Publication	Mail and Guardian
Date	2005-11-18
Web Link	www.mg.co.za

The major casualties of the presidential succession battle are not Thabo Mbeki or Jacob Zuma -- in fact, South Africa would do very well, thank you, if the two men quietly vanished into the ether *1. The damage that really matters has been to a range of institutions critical to the continued health of our democracy *2 -- the Scorpions, the National Intelligence Agency, the courts and the leadership of the South African Police Service. In the reckless tussle for supremacy, all have been politicised, and all are now perceived in one or the other quarter as weapons in enemy hands.

One consequence is that ordinary citizens who become entangled in the hostilities risk becoming pawns, with their demand for justice subordinated to political agendas.

This is what seems to have happened to the woman at the centre of the Zuma rape allegations. In the heat of battle, Zuma's right not to be named until he appears in court has been cast to the winds. So, too, has the woman's right, as an alleged rape victim, not to be named -- even during court proceedings. And there are unmistakable signs, in her denial that she laid a complaint when it is pretty clear that she did, that she has been placed under enormous personal pressure.

It was probably a mistake for the Sunday Times to report the matter as a straight crime story, without referring to the political context. But one also has to question the uncritical reporting of the woman's denial and the Zuma camp's dismissal of the rape claim as "rubbish" and part of a conspiracy. It may have been seized on by the anti-Zuma faction, but a rape complaint does seem to have been lodged with the police.

With everyone out there talking with forked tongues, the media represents one hope of separating fact from fiction, truth from propaganda. This places journalists under a heavy obligation to report all sides, to contextualise events and not to hire themselves out as mercenaries in someone else's war.

The Mail & Guardian is not trying to take the ethical high ground -- maintaining a critical distance while keeping one's sources happy is a delicate operation at the best of times, and even more testing in the present fevered climate. Readers have accused us of bias, and, in particular, of being unfair to Zuma.

But a distinction has to be drawn between reportage and comment. In our editorial columns, we will not shrink from attacking abuses -- we make no excuse, for example, for lambasting Zuma's behaviour outside court, including his scandalous claim to be a victim of apartheid-style justice. We have offered, and will continue to offer, space to those who hold other views.

We remain agnostic on whether Zuma is guilty of corruption. And although it will not automatically mean he is a suitable presidential candidate -- much else troubles us about his personal habits and political style -- we will accept an innocent verdict. The big question is: Will his supporters accept a guilty one?