Former British prime minister Harold Macmillan famously replied to the question, “What is most likely to blow governments off course?” with the slightly dismissive put-down, “Events, dear boy, events.” His little bon-mot is widely repeated because it points to something intrinsic in politics.

So often political decisions are 60/40 things; they are never quite right, but are they neither entirely wrong. Choices are often blurry, and the effects are seldom immediately apparent. Government is a battleship, so nothing happens fast; decisions are current, but consequences are distant.

Political events force choices, and it’s in making these choices that politicians’ true colours become apparent. President Kgalema Motlanthe is in the invidious position of being head of state for what must surely be one of shortest terms in history. Yet , events are catching up to him.

Motlanthe has made two big decisions, and I think he has got them both horribly wrong. The first was the decision to fire national director of public prosecutions Vusi Pikoli despite the recommendation of the Frene Ginwala commission that he should be reappointed.

Motlanthe’s argument is that though Ginwala found Pikoli’s conduct honourable, he didn’t have sufficient sensitivity to questions of national security. If this was the reason for his dismissal, she would have endorsed it, Ginwala said. But it was not, so he deserved his job back.

The problem with this line of argument is the notion that a prosecutor is obliged to take national security into account when making a decision about who to charge. There may be situations where this is a factor, but this was not one of them. And the constitution says exactly the opposite; article 179 (1) (4) says the prosecuting authority must exercise its function “without fear, favour or prejudice”. If this means anything, it’s that prosecutors should decide to prosecute solely on the basis of whether they believe a suspect has committed a crime. “National security” doesn’t enter into it.

But Ginwala finds an opposing and overriding constitutional requirement; Pikoli’s decision, a trivial one about a one-week or a two-week delay in charging police chief Jackie Selebi , showed a “lack of respect for the president’s constitutional obligation to maintain stability and national security, and it suggests that Adv Pikoli believed his own assessment of the security environment superior to that of the president”.

Funny she should mention that. Mbeki’s security concern was that police would riot if Selebi was arrested, but when he eventually was, they did not.

Pikoli’s assessment of the security environment was, in fact, superior to that of the president.

So why does she condemn him for making what turned out to be a correct decision? By making this finding Ginwala betrays her political prejudices; she is, after all, a staunch pro-Mbeki ANC stalwart. Hence the conclusion that Pikoli should grovel before his political master, and that essentially party concerns should override his constitutional responsibility.

By endorsing this line of argument, Motlanthe fails a critical test. He compounded this by refusing to reopen the arms deal investigation, despite endorsement of this from a wide spectrum of great South Africans , including Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Before this week, Motlanthe was charged with nothing more than keeping the seat warm. But now he is an actor in the South African passion play. And, it must be said, not the hero of the piece.

His persona was a safe pair of hands; the man who stood up against corruption and enrichment in the ANC. Now his public persona is just another party hack, protecting party members from scrutiny and manipulating the justice system so that his successor can hope to escape being charged. It’s all a bit tragic.

Events, dear boy, events.

With acknowledgements to Tim Cohen and Business Day.