Defend Truth

Opinionista

SONA2015: Hang on, but what were we expecting?

mm

Gushwell F. Brooks is an LLB graduate from the University of the Witwatersrand. He did not go on to become an attorney, but much rather entered the corporate rat race. After slaving away for years, he found his new life as a talk show host for Talk Radio 702 and 567 Cape Talk.

The 2014 elections brought the hope that the current incumbent and his party would be held to greater account; that the kitchen would get hotter, so to speak. New contenders entered the ring and it was assumed that President Jacob Zuma and the ANC’s power would be diluted. Did it happen? It seems not. The real question, however, is why anybody is at all surprised.

Before the elections, another factor that had many ordinary South Africans and political commentators convinced that the dilution of power was imminent, was the litany of scandal that erupted from an estate to the tune of R240 million, not to mention the Guptas’ use of Waterkloof Airbase as their private landing strip. But no, despite Ronny Kasril’s pleadings, we went out in force on voting day and handed the president, and his party, a 62% majority.

Agang SA – a party many thought would fill the COPE vacuum, a party that would appeal to black South Africans across the class divide, a party that was supposed to give the ANC a run for its money – brought with it Dr Mamphela Ramphele, with her history in the Black Consciences movement and the ability to (very articulately) identify lacking leadership. The EFF – disgruntled ANC Youth League types that had the experience and charisma as seasoned politicians and claimed to speak the poor man’s language – had Malema and Shivambu as frontmen. Despite their newly acquired R80,000 monthly Parliamentarian salaries, they cast Gucci suits and Breitling watches aside in exchange for red overalls and hard hats to demonstrate their solidarity with the working classes. The DA launched their then-Spokesperson and Gauteng Premiere candidate to the forefront of the party, so his political schooling in the ANC brought marches to the DA, supposedly with the aim of bringing a new membership to the party, and his Obama-esque inspirational speeches appeased the old guard.

Political parties, especially Agang SA, lost the promise that they launched with. Unfortunate kisses as a result of poorly consulted and timed alliances left the fledgling party with two seats in Parliament. Julius and company brought with them the reputation of disgruntled and jilted Zuma henchmen and allegations around Limpopo tenders, a Sandton mansion and tax evasion left many voters circumspect regarding the party’s real intent; nonetheless they managed a respectable 6% in Parliament.

If pre-election political manoeuvrings failed to break the ANC’s significant stranglehold over the Parliamentary majority, the president’s shenanigans should have. And there were shenanigans aplenty. What seems to be reached for by default are the president’s personal shortcomings: his lack of significant formal education, penchant for polygamy, his shower liaison and the fact that he has had some extramarital encounters; all these get raised as reasons why he does not represent good and decent leadership. Personally, I do not subscribe to these personal attacks myself. Zuma’s lack of formal education is not his own doing, it was the system at the time that deprived him of this; polygamy is still – correctly or incorrectly – culturally and legally protected, so until such time that the law changes, I cannot fault him for having more than one wife; as for his extramarital affairs, even with the daughter of one’s friend, it is not necessarily the mark of poor leadership.

What should have been of serious concern, though, is the president’s political and Constitutional history over the course of his first five-year tenure as president. He was supposed to be the unifier that his predecessor, Mbeki, was not. Zuma was supposed to have unified the tripartite alliance since Mbeki, whom one can blame for a lot, was amongst other things criticised for a high level of factionalism that developed on his watch. Instead, under the ‘unifier’s’ term, we saw one of the largest allied worker movements, NUMSA, split from COSATU and the tripartite alliance, making it clear that they were not going to campaign for Zuma or the ANC before the last elections.

Then there is the infamous N word – that one word that sends the entire nation into fits of angry debate. Ever since the story of the Nkandla homestead broke in Zuma’s first year of presidency, South Africans from all walks of life expressed their anger at the fact that the president would spend such an exorbitant amount on his own residence, when the vast majority of his electorate lives in abject poverty. The argument is made that the amount, now known to be in access of R240 million, could have been better spent on education, the housing of those in need, or the employment of essential civil servants.

On 16 August 2012, the world witnessed 112 people either losing their lives or being wounded on a hill near Marikana, in the North West Province. Although the president, by all accounts, did not pull the trigger himself, it happened under his watch, and it will be an episode that will forever sully his legacy. Two years before South Africa’s darkest post-Apartheid moment, the right to freedom of expression was placed under direct threat by government. What was dubbed the Secrecy Bill criminalised many instances of whistleblowing.

Zuma has reshuffled his Cabinet a number of times over the last few years. These seem to have largely been politically motivated, as opposed to being based on competency. Think about Tokyo Sexwale and his second unceremonious exit from politics when he dared to run against Zuma and lost at the last National Executive Committee elections of the ANC. However, when the Limpopo textbook scandal had the nation abuzz, the president protected Minister of basic Education, Angie Motshekga. (The fact that she was and still is president of the ANC Women’s League, who happily supported Zuma as President, obviously had nothing to do with her keeping her job.)

By May 2014 we had a taste of the Zuma pudding. Nkandla, Marikana, the textbook scandal, the breakdown of the security cluster with the Mdluli saga, The Secrecy Bill, whitewash commissions of enquiry and a multitude of other complaints had built up against the president. When we had the opportunity to apply some pressure against the incumbent and his party, when we had the opportunity to use our most effective tool in holding government to account – that being our vote – by reducing the resounding majority they hold in Parliament, but instead we handed a 62% victory to Zuma and the ANC.

The resentment at the events before and during the State of the Nation Address of last week seems to have a greater intensity than even the Nkandla debacle. People are furious. As I said, what we saw was a complete and utter disregard for Constitutionality and this, even to the most faithful Zuma and party supporters, should be a worrisome thing.

I can’t help but think that this is his second term, Constitutionally – so assuming he actually adheres to that part of the Constitution – this is his final term in office. This is his ‘make it or break it’ term, a term where he doesn’t have to give a flying damn. He ignored the Public Protector’s report and her findings on Nkandla, and he flagrantly ignored his Constitutional duty to appear before Parliament to account at least four times during 2014. He was not concerned when freedom of information and thereby expression was flouted when the signal was cut during SONA, nor did he raise concern at the fact that police assaulted Parliamentarians out of the national legislature.

So when the Constitution, the most supreme of all South African institutions, does not matter to the president, when Baleka Mbete, in a recent televised interview, said that we turn to Constitutions rather than trusting in our leaders and that Constitutions are man-made – created for our convenience at that time – how is it that we expect any regard for this “man-made” document that “detracts from leadership”?

When we no longer have the Constitution to protect us, then we have nothing. No matter the liberation history of a party, or its supposedly sound administrative and economic policy or its revolutionary reform on the economy, the Constitution is the only thing that keeps power in check. It seems, however, that the incumbent and those that surround him are ignoring huge portions of it.

Democracy should not serve the ruler, but the people! The people, however, cannot exercise power if they themselves do not use the tools of democracy at their disposal. Really, what were we expecting? Why are we in a rut of depression now, when there was a slow creeping erosion of so many Constitutional protections, and we waited for it to become blatantly obvious before we showed real concern?

The real custodians of our democracy are ourselves, the people, and if we acquiesce all our power to those that govern us, then we cannot expect any leader to be in it on our behalf. After all, we pledge our allegiance to them and they can simply take without having to give. DM

Gallery

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.