THE IMPARTIAL OBSERVER
Matters of the Moment
Mbekis Ouster: Double Jeopardy for the Rule of Law and Politics
Hank Eso
Wednesday 24 September 2008
Calm as South Africa may seem now, the tremor from the
present crisis will certainly linger. Interestingly, the political
aftershock might be far more damaging than the initial quake.
Those
who have closely followed South African politics will agree to two things; the
politics is intensely localized and second, it is unrestrained. This week the
ruling ANC finally ousted President Thabo Mbeki. Expectedly, the ANC sought to
right a wrong, but in doing so, did some wrong all the same. This was not about
poetic justice as it was about retributive justice. In lay terms, the ANC paid
Mbeki in his own coins.
It seems like ages since Mbeki, seemingly without respect for due process fired his deputy, Jacob Zuma in 2005, over unsubstantiated accusations of malfeasance, fraud and corruption after the conviction of his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik for similar charges and specifically, for soliciting a bribe on Zuma’s behalf.
Mbeki did not show mercy, sympathy or compassion for Jacob Zuma, when he presumably erred. Even if his intention was to shield the government from ridicule and from being tainted, his action was seen as politically motivated and as overboard. It promised to elicit a payback and agonizing reprisal; after all, Zuma had been in the anti-apartheid struggle trenches and served time on Robben Island. Like Mbeki, he was also member of the ANC inner caucus and family member. In that liberation mindset, it was unfathomable and wholly unacceptable for family members take up arms against each other. The crisis in Zimbabwe stands as testimony. Meanwhile, the saying “what goes around comes around” seem to be flourishing in South African politics, even at the risk of the key players losing sight of the trees despite the forest.
While it is not my place to defend Mbeki for taking an unpopular executive decision, the critical question bordering on a paradox is this: what is the difference between Zuma’s ouster without concrete evidence or conviction and Mbeki’s ouster because of judicial inferences of tempering, but without tested evidence, conviction or Mbeki’s right to defend himself? Nothing!
In politicizing allegations against Zuma and Mbeki, the ruling ANC has unwittingly undermined the judicial process, and given undue primacy to the executive branch and even more unbridled power to ANC party machinery and dictates. In a nation that has long stood up against disenfranchisement of the population, this development is a sad spectacle, since it further erodes South Africa’s democratic credentials and the role and choice made by the electorate.
As president, Mbeki tended to listen to his own counsel and play by his own rule and dance to a different tune, traits that combined to portray him as aloof. Stubbornly unpliable, he drew the wrath of many at home and abroad. Many accused him of squandering the political, social and bipartisan capital he had inherited from Nelson Mandela. Decidedly, many questioned most of his political decisions. Before his ouster, Mbeki seemed more comfortable aboard than at home. He therefore resorted to frequent travels and foreign engagements as if they were shields from his troubled home front and burgeoning domestics issues. Nonetheless, matters soon enough came to a head. Those who wanted their “pound of flesh” off Mbeki’s back were uncaring about spilling blood and the long-term political consequences of the precedence they were about to set. They got their wish, finally. However, that accomplishment was a serious mistake, even if they manage it well. Luckily, for them, Mbeki decided not to fight them and ANC, a party in which he cut his political teeth and had served for most of his life.
Some pundits have argued and quite subjectively, I might add, that the choices President Mbeki made “were entirely his own, and they were not always wise and just.” True in some regard, but likewise the choices Zuma and ANC have made. Incidentally, two wrongs do not make a right. Whatever damage Mbeki did to the political process, to my mind, did not amount to treason or impeachable offences. If they did, it would have been easy to formally censure, or charge, impeach and consequently oust him. The present arrangement, though in tandem with ANC rules, is fraught with imponderables for future South African leadership. It stands also to deeply divide the ruling ANC. Since Mbeki’s resignation, several ministers have also resigned setting the stage for a divided government, if not a total collapse.
One of Mbeki’s cardinal sins is that he did not rock the social and economic boat, by accepting to distribute national wealth in a socialist form. Rather, he opted as it were, for post-apartheid South Africa to first consolidate its economic base before it could embark on massive wealth redistribution. Politicians and technocrats understood the rationale, but not the men and women on the streets, many of whom still lives in shantytowns as they did during the apartheid regime. Nevertheless, Mbeki’s policy of focusing more on boosting the economy and less on reallocating wealth, were hardly a far stretch from President Mandela’s policy. Ironically, those who have ganged up against Mbeki were in the main, beneficiaries of his disciplined fiscal policies.
Under Mbeki South Africa remained the beacon and political bellwether in Africa, fast outpacing Nigeria, Africa’s former “giant” in every regard, but not without immense costs and sobering statistics. Reportedly, South Africa presently has the dubious status of being first in some unseemly categories. South Africa has highest murder rate in Africa and one of the highest in the world. It ranks second, with the number of people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Its poverty rate stands close to 50% and its unemployment stands at 45%. These are challenges any post-Mbeki leader must address.
Although the ANC has expended with Mbeki, those who seek to succeed him must rise to the plate to solve these problems and many others. As things stand, Zuma may well succeed Mbeki in the end. However, he would bring to office hefty personal and political baggage, a reality likely to be further compounded by the way Mbeki was forced out of office. From the outside looking in, South Africa unlike Nigeria may seem easy to govern. However, there may be more than meets the eyes.
For one, Zuma is a populist politician, but his fiscal and social policies are unknown and untested. Indeed, his overall political platform remains dubious even as he subscribes willy-nilly to the ANC manifesto. He is also a man once charged with corruption and rape, who escaped conviction on both counts, plausibly due to his high standing and populism within the ANC.
Considering that South Africa has not been a country blighted by bad governance, it is a safe bet that President Mbeki’s legacy, tarnished as some allege, remains essentially intact. Its further affirmation or erosion will be determined by history and how well his successor in office fares. Should Jacob Zuma become his ultimate successor, how he handles the economy and the country’s fiscal policy will surely be a critical variable, challenge and litmus test of ANC’s decision-making. A speedy transition away from present policies, a gross deviation or a total abandonment, will surely scare foreign investors and may put South Africa’s economy into a tailspin. All that however lies in the future and after Mbeki’s departure.
If the world received Mbeki’s removal with some astonishment, the reaction inside South Africa has been exceedingly mixed and telling. A South African summed up the paradox that confronts the nation in these words: “Listening to and looking at Thabo Mbeki now at his lowest hour, I am not filled with any sense of satisfaction or triumph at the final downfall of a man I’ve sometimes hated passionately. Instead I have a sense of great sadness and disappointment, and anger at what has been wasted.” Business Day23/9/08
Jacob Zuma has called the present political crisis “a passing phase.” That is a convenient take for a man who hopes to be a key beneficiary of the crisis. His triumphalism aside, this crisis clearly has unearthed the fissures and soft underbelly of ANC. The spate of cabinet resignations in protest of Mbeki’s ouster ought not to be taken lightly. The interim president, due to be appointed in a few days will contend with issues of loyalties and his or her bona fides in light of what has happened. There is also no telling how the national population would eventually react after they engage in an introspective and retrospective analysis of the ouster, which undoubtedly infringes on their leadership choice and electoral mandate.
For now, what matters most is to understand what has happened in South Africa. Mbeki’s unceremonial ouster is a tumult arising from the internal contradictions in nations like South Africa, where former liberation movements end up becoming the ruling and domineering political party. Beyond their zero-sum-game politics while pretending consistently to practice democracy, such movements tend to place party loyalty above loyalty to the state, two entities they tend to see as synonymous. In addition, loyalty to those involved in the liberation struggle becomes unalloyed and blinkered beyond reason. What happened to Mbeki is stuff you cannot make up, but also one that bear the trademarks of Socialist or Communist Party machinations.
In his years in power, Mbeki did not lack direction; he just did not dance to the tune of his political allies in the ANC. Now that Mbeki is gone, it is up to South Africans and those who ousted him to come up with a presumably better leader. Those who have ousted Mbeki will finally get a chance to walk a mile in his shoes or without him at the helm. Nevertheless, the ghost of what happened to Mbeki will always haunt whoever follows. They will also contend with the burden of governing a possibly polarized country and well as a fractured ANC. Calm as South Africa may seem now, the tremor from the present crisis will certainly linger. Interestingly, the political aftershock might be far more damaging than the initial quake. For now, it will suffice to note that Mbeki’s ouster constitutes a double jeopardy for the rule of law and politics in South Africa.
With neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and observe closely.
-------
Hank Eso is a columnist for Kwenu.com. His commentaries on Nigerian politics and global issues have appeared in The New Times (Lagos), African Profile International (New York), The Nigerian And Africa Abroad, (New York), African Market News (New Jersey) and in Gamji.com and Nigeriavillagesquare.com
© Hank Eso, Wednesday 24 September 2008
Email: hankeso@aol.com