“A week is a long time in politics”, Labour prime minister Harold Wilson famously declared. And presumably six weeks is a very long time in politics - because that is about when everybody was assessing Jacob Zuma’s first 100 days as president of the country. The assessments were generally favourable. His appointments to the Cabinet were regarded on balance as good. He was seen as a president who wished to reach out to all groups and all constituencies in the country. He introduced a direct telephonic service to the Presidency, among other things, so that people could report on delivery problems, etc. But, as Harold Wilson reminds us, much can happen in a relatively short time in politics, and that it seems is what has happened to President Zuma.
Peter Bruce, Editor of Business Day, a generous person when it comes to judging people, raised some serious questions about Zuma’s leadership in his weekly column: “Jacob Zuma is proving to be almost the opposite of what I expected him to be. I expected a decisive Presidency but he isn’t. I expected an authoritative leader, yet no one in or around the ANC seems to pay him the slightest heed.”
And Anthony Butler, who teaches political science at Wits University and is an independent columnist, also over the week-end in an interesting contribution on Cosatu’s National Congress, spoke of Cosatu as maintaining its “remarkable track record in national politics” when it lambasted élite enrichment and corruption and pledged to fight the “crass materialism and patronage eating away the historic values of our movement”. He said, obviously with respect, that this was Cosatu’s position, “while Jacob Zuma continues to search unsuccessfully for his moral backbone”!
But toughest of all on President Zuma was an article in City Press by Meshack Mabogoane, an independent analyst. He was responding to City Press editor-in-chief Ferial Haffajee’s support for a second term for President Zuma – a ridiculous proposition, given that he has just been elected for his first term. (Can one imagine someone starting a campaign in the United States for President Obama to have a second term?) Mabogoane, in taking exception to Haffajee’s position, gave his view of Zuma: “A hardcore party man, he defers to the ANC for the positions he adopts. Haffajee admits that we don’t know what he really thinks. He reads what is written for him and avoids discussing complex matters. At the same time his comments on crucial issues are usually made after the event and are generally evasive and weak. Zuma has never committed himself to any policies and never offered any personal vision. All we get from him is “friendliness”. Yet Haffajee, like Vavi and others, still call for two terms for him.”
What’s behind this? And how justified is it? The country, in the past couple of months, has experienced considerable turbulence. We have had strikes on a wide scale; we have had mutiny within the army; we have had decisions affecting the judiciary which are cause for concern; and we have had lots of different parties calling for elections and for changing standing orders. Race has also been an issue. The economic policy cluster, a reflection of the rainbow nation, with Gill Marcus at the Reserve Bank, Trevor Manuel as Chief Planner, Pravin Gordhan Minister of Finance, Ebrahim Patel Minister of Economic Development, and Collins Chabane Minister in the Presidency – to hell with competency, says the ANC Youth, it is not black enough. And Trevor Manuel has had a torrid time of criticism by the trade unions and the ANC Youth for “allegedly” wanting to build a prime ministership in the Presidency. But at n o time has President Zuma stepped in and told the stirrers to cut out their nonsense.
Where Zuma’s leadership has dismally failed South Africa and southern Africa is, of course, on Zimbabwe. Given SADC’s responsibilities to the people of Zimbabwe in terms of the implementation of the inclusive government agreement of September 2008, he had the opportunity as chairman of SADC to sort out certain issues in that country. He failed. In fact, his actions were such as to actually strengthen Mugabe.
So, should one write off Zuma? I don’t believe so. His consensual style of leadership is important to the country. But in his own interest – not to mention the country’s – Zuma has to be more decisive. He needs to lead – and be seen to lead.
Denis Worrall,
Chairman,
Omega Investment Research
Cape Town, South Africa
Email: kamreyac@omegainvest.co.za for all enquiries
Copyright 2009. Omega Investment Research. All Rights Reservedwww.omegainvest.co.za
