Opinion & Analysis

Much of the national debate about the executive’s decision to release former Deputy President Jacob Zuma from the responsibilities of public office has focused on the implications of the legal drama that played out during the trial of businessman Schabir Shaik at the Durban High Court.

At the same time, however, the events of the past week must also be viewed in the context of a larger moral discourse that has been central to our public life, particularly as a young democracy that is still working hard to fashion an identity, and moral codes, for itself.

The discourse about a moral code for this nation includes the Moral Regeneration Movement (MRM), as well as religious leaders’ recent discussions with President Thabo Mbeki about the possibility of developing what has been called a “Bill of Morals”. These moral questions are also relevant against the background of the former deputy president’s role as leader of the MRM.

Also significant is the fact that recently the ruling party deliberated on the decisions of the second National Anti-Corruption Summit in Pretoria, which adopted a national strategy to fight corruption.

This unflinching commitment to fight corruption in all its manifestations requires the participants to promote leaders who are committed to creating a culture of integrity.

The judgment in the Shaik case is being seen by some commentators as a call for a much wider “clean-up” that must be launched in government.

Indeed, many are claiming that what was exposed during the trial was merely the tip of the iceberg. They believe the rot is deeper. They would have us believe that public officials must be held accountable to a higher standard of moral rectitude.

Be that as it may, we must be cautious of whipping ourselves into a moral witch-hunt, which could quickly become a self-consuming fire.

We must recall that our much-admired transition to democracy was negotiated by political leaders, military personnel and even judges whose past behaviour was not above moral reproach. Yet they managed a process in which the nation, collectively, was able to articulate a common set of values to serve as the foundation of our Constitution.

As we come to terms with the events of the past days, we are well advised to adopt a policy of moral realism instead of subjecting public leaders to the highest moral scrutiny.

We counsel such an attitude not because we should as a nation be morally lax, but because unrealistic standards might disqualify many potential leaders who may otherwise be worthy of public office.

The moral scale on which we weigh personal virtue is not made for saints and angels, but fallible vessels who can show scars of moral battles they have fought. They may have lost some but kept on fighting to be better people.

Few of us would feel at home in a world in which only the righteous may live. Our view is that the test of moral character is not only whether a person has failed the moral test in the past but, more importantly, whether a person can learn from past errors and become a better person.

At the same time, we must recognise that, unlike the legal world, which is accustomed to making absolute judgments on guilt or innocence, the moral world is more often painted in shades of grey.

The test of moral conduct does not always require that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

We might still feel uncomfortable investing moral authority in a leader even if no evidence of legal wrongdoing has been proved. However, we should question our motives and consider how consistently we apply our standards.

We are still close to the momentous events that took place at the joint sitting of Parliament where the deputy president was effectively dropped from the Cabinet.

Even as we come to terms with what this event bodes for our nation and democracy, it is still an event in motion.

The June 16 rallies across the country have already shown that the issue continues to evoke heated responses among the populace. What is beyond doubt is that the decision has raised the moral bar and opened up a new level in moral discourse.

While the executive’s action may effectively have settled the constitutional debate, it has revitalised the moral debate.

As we take up the challenge to talk about morality in the pursuit of a moral charter, the Zuma case will serve as an important starting point. A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step, as they say, and it can be argued that the Zuma case is that one humble step in the mammoth march ahead of us.

Generations from now, our grandchildren will look back at the monumental events of the past week and assess their impact on the moral identity of our nation and of political leadership across not only this country, but the rest of the continent.

It will be said that what we did these past days was to reaffirm our collective belief in South Africa as a nation founded on moral principles enshrined in our Bill of Rights, rather than simply a nation of diverse political and economic interests.

It is at times like these that a people decide what they seek to be, rather than what political necessities prescribe for them.

Tsele is the general secretary of the South African Council of Churches. The article was written in his personal capacity

With acknowledgements to Molefe Tsele and the Sunday Times.