The decision to fire Deputy President Jacob Zuma has boosted South Africa's image abroad, but it will raise a storm within the ANC's tripartite alliance, reports Christelle Terreblance, of our Political Bureau

There is no doubt that President Thabo Mbeki has entrenched South Africa's international status by axing Deputy President Zuma - sending an unequivocal and globally almost unprecedented message that not even the most powerful is above the law in the fight against corruption.

But, at home, Mbeki was likely to be be bracing himself for a storm, particularly within the tripartite alliance, where most of the alliance leadership was extremely vocal, if not premature, in its support for Zuma

The question asked was whether the decision would strengthen Mbeki's hand in internal leadership or weaken it and whether this could hasten a split in the alliance. The decision comes ominously close to the alliance's five-year policy conference and co-incides with a mass strike by Cosatu.

Differences

At the same time, the decision comes shortly before the crucial Gleneagles G8 summit, where billions of dollars in debt cancellation and aid for Nepad projects could be released, much of it on condition of stringent anti-corruption programmes.

While this would please the international community, at home most of the Left, particularly Cosatu, believed that Zuma was the one person who gave it a voice in the constrained policy environment of Mbeki's Gear - which ironically was announced yesterday nine years ago exactly.

Analysts dispute that this perception did in fact translate into real policy influence for the Left but are at one that the Zuma saga has stretched historic and other differences within the alliance to crisis proportions, despite the last few days' fervent denials.

Political commentators differ on how much upheaval the decision will cause within the ANC alliance, with some saying that it would be negligible.

Analyst Aubrey Matshiqi believes the move would have strengthened Mbeki's hand internally as well as internationally.

However, he warned that firing Zuma did not mean he was finished politically.

His future would depend largely on whether he could retain his position as deputy president of the ANC, Matshiqi said.

"Will Mbeki risk his support within the ANC by asking them to dismiss him? I don't think so."

He said the worst-case scenario for Mbeki was if Zuma was charged and acquitted, because he would then make "a very strong comeback".

"Zuma may even try to cast Mbeki out before the end of his term. However, if Zuma is convicted, then he would be finished as a political leader and, in addition, those on the Left would be put in a much weaker position."

Matshiqi, like other commentators, argued that Mbeki would have noted the strong support for Zuma from certain quarters, which was seen by some as a form of rebellion against Mbeki.

"What are they going to do?" he asked. "Cower or mobilise against Mbeki? We can't exclude the possibility that Cosatu's general strike (on June 27) would become an anti-Mbeki strike. And that raises the question of whether the ANC should go ahead with its National General Council (two days after the strike).

"If they postpone it, it would confirm the rumours of divisions within the alliance, but holding it might show for all to see that it is divided."

Steven Friedman, political analyst at the Centre for Policy Studies, said, like most commentators, that the Left's reverence for Zuma had little to do with Right-Left divisions and issues like policy.

"The reason Cosatu and its allies support the deputy president was that he was far more open and receptive, and had a rapport with activists, which was Mandela's great strength and not Mbeki's, who is perceived as an aloof intellectual," Friedman said.

Commentators, however, differed on whether the Left in the alliance, without Zuma in power, would be further marginalised, but many wondered what fate awaited those who so openly backed Zuma in anti-Mbeki style over the past two weeks.

All analysts spoken to rejected the notion that Zuma's axing would hasten a split in the alliance, as the partners needed each other too much.

But Friedman warned that instead of a split, an increase of the "trench warfare" that was seen last week in the Western Cape was a more real threat in the wake of Zuma's departure.

"This war of attrition between active delegates and elected leadership has been evident in the Free State since 1994 and more recently also Limpopo, which is a kind of slow revolt against the top leadership."

Idasa analyst Judith February said: "I think this is very big test for Mbeki, about his style of leadership, the strategist in him.

"He staked out his presidency on being an internationalist, with Nepad and the peer review mechanism, which at its core is anti-corruption."

"Mbeki has clearly thrown down the gauntlet to careerists and corrupt officials, whom he has been warning for years, which may cause further friction in the short run, but may also have a domino effect as others accused of corruption may now be treated in the strongest terms, such as the Travelgate accused.

"The way the alliance responds will be a test of its maturity and help to redefine South Africans in line with the constitution and codes of ethics we set up.

"It would probably precipitate a sort of (necessary) sea change in the relationship between money and politics and conflicts of interests . . . and show that South Africa is different, that we dare to take on chancers."

On Zuma's ongoing role as mediator in African conflicts, Institute for Security studies Burundi expert Jan van Eck said he foresaw no upheaval as Zuma's role had started declining, with elections in Burundi on the cards.

With acknowledgements to to Christelle Terreblanche and The Mercury.