The first was a suggestion that a fixation with President Jacob Zuma is an unnecessary distraction; Zuma is not the ANC, and the ANC is not Zuma. The second was an implication that once Zuma has left, the ANC would somehow return to some kind of equilibrium based on democracy, justice, selflessness, and humility. The third extended this, somewhat, and added one or two caveats; there may be trouble ahead, especially for the President, but the people of South Africa, emboldened by the Constitution and a free press and the ANC itself may well save the country.

These conclusions seem plausible. However, colloquially stated, and without denying their seriousness, I suspect they would find a place in the ‘good news’ folder, or in a ‘glass-half-full’ scenario. I would suggest that these views somehow under-estimate the dynamic that sits at the intersection of structure and agency, between politics and individual leaders. In other words, they under-appreciate how individual leaders can change a political party; how political leadership, in general, can alter the relationship between politics and morality, and thereby change the structure and politics of society, and how individual office-bearers can reduce the standing of institutions like the presidency – at least in the public perception.

Starting with the latter. It is a general truism in the United States that Richard Nixon’s ‘imperial presidency’, and especially the mass of criminal charges that were brought against his administration, reduced the traditionally unflinching respect, and the unquestioned loyalty that people in that country gave the presidency. There is a suggestion that the office began to lose its lustre during the Lyndon Johnson presidency. Nevertheless, there is a belief that since Nixon, the standard at which the presidency was viewed decreased with each electoral cycle. If this is indeed true we may have evidence that the misdeeds of one leader can change the way that people think about the presidency.

It is not outlandish to think that once President Zuma leaves office, South Africans may never look at the presidency the same way again. It may be seen as nothing more than a money-making racket, and reminiscent more of Mobutu Sese Seko’s 32-year rule. We may, indeed, end up with the crudest of minimalist democracy, where people go to the polls every four or five years, and the government ignores everyone in-between polls, and vice versa. (Until the periphery pulls away from the centre, but that’s another story.)

Individual leaders have also changed large sections of societies quite drastically. For example, Boris Yeltsin presided over the criminal sacking of the former Soviet state, and established one of most corrupt regimes in history, all of which laid a matrix for post-Soviet Russian governance. This bled across Russian society, which was marked by a precipitous fall in living standards, while a select few well-connected elites prospered.

In the immediate post-Soviet period, Yeltsin’s friends were given privileged access to privatised state property, and they amassed fantastic wealth. Well-connected Russians gained access to the highest offices in Russian government, and gained control over key state industries.

Shortly after Yeltsin’s death, Chrystia Freeland, hardly a socialist, wrote in The Financial Times that Yeltsin’s ‘most damaging’ contribution to post-soviet Russia ‘was the creation of the oligarchs – an act based partly on an extreme faith in the power of private ownership, no matter who the owner was or how the property was acquired’. John Lloyd, also in The Financial Times wrote that, ‘by the time he resigned on New Year’s Eve 1999… the indiscipline, corruption and inertia at every level of bureaucracy was probably greater than during Soviet [Stalinist] days, when the party could act as a disciplining force’.

Yeltsin also hand-picked the current leader, Vladimir Putin, and by some accounts, there has been almost no change in Russian society since early post-Soviet period. One key to Yeltsin’s handover of power is a reminder of what may happen in South Africa ‘after Zuma’. Writing in The Guardian after Yeltsin’s death, Archie Brown, the author of ‘Seven Years that Changed the World’ explained that during Yeltsin’s presidency, ‘The level of corruption was such that that his main concern, when picking a successor, was to find someone who would safe-guard him from prosecution.’

Russia, by some accounts, has not shaken the inertia, indiscipline and corruption that took root during Yeltsin’s rule. The beleaguered people of Russia continue to live under Yeltsin’s legacy. While Russia remains one of the great countries in history, the Soviet Union brought that society to its knees in the latter years, and Yeltsin kicked it when it was down. Yeltsin’s rule gave rise to new power and social structures that have subverted the rule of law and inhibited democracy in post-Soviet Russia. One leader can, therefore, make a difference.

Leaders can also change the nature of political parties. Consider, for instance, how Mikhail Gorbachev changed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or how Tony Blair changed the British Labour Party. Consider the chasm between US Republicans, George W Bush or Ronald Reagan, and Abraham Lincoln. By some accounts Nixon, the Republican, was probably more liberal than Bill Clinton, the Democrat. The point here is that parties change. Leaders change, and leaders change the nature of parties. (I seem to recall making this point in a previous column). We cannot discard the idea that Jacob Zuma may have changed the ANC irreversibly.

I usually leave predictions to economists, prelates and board-walk fortune tellers. It is, indeed, tempting to predict a future that coincides with my own wishes or expectations; that South Africa may, in the next two decades become a just and equitable society with high levels of trust among the citizens. There is, however, nothing in South African politics that makes me think that what happens ‘after Zuma’ will be any better, and that we will return to some ideal state.

It will be difficult, if at all possible, to undo the damage that has been done to South African society by the leadership of Jacob Zuma. Consider this: How will we tell the tens of thousands of people who got their jobs through patronage extended from the highest offices, that they now have to re-apply for their jobs, and that they would, now, be evaluated on the basis of their skills, and professional competence? How will we convince teachers that their primary objective is to teach our children; that their jobs are not place-holders while they run a fleet of taxis on the side? What happens when Zuma leaves; do we roll back the preferential treatment he gave people from his home province? How will we tell people to pay electricity or water bills, without provoking ‘service delivery’ protests? How will we tell students that their best chance of securing a prosperous future is to study – hard? It was reported in March 2013 that one member of the ANC’s national executive sat on 80 boards of directors. Here’s a question: Tally the number of boards of directors that ANC members sit on, and now ask whether they will surrender their positions, if it is established that they were appointed, in the first place, only because of their political affiliation. Some things may not be undone very easily – or not at all.

Sometime in our future, we may have a different understanding of equilibrium, or a what a normal society looks like. What is considered normal today, may be considered exceptional or outstanding tomorrow. In the past the state suppressed the majority of people with laws. Increasingly suppression is exercised through politics. We would be best advised to avoid being Panglossian. As for the (correct) assumption that a free press will help us through the most difficult times, I will write about that next. It may suffice to say, at this point, that Hlaudi Motsoeneng may yet have his way. DM