Zuma Saga Exposes Division in SA More Basic than Many Admit [Business Day, 2005-11-25]

Publication: Business Day Date: 2005-11-25 Reporter: Tim Cohen

Zuma Saga Exposes Division in SA More Basic than Many Admit

Publication	Business Day
Date	2005-11-25
Reporter	Tim Cohen
Web Link	www.bday.co.za

Will the Jacob Zuma saga change in any way the plate tectonics that define the structure of South African society? Or is this a minor spat that will define only one aspect of presidential succession and have no real effect on policy?

Many of Zuma’s supporters claim this is not a policy issue at all, and seek to diminish the ideological differences that might underlie the dispute. They highlight factional issues, as though it were simply a family spat.

Personally, I think doing so is to regress into a kind of “congress myopia” where the fiction of ideological unity in the African National Congress (ANC) is prized even demanded over the obvious truth. If the Zuma struggle is not underpinned by ideological issues then, for one thing, it is quite impossible to understand the Congress of South African Trade Union’s (Cosatu’s) enduring support for Zuma, despite the barrage of allegations and charges which he now faces.

Cosatu, or at least the Cosatu leadership, obviously seems to see a ideological fellow traveller in Zuma. But there is an irony here, because if this is so, I suspect they may be misinterpreting Zuma’s approach. But this is not to say that Zuma is in policy agreement with Mbeki .

Sometimes I think South Africans don’t appreciate sufficiently the sensitivity of the moment. SA is at that critical point, on the verge of accelerating into the modern world. But there is also the outside chance it could slide backwards into a kind of quasi-African thug state, typified by Zimbabwe’s descent from being more or less self-sufficient into becoming a beggar nation, like so many others on the continent. Everyone naturally tends toward the notion of continuous forward movement in politics, and so South Africans tend to think that this could never happen here; but there are no guarantees in politics.

In a way, the Zuma saga is mirrored by a host of other cultural/ideological issues in other spheres in South African society. For example, in land affairs, the argument about “foreigners” being prohibited from buying “our” land; in economic affairs, over the miscued debate over “stakeholder capitalism” which is actually a debate over capitalism itself; and all the hundreds of ways that the notions of private property and the rule of law are constantly being challenged from local government to health policy.

We are dealing essentially here with the underlying philosophy of feudalism competing with the underlying philosophy of the free market. It is that simple.

The support within the ANC for Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is a version of this argument. Mugabe represents the feudal overlord, who considers himself not so much the elected leader but leader by divine right. Who in the modern world could support such a transparently undemocratic premise? Simple. People who belive in the right of kingship.

On the edges of the tectonic plates, which are constantly shifting across SA, the clashes of ideas become clear. When they collide, you hear the crunching sound of ideology in contrast. In a way, they are most obvious in the judiciary, mainly because security of tenure for judges encourages them to express ideas without restraint. There are many examples of white judges showing simple insensitivity and the opposite of course. But this is just stupidity and racism. It is outrageous but, we hope, without long-term political consequence.

But deeper ideological debates often tend to be obscured by these racial overlays. Think about Pretoria Judge John Motata who argued in a judgment against the Sowetan Sunday World that the law in SA today “is the law how whites understand it”.

“How long must we perpetuate the law which was thrown down our throats by the whites?” he said. The tenor of the judgment was intended to teach the newspaper a lesson because of its “lack of respect” (a classic feudal notion). Motata’s finding against allowing appeal was overturned by a majority black bench of the Appeal Court, demonstrating how little this has to do with race.

Anyway, back to Zuma. I might be doing him a terrible injustice, but to me Zuma represents the ideology of feudalism in SA. His statement before the national election, that the ANC would rule forever, is typical of the assumption of right in feudal society. The way he treated Schabir Shaik as a minion only there to deliver the goodies is typical of the feudal notion of fealty; his carelessness over his personal finances was regal in its arrogance; and his attitude to women, fiercely patriarchal.

The best parts of his character also fit this trend. His desire to solve conflicts through discussion and negotiation, as evidenced by his work in conflict states, is also part of this process because so often it involved the negotiating device of face-saving. That is what royalty does.

His success in gaining popular and institutional support may be, in part, a reaction to Mbeki’s aloofness. But it is also determined by ideological underpinnings. His success or failure will test the strength of those ideas.

Cohen is editor at large.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Business Day.

*1 The situation is about as sensitive a bucket of past sell-by-date gelignite in the care of a bunch of squabbling Alzheimer's patients.