Jacob Zuma is a warm and pleasant person, but how is he doing as the President of South Africa?
Looking at the first 100 days of his presidency, we must acknowledge the good and the bad. On the positive side, he is affable, humble and approachable. The personal tone of the presidency is open and friendly.
We give credit to President Zuma in his first State of the Nation Address for being honest about the enormous problems facing South Africa, such as crime, unemployment, failing education and AIDS. We welcome his blunt instruction to those teachers who abuse the system: “Teachers should be in school, in class, on time, teaching, with no neglect of duty and no abuse of pupils!” We also welcome his surprise visits to schools to check on them.
He has made some good appointments, such as Trevor Manuel in the Presidency, Pravin Gordhan in the Treasury, Tokyo Sexwale in Housing, and Gill Marcus in the Reserve Bank. On the matter of expensive new cars for politicians, the DA has lead by example, using existing pool cars wherever possible. Nonetheless we applaud President Zuma’s announcement (after the public outcry on the luxury cars bought by ANC Ministers) about cutting down on such luxuries. These are the good points.
His political performance as President is less certain, and indeed gives grounds for grave concern at times.
By far the biggest minus about his performance as President arises out of his uneasy relationship with the Constitution and his political leadership.
Public memory is short. Nevertheless, it remains important to consider the circumstances under which Jacob Zuma became President, because these raise serious constitutional questions. A few months back, Jacob Zuma had several hundred counts of corruption hanging over him - until the case against him was withdrawn in highly questionable circumstances, including the leaking of NIA surveillance recordings to his defence team. A review application against the decision of the acting National Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw the charges is currently before the courts. This review application could go all the way to the Constitutional Court for final determination. Yet, in his capacity as President, Jacob Zuma will appoint the Chief Justice who will preside over his case. This creates a clear conflict of interest and raises profound questions about why the charges were withdrawn in the first place.
Just this week we were reminded of the circumstances surrounding the early release from prison of fraudster Schabir Shaik who spent hardly any of his 15 year sentence actually behind bars. His corruption conviction arose out of his relationship with Jacob Zuma. Given the fact that he is now well enough to drive around and eat in restaurants, it is quite clear that Shaik’s release was politically rather than medically motivated. The irresistible conclusion is that Shaik was released early because he was not prepared to be the scapegoat in the broader corruption case, and that he threatened to reveal what he knew if he was not released. It is for the ANC and President Zuma himself to show this conclusion is unfounded. So far all indications are in the opposite direction. The Shaik saga goes to the heart of the Constitution, undermining the principle of equality before the law, and demonstrating selective justice depending on political connections.
President Zuma’s surprise nomination of Sandile Ngcobo as Chief Justice also cocked a snook at the Constitution, which requires the President to consult with leaders of other parties first. The reason is that the Chief Justice is not an ANC appointment but must ensure justice for all the people of the country. The nomination also highlights the reasons for the sidelining of Judge Dikgang Moseneke, the current Deputy Judge President. Moseneke attracted heavy ANC criticism when he made the obvious point that his role as a judge was to serve all the people of South Africa and not merely the ANC. Again, the irresistible conclusion is that Moseneke was sidelined for refusing to act like a deployed party cadre.
The DA is not objecting to Ngcobo as a candidate of merit in his own right, as we believe he could make a good Chief Justice, but to the manner of his nomination, where President Zuma seemed to feel he could brush aside the Constitution. Adding to our concern is the suspicion that Ngcobo, who may probably only serve two more years in the Constitutional Court, is being used as a stand-in to prepare the way for John Hlophe to become Chief Justice. Hlophe is accused by Constitutional Court judges of allegedly inappropriately approaching two of them about a judgment on Zuma before he became president. This is cause for the greatest unease.
Another key assault on the Constitution during Jacob Zuma’s Presidency has been the emergence of the 17th Amendment Bill which will curtail the powers of the provinces and municipalities (some of which are not controlled by the ANC), and give more power to the central state (which is controlled by the ANC). When the DA questioned the ANC about this bill during the election, the ANC denied its existence. Now it is pushing forward with this very bill, and President Zuma is saying nothing about it.
President Zuma often gives the very dangerous impression that he thinks the Constitution carries less weight than the priorities of the ANC or the clauses of the Freedom Charter.
As the political leader of our country, President Zuma has shown little direction. Although he acknowledges our country’s problems, President Zuma shows no inclination to give a clear lead on what should be done about many of them. He gives a sense of drifting on the strongest current of the day. He often acts more like a deployee than a leader. Power has undoubtedly shifted from the Presidency of South Africa to the Secretary-General of the ANC, Gwede Mantashe, and to the headquarters of the Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions.
Perhaps the defining moment of Jacob Zuma’s presidency came almost immediately when he announced his huge cabinet of 62 ministers – at enormous public expense. This was not done to promote efficient government, quite the opposite. It was done to reward and reconcile a large number of varied interest groups who had helped to bring him to power. Patronage not patriotism was the reason for having 62 ministers. The excessive thank you parties were for the same reason.
Already in his presidency a number of critically important matters have arisen, and President Zuma has taken no decisive stand on any of them. The proposed National Health Insurance is a recipe for disaster for our health system. It would seriously undermine the functional components of the system, without improving the dysfunctional aspects. President Zuma is silent on it. The suggested nationalisation of our mines, enthusiastically encouraged by Julius Malema, the ANC Youth Leader, and Blade Nzimande, the Communist Party Leader, is a recipe for disaster for our entire economy. Beyond a few playful remarks, Zuma has never repudiated them. Again he seems to have given in to Gwede Mantashe, who decided that nationalisation should be considered.
Zuma’s appointment of Bheki Cele as National Police Commissioner raised all manner of doubts. Cele has no professional police experience but is on the ANC’s National Executive Committee. In the past he has urged police officers “to shoot to kill”, a reckless, theatrical outburst rather than a serious commitment to dealing with violent crime, and in violation of the principle that force must be used in proportion to the perceived.
This month Julius Malema criticised President Zuma for appointing “members of minority groups” to key economic ministries. He named Rob Davies in Trade and Industry, Ebrahim Patel in Economic Development, Barbara Hogan in Public Enterprises and Gill Marcus in the Reserve Bank. This disgraceful racist attack should have been immediately, loudly and publicly repudiated by the President. Instead he said little, and what he did say skirted rather than confronted the issue.
Is President Zuma giving a free rein to ANC attack dogs, such as Malema, or are they dragging him where they want to go? Neither answer gives confidence in his leadership.
The issue that will most come back to haunt Jacob Zuma from the ANC’s own support base is the promises he has made and the expectations he has raised. His promise of 500,000 extra jobs by the end of the year cannot be kept, as every serious commentator knew at the time. The fact that he made it at all suggests more devotion to show business than to practical politics. Indeed, Zuma with his melodious voice and dancing flair has been called the “Karaoke King”. He mouths the words while others make the music and sing the song.
President Zuma has an excellent PR team and he has enjoyed a honeymoon from heaven. So far, though, his Presidency has been a matter of style before substance. As the clouds gather over South Africa, we should like to see clear leadership, brave policies and unyielding allegiance to the Constitution. In short, South Africa needs a President who is prepared to make some enemies to do the right thing.
- Helen Zille
I think opposition and some people are just too negative.
