There seems to be a groundswell of opinion favouring the withdrawal of charges against Jacob Zuma. Many of his supporters are convinced he is the victim of a Thabo Mbeki conspiracy, and there are fears they will plunge the country into disorder if the prosecution goes ahead.

The fears of widespread demonstrations, with explosive Zulu versus Xhosa overtones, are by no means groundless. And the Kenyan tragedy is a reminder, if any were needed, that ethnic tensions can tear a society apart.

Furthermore, there is a dawning realisation that a Zuma presidency need not be an unmitigated disaster.

But consider what a withdrawal of charges against Zuma would mean. If there is to be one law for the powerful and another for the weak and vulnerable, the seeds will be sown for the destruction of our young democracy.

The justification of a withdrawal of charges amounts to an argument that the national interest and/or public safety require this. Ultimately, this is an argument, beloved of tyrants, that the safety of the state is the highest law.

Since ancient times, this cry has been used to detain people without trial, and to torture, maim and murder them with impunity. It is the first step on a slippery slope to national disaster. So this is a real dilemma, calling for much thought and public discussion.

Is there a case for choosing the withdrawal of charges as the lesser of two evils?

Consider again the consequences. Internationally, South Africa's achievement of a model democratic constitution and our relatively smooth transition were universally admired. This helped substantially in the establishment of investor confidence, boosting the government of Thabo Mbeki's successful management of a revived and vigorous economy.

If we are now seen to be abandoning our attachment to fundamental democratic values, riding rough-shod over the commitment to government under the law, and equality before the law, the consequences will be incalculable.

The social contract which binds societies together, underpinned in our case in an admirable constitution, is undermined when the principle of equality before the law is seen to go by the board.

Without justice, accountability and the rule of law, what are kingdoms but robber bands?

Take the question of executive government's accountability to the legislature and its obligation to provide good governance. Zuma is charged with a massive tally of offences which, if proven, will suggest the rot has already set in and remedial action is urgently needed.

Yet there are other ANC notables whose proven misdeeds are condoned, or whose activities have been exposed in the press, who seem to enjoy immunity from prosecution, which lends credence to the Zuma supporters' claims that their man has been singled out and victimised by the state.

If we are to abandon our insistence on government under law in the Zuma case, however, the plague of maladministration will get worse and those who are already getting away with it will grow bolder than ever.

Zuma, innocent until proved guilty, should have his day in court as soon as possible. But his defence team's strategy has been to continue to delay and procrastinate at every turn.

This is a dangerous and volatile situation. Yet South Africa has been there before. And, on balance, it will be best to ride out the storm, if storm there is to be, rather than strike at the foundation of South African democracy.

If the trial of Jacob Zuma is to plunge the country into crisis, let us face it now rather than pave the way for a renewed South African tyranny.

* Shaw is a former deputy editor of the Cape Times.

With acknowledgement to Gerald Shaw and Cape Times