the white media has done him in, Hilary Squires was the prosecutor, and so on), and reason seems quite dispensable. We are told the African National Congress has people fanning out across the land to explain why Zuma had to go.

Good luck to them, and perhaps we will all learn something from this. We would also hope to see President Thabo Mbeki taking notes, for the lesson for him is stark — you cannot feign empathy. Mbeki’s distance and intellectual intolerance alienates citizens and it means that when he needs them, they may not be there. That’s what’s scary for the country.

The president did the right thing last week but, because he isn’t such a nice guy, he’s under pressure. The bad guy here is also the nice guy and so he gets all the sympathy. Mbeki has a lot of making up to do in the next few years.

With acknowledgement to the Business Day.