For the past three years I have returned to work determined to write a piece on why Jacob Zuma would make a perfectly good president for this country. My point is simple ­ I want to open South African eyes to the obvious. Here is a man perfectly capable of uniting us and calming us down, a lovely guy with a sense of humour and an easy manner.

A listener and a conciliator, who’d pick good ministers and let them get on with their jobs. A lightning rod, who’d be able to take the impatience and rising anger of the poor and turn it around. He’d be our Ronald Reagan, the most successful American president of the last 50 years *1.

Or our Felipe Gonzalez, the moderate socialist who ran Spain for nearly 20 years after the dictator Franco died ­ asked on coming to power what he’d do to change Spain after 40 years of fascism he said, “I don’t want to change Spain, I want it to relax.”

But I have never gone beyond the first two paragraphs. That’s partly because I’m no political analyst. I’m a technical sort (I worry less about Zuma than I do, say, about whether it’s correct to say “South Africa have lost the second one-day international against Australia” or, as I would prefer but can’t seem to change, “South Africa has lost...”. It’s one team for goodness’ sake!). My job is to find good analysts and give them the space to analyse.

But I also get stuck because I can’t rationalise away Zuma’s weaknesses like some people can. I have honestly tried. Sure, in comparison to former president Thabo Mbeki, he looks great. But that’s not helpful. By the time he was ousted, Mbeki had failed this country and himself completely. His manoeuvring to protect Jackie Selebi from prosecution and his destruction of Vusi Pikoli were an utter disgrace.

I have just two problem areas. The first is Zuma’s judgment. While I don’t doubt he would put together a better cabinet than Mbeki could ever manage, it is the people around him, the “friends” and advisers, who scare me. And he seems unable ­ or unwilling ­ to improve on them. As the trial of Schabir Shaik so clearly demonstrated, Zuma for many years lived off the largesse of a deeply cynical businessman whose primary purpose was to use him for financial gain.

Why? He seems to have the common touch but no common sense. I hear, for instance, that he is to marry again. How can he afford to? There’ll be lobola to pay, and property and gifts and expenses for the new wife for the rest of her life. Who pays? Not Zuma, I’m sure.

So he seems to think little of living in debt to others. Perhaps it’s part of his culture, though I know a lot of Zulus who’d sure like that bit explained to them. I have seen him enter a shop in Durban, select a stack of shirts, and leave without visibly paying for them. But presumably someone did. Perhaps he runs an account. It would be simply too dangerous to have the guy running the country owing a constant stream of favours and/or money to people who are themselves not accountable to the public.

The other thing is his unwillingness to submit himself to a trial. I appreciate that he can’t do or say anything which might look like an admission of guilt. There’ll be no “apology” or anything like that to the public until the threat of a trial is truly buried.

But until there is a trial, Zuma walks around with his reputation under a cloud and I’ll never get to finish my piece about him. Judge Louis Harms, many of whose remarks about Chris Nicholson last week I thought were absurd, nevertheless made the important point that just because two people have a corrupt relationship doesn’t mean both are corrupt. Zuma could easily be found not guilty. He needs to stand up and do it, like a leader.

Zuma is small fry in the arms deal, and as he is a major leader it is in the national interest that he be found not guilty of corruption. But that can only be done in a fair trial in an open court. Another thing in the national interest is an independent judicial inquiry into the arms deal, to include the Zuma matter.

If there is to be a political or legal settlement in the Zuma matter, let it be to trade one of these two for the other. I know what I would choose. I would choose a proper arms deal inquiry any day.

With acknowledgements to Business Day.

*2      Usually he knocks them up a couple of times then borrows money for lobola. Then he marries them. Sometimes he doesn't marry them. Now he has 4 wines, an ex-wife a dead wife, about two dozen children from wedlock and about another dozen out of wedlock (the latter used to be called bastards or more recently illegitimate - but that unkind on the kids).

While cultural relativism is true, this is a throwback to tribal culture (the tribe assists the wives in bringing up the kids). Tribalism has been identified as one of the biggest threats to a peaceful society and country (mainly when the sub-tribes were firing ex-inventory R1s and R4s at each other, but also when firing their other cannons at the womenfolk).

Simply put, this republic of 50 million citizens and aliens speaking twenty languages needs in the 21st century modern educated professional leaders.

Dare I say it, the nuclear family of one Dad, one Mum, two kids and some pets is the way to breed modern educated professional leaders.

That is one of the reasons why western civilisation has been so successful and why most other civilisations develop in this direction.

Tell me it ain't so.