Had Jacob Zuma voluntarily relinquished his position as deputy president following Judge Hilary Squires’ finding of “a generally corrupt relationship” between him and Schabir Shaik, SA would have been deprived of lessons that might accrue from the continuing soap opera-like political drama.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions’ (Cosatu’s) seemingly absurd call for the reinstatement of Zuma, and for President Thabo Mbeki to drop charges against him, and Mbeki’s attack on Zuma’s backers, are the latest episodes.

Like real soaps, different interpretations attend the drama. The call for Zuma’s reinstatement, while impracticable, is not as ridiculous as suggested.

It is consistent with the political stakes raised by Zuma in refusing to resign. Both positions are meant to sharpen the political contradictions within the African National Congress (ANC). At a personal level, the unfolding battle is about survival.

For Zuma, it is as much about avoiding prison as it is about political recovery. For Mbeki, it is about the survival of his legacy. On the political level, it is about the soul of the ANC alliance.

Zuma threw the ball into Mbeki’s court knowing Mbeki had a number of political options. Mbeki could have asked Zuma to disqualify himself, or suspended him pending the outcome of the judicial process. This argument is being advanced in the case of those ANC members implicated in Travelgate.

Despite protestations to the contrary, expelling Zuma from the executive is tantamount to finding him guilty. Mbeki could have argued that — as pointed out by constitutional expert Eddie Maluleke — given that Zuma was not an accused, and since “the judgment of Judge Squires would be appealed against, it is constitutionally offensive and unjustifiable to take a decision against Zuma, whose fate by implication would still be reviewed in the appeals court.

Legally, if a party lodges an appeal it means that the status quo prevails until the appeal court finds otherwise. It is not in the spirit of the constitutional values and democratic norms that Mbeki referred to, for a finding to be made against a person who was not an accused in court.”

Mbeki’s point — that by being implicated in corruption, Zuma had undermined his constitutional mandate and should go — is not entirely sustainable in law. It reflects a selective interpretation of the constitution. Mbeki could have invoked the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

With his eyes on the Group of Eight (G-8), Mbeki could not resist external adulation. The choice was simple. Keeping Zuma would risk losing G-8 support for Mbeki’s pet project, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Zuma would frustrate Mbeki’s political ambition; he was expendable.

Not lost on the ANC parliamentarians was the traditional practice of rallying behind an embattled leader, right or wrong.

Not long ago these very members were called on to shield Mbeki from justified attacks following his pursuance of a genocidal policy on HIV/AIDS. They expected Mbeki to lead the charge in defending Zuma. This explains the rousing welcome Zuma received from ANC parliamentarians during what was to become his last parliamentary appearance.

Also not lost on these comrades is the fact that a blind eye was turned on National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete over the Mpumalanga fraudulent driver’s licence saga. Nor can they forget the slap on the wrist of Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota following his contravention of the code of conduct for MPs. Lekota failed to disclose a directorship and shares. The same parliamentarians shielded the executive from charges of corruption during the arms deal investigation.

If allegations that the ANC funnelled R11m of public money from PetroSA through empowerment company Imvume into its own coffers are true, Mbeki must assume responsibility.

For Zuma’s supporters, a combination of the above could only mean that his axing has little to do with fighting corruption. It is an abuse of state power to undermine political opponents.

Faced with these seeming contradictions and anomalies, ANC alliance members have decided to speak freely and publicly. They have dispensed with the charade of so-called internal debates. The policy of internal debate had little to do with advancing the goals and objective of the alliance. It immunised the ruling elite from external intellectual critique by its members. At the same time it is a convenient means of dealing harshly with dissident voices away from the public eye.

What we see is not so much disgruntlement with the ANC, but with the ruling elite. Members are reclaiming the space taken since power was centralised and personalised. We see the emergence of a broad church that is not threatened by cacophony, but enriched by it. In the fullness of time, SA will be grateful the Zuma saga happened.

Prof Seepe is academic director at Henley Management College.

With acknowledgements to Sipho Seepe and the Business Day .