Letters

Recently, a Johannesburg radio station reported on a retail chain in Boksburg where security guards beat up and even tortured workers. Yet the police refused to act against the owners.

For workers and the unemployed, this is an all too common experience. For ordinary Cosatu members, the justice system is too often not a defence against injustice, but a tool for oppression by the rich and powerful.

Workers’ experience of the justice system shapes their understanding of the case against Jacob Zuma. From experience, they cannot simply assume the police and the courts will ensure justice for everyone. Workers know that only those who have money can hope to walk away from a fair trial. Poor people have little hope of mounting an effective defence.

More broadly, the Zuma trial points to critical questions for all of us. It underscores the need to speed up the transformation of core institutions in our democracy and highlights that we must do more to address divisions within the democratic movement.

The Constitution establishes several institutions outside the control of the executive. These institutions include the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the judiciary and the Reserve Bank.

The Constitution separates these institutions from the executive for two reasons.

Firstly, independent institutions are supposed to limit the power of the executive and Parliament. They should ensure that no political party gains enough power to override the Constitution or threaten the democratic system. Secondly, the Constitution protects these institutions from interventions by powerful people seeking political or economic gain.

The independence of these institutions emerged over centuries in Europe and the US as entrepreneurs sought to limit the power of the king. Today, they play a central role in protecting and stabilising democratic systems.

Yet their stabilising influence is not always a good thing. It may undermine efforts to bring about rapid social and economic change. In South Africa, gradual, reformist policies are not going to transform the systems of inequality and oppression left by apartheid.

The fact is that the nominally “independent” institutions were not created to meet the needs of our new democracy. Instead, they took over systems, procedures and personnel from their apartheid precursors. To this day, many judges, magistrates and high-level Reserve Bank employees worked for the apartheid state.

The slow pace of change in these institutions is risky. If they continue to block the hopes of our people, they will not be sustainable, and the cost would be huge.

The only solution is to align these institutions, in particular the judiciary and the NPA, more closely with the interests of the majority. They must be protected against short-term political intervention. But they cannot continue to act broadly against the needs of our people.

In the case of Zuma, the NPA has acted improperly to the point where no fair trial is possible. Instead of relying on the rule of law, it has tried to mobilise popular opinion against Zuma through the media.

The famous declaration that it had a prima facie case against him, yet would not bring charges, was just the start. That was followed by intimate briefings for journalists and a series of leaks to the media.

Most recently, the NPA searched the offices of Zuma’s lawyers, violating his right to develop a legal defence. Moreover, it apparently invited the media, turning the whole affair into a front-page circus.

This deepened suspicions about political manipulation of the legal process.

Thanks in large part to the NPA’s activities, some in the media have now taken a firm view of Zuma’s guilt. They began calling for his head long before the Shaik trial ended. This makes many Cosatu members feel that the media is now prejudiced.

The NPA’s actions are particularly problematic if they arise out of a political agenda. That type of partisan intervention would be a threat to democracy — precisely what the Constitution seeks to prevent.

The Zuma case points to a second challenge: the divisions in the democratic movement. Clearly the bitter disputes around the case reflect deeper problems.

The root of these divisions is the perception that the alliance has been marginalised. It seems to become relevant only when an election is in the offing.

This situation reflects a tendency towards top-down, technocratic management. Many activists feel that the space for mass mobilisation and participation has been steadily closed.

In the alliance, the culture of debate no longer prevails. It has been replaced by the argument that government must govern. But when people cannot engage in open debate, when they feel marginalised, then gossip and conspiracy theories bloom.

The situation has been aggravated by the perception that some MECs and even ministers have been excluded because they don’t toe the line.

There is widespread concern about where the economy is going. Despite huge progress in political and social terms, we have seen a worsening situation for workers. Wages are down as a share of the national income, unemployment is up and most reputable studies find worsening income inequalities.

Business has seized most of the benefits from the growth of the past decade. The alliance cannot let this persist. Bitter strikes and the unrest over the past few months show that people are losing patience.

In these circumstances, for many alliance activists, the Zuma case has been the last straw. No-one can doubt that we face a political crisis. It emerged first, not at Cosatu’s Central Committee, but at the ANC’s own National General Council. Now divisions are evident within the ANC itself, the SACP and even Cosatu.

To address this problem requires, as President Thabo Mbeki pointed out, an internal alliance process. But a narrow and legalistic commission won’t work. Focusing on the Zuma affair alone will only deepen divisions by trying to pin the blame on one side or the other.

Instead, we must set up an inclusive and open process that can ensure broad debates and, on that basis, genuine solidarity. We need to ask what has caused the disarray within the alliance, and how we can ensure a stronger and more united democratic movement in the future.

As part of the process, the alliance must go beyond meetings among its top leadership. Cosatu leaders are starting a “listening campaign” to hear workers’ voices. We appreciate that the President and Cabinet have their own listening campaign through the imbizos. Now we need to institute a broader listening campaign — as the alliance.

Vavi is general secretary of Cosatu

With acknowledgements to Zwelinzima Vavi and the Sunday Times.