Karl Marx once observed that while people make history, they do not choose the conditions under which they make that history.

So it is with Judge Hillary Squires, the man who will make history today when he delivers his judgment in the Schabir Shaik fraud and graft trial.

Squires did not choose this case. He certainly did not choose the protagonists, from the Shaik family to — dare we say it — Deputy President Jacob Zuma. Squires did not choose any of this. And yet, here he is, presiding over the most important court case in postapartheid SA.

When Squires delivers his much anticipated judgment today and tomorrow, he will be deciding more than just the fate of Shaik. He will also be deciding the future of our democracy and that of Zuma's political career.

Squires was quick to remind the country when the trial started last year that Zuma was not on trial in this case. No, he wasn't.

But we cannot ignore the fact that the trial has produced enough evidence to cast doubt on Zuma's suitability for the highest office in the land.

We know the man cannot balance a chequebook; we know he has trouble living within his fairly generous means; we know he is a poor judge of character and is quite literally loyal to a fault. He has yet to distance himself from Shaik, even though his association with the man known as his financial adviser keeps dragging his political stock downwards.

True, it is not a given that Shaik will be convicted of corruption and fraud. For his part, Zuma has said that those who think he is corrupt should let him have his day in court — or shut up.

But things are so far gone it almost does not matter whether Zuma has his day in court or not. We now know enough about the man and his ways to get goosebumps at the thought of his becoming president of SA.

This is not to say the man is without supporters. He has a very active lobby working hard to ensure that he replaces President Thabo Mbeki as our first citizen when the latter steps down in 2009. This unofficial lobby is using everything at its disposal — from the ethnic to the regional card — to catapult Zuma into the presidency. But since when has being Zulu or coming from KwaZulu-Natal been a sufficient condition for the job of president?

Or is that the wrong question to ask? Perhaps the question to ask is whether our democracy is strong enough to have at its helm a man so clearly compromised? Is our system of government, with its checks and balances, strong enough to allow for a president with so much baggage?

It is clear from his warm reception at trade union events around the country that Zuma has enthusiastic supporters.

His fan base is not limited to the unions. There are people within the African National Congress, both senior and junior, who back Zuma. The reasons for this are varied.

There are those in the trade unions who believe that backing Zuma gives them the opportunity to get back at Mbeki for his allegedly neoliberal agenda. They seem to think that a Zuma presidency would be favourable towards the unions.

Then there are those who have chosen to believe Zuma's martyrdom tale in which he, a humble working-class hero with little education, is being hounded and harassed by elites who have it in for the working class.

Mixed in with this are personal ambition, political machinations and old-fashioned opportunism, with people throwing their weight behind the man they see as most likely to take over from Mbeki.

There is nothing to stop any of these people from using their votes to get their man into power. Zuma's conduct so far has also shown he has set his sights on the presidency and is unlikely to let anything, even the conviction of Shaik, get in the way of his dream.

Zuma wants the top job and there are many who have staked their lives, reputations and fortunes on his becoming SA's third democratically elected president.

Squires did not choose any of this but it is the background against which he will deliver his judgment today.

He must decide whether Shaik is corrupt and a fraudster.

Beyond that, Squires's judgment will go some way to determining whether South Africans are willing to sacrifice long-term gain (the stability and growth of SA) for short-term benefits (the small satisfaction of some over a Zuma presidency).

His judgment will force people to come out of the shadows and take sides over whether Zuma is fit to lead SA. With a verdict out, people will be forced to say if they want Zuma in spite of the evidence against him. Or whether they think the man should not be in power at all.

I often joke with my American friends that each country gets the leader it deserves. I tell them that they deserve George Bush even if they did not vote for him.

Do we in SA deserve to get Zuma when Mbeki steps down? Can this young country afford a Zuma presidency? Squires did not choose to be the one to help us answer these questions. But judge he must, and it is in that act that he will make history.

With acknowledgements to Jacob Dlamini and the Business Day.