Publication: Business Day
Date: 2005-12-07
Reporter: Editorial
Reporter:
| Publication |
Business Day
|
| Date |
2005-12-07
|
|
Reporter
|
Editorial
|
|
Web Link
|
www.bday.co.za
|
How
are the mighty fallen,” lamented King David on hearing of the death of King
Saul, the first king of the Israelites. The lament is appropriate today
following the charge of rape being laid against Jacob Zuma. It is a sorrowful day.
The man who a year ago was a
heartbeat away from the presidency is now facing sets of charges that suggest
not only deceit in his public life but also disgrace in his private life. The leader of the national
moral regeneration movement stands charged with dual breaches of ethics so
severe that his disgrace reflects not only himself,
but also the party that elected him, the president who selected him and the
country that nurtured him.
In a statement after being charged yesterday,
Zuma heaps disbelief on disgrace. He clings to the notion that people are “innocent until they
are proved guilty”. But this is a supposition of law, not an article of faith.
As a matter of politics in an open democracy, if there is sufficient evidence
for charges to be brought, then a sufficient level of suspicion exists among
professional officers of the law to exclude the accused from public office.
After fraud charges were laid against him, Zuma originally refused to
acknowledge the shame involved in being charged, thereby forcing President Thabo
Mbeki to “relieve him of his duties”. This was transparently a political ploy to make it seem as though Mbeki was forcing
him out of office, rather than his own actions being the cause of his disgrace.
At least now, the legal issues are for him to answer, and cannot be wrongfully
diverted and deviously laid at the door of the president.
It has often
been pointed out that some of the blame for the current saga lies with Mbeki.
His aloof leadership style has at the very least made the issue harder to deal
with. The whole turn of events also sets off alarm bells about the leadership
transition within the African National Congress in the future.
But the
notion that Mbeki is also somewhat to blame is also partly a ploy. It is Zuma
and his supporters who are doing their level best to foment
a crisis. So you have to ask whether there actually is a crisis, or
whether there is only a crisis to the extent that Zuma’s supporters can
stimulate it. By doing this, they also hope to pin the blame for the crisis on
Mbeki. But this is an inherently deceitful game. As
many players of deceitful games have found, it can quickly turn on them, and many would argue it
just has.
Zuma now asks for the forbearance of his supporters, who
he claims, entirely of their own volition, were unable to accept his
resignation. He says he must now sadly go ahead and do what he always wanted to
do, and that is take a leave of absence.
But, critically, this act of
munificence does not apply to the single most
important position he currently holds, that of deputy leader of the ruling
political party. Doubtless, he will be sorely missed on the moral regeneration committee and all
the other vitally important party subcommittees. But as regards his last
remaining position of real power, he seems to imply that the disruption this
would cause would be too much for his supporters to bear. The duality of being both the consequence and the cause of this
problem seems to escape him.
His argument
that he should relinquish temporarily his minor posts in the party and hold onto
his major post is clearly untenable. The ANC cannot fight the local elections on
the basis of a clean administration and be led by someone facing corruption charges; it cannot claim to support women’s
rights and be led by someone accused of rape; and it cannot claim to represent
moral regeneration and be led by someone who does not know the difference
between legal presumption and moral fact *1.
He should be relieved of this duty too, as soon as possible.
With acknowledgement to Business Day.
*1 There are some among us, indeed,
who believe that there is no such thing as moral fact; relativism is true,
remember.
An excellent editorial.