It was high time for Zuma to go
In late 2016, the South African TV celebrity Trevor Noah called Zuma and Donald Trump “brothers from another mother”. As a matter of fact, both men have a lot in common, from misogyny to cronyism. Both pretended to be anti-establishment rebels, but they fast aligned themselves with elitist interest as soon as they were in power. Both have the habit of accusing anyone who opposes them as enemies of the people. Both care little for standard norms of presidential behaviour or good governance. Oh, and like Trump, Zuma is a science denier. He used to claim that regular showers after having sex protected him from an HIV/AIDS infection.
Last year, Henning Melber contributed an essay to D+C/E+Z that assessed the populist tendencies of Southern Africa liberation movements after gaining power. It is still worth reading. The core point is that leaders of militant uprisings indeed believe they are serving the people. In view of their sacrifices during the struggle, they feel entitled to privileges, and they have learned to see any kind of dissent as treason. The idea of a loyal opposition does not make sense to an underground movement.
Melber’s essay shows that this attitude leads to authoritarian approaches to governance. Compounding the problems, liberation movements typically do not manage to alleviate poverty. The dilemma is that poverty was what made people support their uprising. The longer they stay in power, the more disappointed people become. Liberation movements that turn into political parties that rund governments have a tendency to conform to Jan-Werner Mueller’s definition of “populism”, according to which populists claim to be speaking for the people (understood as one monolithic entity) and attack all opponents as enemies. In power, such politicians cannot deliver on their promises, so they stick to divisive and polarising agitation, trying to make government agencies serve their partisan needs.
Zuma did not serve his country well. Masses of people still suffer deprivation. He is involved in so many scandals that people have lost count. His government did not devise any innovative anti-poverty social policies. Its approach to foreign affairs was not helpful either. For example, Zuma helped Zimbabwe’s strongman Robert Mugabe stay in power every time the latter’s rule was challenged. Perhaps Mugabe would still be in office if Zuma’s grip on power in South Africa had not begun to weaken considerably by the time Zimbabwe’s military decided to oust him.
Zuma prominently took part in several BRICS summits. The letters stand for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. In principle, it makes sense for rising powers to form alliances and pursue joint interests. The BRICS are not a very convincing alliance however. The five countries involved lack any kind of shared and principled world view. Opposition to establish powers is not enough for defining a coherent agenda. The South African president could have provided leadership, but Zuma himself lacks any kind of principled worldview.
Zuma didn’t serve his party well either. It has become a deeply divided organisation. To some extent, it has reason to be proud of this division because it means that Zuma was not able to subordinate the party to his rule. In spite of the ANC’s history as liberation movement, it obviously has a culture of inner-party democracy. The party may yet recover from Zuma’s scandals.
Ramaphosa, South Africa’s new leader, must now rise to all the challenges that Zuma shied away from. He must restore people’s faith. In order to do so, he must draft and implement policies that drive inclusive economic growth that benefits the people who are still living in poverty. That is no trivial task. He must reunite the party without obstructing r inner-party democracy. He must fight corruption. It would be most welcome, if he became the kind of internationally inspiring leader that his mentor Nelson Mandela was.
His job will not be easy. He belongs to the tiny elite that has benefited from the ANCs black- economic-empowerment policy. It has allowed a few people to become very rich. In labour conflicts, Ramaphosa has sided with industry leaders against trade unions, which historically were always close allies of the ANC. Ramaphosa is probably the ANC’s last chance to restore its reputation – and its role as South Africa’s political party of democratically legitimate dominance.