Opinion & Analysis

The qualities it takes to be a good friend are not necessarily those of a good politician. The Congress of South African Trade Unions’ (Cosatu’s) unwavering loyalty to former deputy president Jacob Zuma would be laudable, even touching, in a friendship. As politics, it is, quite simply, peculiar. It has “cul-de-sac” written all over it.

It’s one thing to express support for Zuma. It’s quite another to demand that President Thabo Mbeki force the National Prosecuting Authority to drop charges against him, as Cosatu has done at its central committee meeting this week.

Nor was this a mere call from delegates or leadership. It was a central committee resolution, which called for the withdrawal of all charges. Alternatively, said the resolution, if the case went ahead, it should be heard by a full high court bench.

The aggressiveness of the resolution was surprising in many ways. Cosatu’s leadership had come out with consistent and loud support of Zuma earlier this year — remember the “unstoppable tsunami” comment by Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, emphasising his belief there was no way Zuma could fail to become SA’s next president.

But that was before Schabir Shaik was found guilty in the Durban High Court of corruption and fraud centred on his “generally corrupt” relationship with Zuma. The Cosatu leadership was relatively muted in its reaction following the Shaik judgment. It called for Zuma to have his day in court, pointing out he was innocent until proven guilty — and was vindicated when charges were indeed brought against Zuma.

But now this. The resolution, it is said, was driven from the floor rather than by Cosatu’s leadership. That is worrying, suggesting cracks within the federation. More worrying is the fact that a key partner in the tripartite alliance has so little regard for the independence of the judiciary that it seeks to dictate whether a case should or shouldn’t be prosecuted and, if it is, who should sit on the bench. That’s hardly in line with the democratic traditions of SA’s union movement.

But issues of principle apart, what makes the resolution so odd is that this is a demand that cannot possibly be won. Constitutionally, it cannot be done, even if Mbeki wanted to (which he clearly does not). This is like demanding a 25% wage increase, knowing that there is no way the employer can go there. It’s not the way experienced trade unionists negotiate. It’s surely a statement of desperation, rather than a tactic aimed at enhancing the power of Cosatu or its membership.

And that’s what is so peculiar about all this. We can but speculate about why Cosatu has been so wedded to Zuma-for-president despite the absence of any evidence that Zuma has a proworker agenda. We don’t know what economic policy stance Zuma would adopt were he to become president — he’s said nothing on the subject. But there is no reason to believe he would change government’s direction. Perhaps he has made many promises to trade union leaders who aspire to positions of power and influence. And clearly the degree of union support for him is about a deep dissatisfaction with the leadership style and some of the economic policies of the Mbeki government.

But why is there no Plan B? If Cosatu really wanted to advance its members’ political interests, it surely should have at least one back-up presidential candidate to whom it would switch its support in the event that Zuma is fatally compromised. We can be sure his trial will start this year, whatever Cosatu says or does. Far be it from us to prejudge the findings, or even speculate on what kind of dirt might come out in that trial. But it is at least possible that the former deputy president could be found guilty.

As things stand, that would leave Cosatu not only with damaged credibility, but with no real leverage in bargaining about who is to be the next president.

With acknowledgement to the Business Day.