The Jacob Zuma affair has flared up again, and I merely wish to repeat a suggestion I have made more than once before. To wit, there should be a compromise solution in which the former deputy president enters a plea bargain, receives some legal retribution, gets a presidential pardon, and is thereafter posted as an ambassador.

Right now we are stuck between, on the one hand, legal extremists who would be satisfied by nothing short of a jail term for Zuma, and, on the other hand, political extremists who would be satisfied by nothing short of a Zuma presidency.

The legal extremists would not be entirely happy with a pardon. But countries all over the world have often resorted to political solutions to legal problems involving high-level political figures, always by following some form of due process of law, however.

Thanks to such compromises, scoundrels such as Gideon Niewoudt go to their graves without ever being punished for their evil deeds. And yet to former freedom fighters who make stupid mistakes, we say, in the language of the game of Monopoly — go directly to jail, do not pass go.

But the former freedom fighters do not make it easy for society to forgive them, either. If Zuma knows he did something wrong he must just cut his losses and get out of active politics. After all, he would not have done badly in life, particularly if he were to retire as an ambassador or go into black economic empowerment.

However, Zuma is probably gambling on an acquittal — the surest ticket to the presidency.

Just as the argument about the rule of law makes it less likely for the legal extremists to compromise, the gamble makes it less likely for Zuma’s backers to compromise.

But what would be the point of a Zuma presidency if he ruled over a permanently divided African National Congress (ANC)? The same consideration must be asked of President Thabo Mbeki’s supporters. Even if Zuma were to be imprisoned, there would be a lingering bitterness among his supporters, the knock-on effects of which could simply prolong the present instability.

In short, there are no winners here, only losers, the biggest of which is the ANC. Maybe it is time to invite the party elders, including Nelson Mandela, to mediate a permanent solution. To be sure, different constituencies or factions will always be there to lobby for different positions.

Righteous elite indignation about the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) will do nothing to help whoever has to lead this country, with all of its people, and all of their views and eccentricities — such as Cosatu’s latest call on Mbeki simply to withdraw the charges.

Some political subtlety is required here. However, it behoves Cosatu to pay as much attention to the rule of law as it behoves the indignant elites to appreciate the existential reality of democratic pluralism.

Some people suggest that we are too far from 2009 to even begin thinking about succession planning. On the contrary, it is the habit of leaving things to the last minute that lands us with badly cooked bargains, to the chagrin of civil society. Two years is a very short time for a consultative process towards a new vision of democratic consolidation.

Come the next general election, the ANC could, under one leader, present a more or less unified message to the multiple publics that it must now speak to. The names of people such as Cyril Ramaphosa, Mosiuoa Lekota, Kgalema Motlanthe, and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma have been bandied about as potential alternative presidential candidates.

However, in choosing a leader, the ANC would have to go beyond personality figures to personality constructs. The most important leadership quality in such a situation is not intellectual mastery or charisma but temperament.

Are candidates democrats at heart, with no “issues” or hang-ups? Do they understand power and its corrupting effects on personality? What would they do to resist such influences?

These things must be discussed openly in the process of choosing an Mbeki successor.

It is said that Mahatma Gandhi once took his protégé, Jawaharlal Nehru, to a rally with throngs of ordinary Indian people. Gandhi asked Nehru to address the crowd. The Cambridge-educated Nehru turned to Gandhi and asked: “What do I have in common with these people?” Gandhi told Nehru that was the greatest leadership challenge facing India — building bridges with all of the people.

I made a similar suggestion in the Sunday Independent, on the occasion of Mbeki’s first inauguration.

I said: “… if Mbeki is going to translate the overwhelming vote for the ANC into a victory for our society, he should also build bridges with civil society institutions”.

History moves in excruciatingly long cycles, indeed. The time to build those bridges is now. Here’s to hoping.

Mangcu is executive director for social cohesion at the Human Sciences Research Council and nonresident WEB du Bois fellow at Harvard. He writes in his personal capacity.

With acknowledgements to Xolela Mangcu and the Business Day.