JACOB ZUMA: A QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP

“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 Reserved
www.omegainvest.co.za

South Africa's New Government

The general response in South Africa and internationally to President Zuma's Cabinet appointments has been very positive. He got rid of most of the dead wood and introduced several exciting personalities. From a business point of view this is probably the strongest Cabinet South Africa has had in decades. Having said that, the financial/economic cluster of ministerial personalities is also very diverse in the views its members represent. There will be lots of debates. If anything Trevor Manuel's appointment in the presidency with responsibility for the National Planning Commission considerably enhances his influence; and Pravin Gordhan's appointment as Minister of Finance - given the brilliant job he did in overhauling the country's revenue service - has been welcomed by business. He certainly is Manuel’s intellectual equal.

A welcome member of this team is Robert Davies who has been promoted from deputy to Minister of Trade and Investment. He is energetic and imaginative and is going to make a world of difference to DTI, which has been one of the worst run ministries. Adding spice is Ebrahim Patel, a textile industry trade unionist, as Minister of Economic Development; and the appointment of Collins Chabaneto to ensure that everybody does their job - echoing Zuma’s sentiment that he will not tolerate sloth – is a welcome innovation. Tokyo Sexwale, although not formally in the financial/economic cluster, will offer a shoulder for business to cry on.

So generally speaking, as the London Financial Times put it two days ago: “The new South African Cabinet unveiled by Jacob Zuma at the week-end seems both to have calmed business fears he might lurch to the left, and inspired hope that ministers - including the finance minister Pravin Gordhan - will raise performance." But some specific random observations:

• Regrettable is the transfer of Naledi Pandor, one of the best Ministers of Education South Africa has had in years, to Science and Technology; and equally regrettable is the decision, while promoting Marthinus van Schalkwyk to full minister, to separate environmental affairs and tourism, leaving him with only tourism - as Van Schalkwyk has very deservedly established himself internationally as a serious environmentalist. And I am sorry not to see Mathews Phosa in the Cabinet. As an alternative, he would make a good High Commissioner in London.

• In the short time she was in the health portfolio, Barbara Hogan impressed everybody and, not surprisingly, the various health lobbies have expressed disappointment that she has been transferred from Health to Public Enterprises - also an important ministry but badly managed by successive incumbents. Hogan is a strong, creative person with highly developed management skills, and Health’s loss is Public Enterprises’ gain.

• The appointment of the Leader of the Freedom Front Plus, Pieter Mulder, as a deputy minister should not have caused the surprise it did. Zuma very consciously wooed the Afrikaners in the spirit of his consensual style and partly to counter COPE, whose Mosiuoa Lekota has a strong appeal within that community. Mulder’s portfolio of agriculture, forestry and fishing is most appropriate. Not surprising is Jeremy Cronin’s appointment as a deputy minister for transport. He is the least dogmatic, most intelligent and likeable communist I know. And every government should have its poet.

Beyond the personalities involved and the contribution they may be expected to make, the composition of the new parliament and Cabinet represent progress in the South African political system in two very important areas. Firstly, one of the big failures in continental African politics is the lack of politics as a vocation. Politics, after all, is an end in itself. People who go into politics do so for many different reasons. But in mature societies the main reason for choosing a political career is to gain power and influence, and so to contribute to the betterment of a society. That has been absent in Africa, where politics has mainly been the route to self-aggrandisement and wealth. Looking at the new Cabinet, I have a strong sense that the vocational element has been strengthened. Appointments have been made on ability to do the job rather than on contributions to the struggle, etc. Without wishing to ex aggerate this (because after all he has already made his fortune) Tokyo Sexwale’s commitment to politics and inclusion in the Cabinet has both practical and symbolic significance - in that he has stood down as executive chairman of his company Mvelaphanda and will no doubt resign his other many directorships.

The second important development arising out of the composition of the newly- elected Parliament and Cabinet is a strengthening of the middle ground of South African politics. As Anthony Sampson reminds us in his excellent memoir The Anatomist, the success of democracy depends very largely on the predominance of the middle ground and the consensus based on it: "In Britain both main parties roughly adhered to the post-war settlement, which included maintaining full employment, and allowing a mixed economy of private and public industries, accepting trade unions and maintaining high taxes to finance public services. They took similar attitudes to most British institutions, from nationalised industries to the army and the monarchy." The criticism so many people directed at Maggie Thatcher was that, as a self-declared “conviction" politician, she destroyed this consensus.

South Africa's successful transition from a minority race-dominated state to full democracy was possible because FW De Klerk and Nelson Mandela maintained the centre, the middle ground. Between them, and between the ANC and the National Party, they marginalised those on the left and on the right and held the centre. The middle ground disappeared after 1994, with the ANC’s total domination of Parliament, policy-making and almost all institutions of government. With the recent election, the establishment of COPE and its emergence as a major opposition in 4 provinces, and an impressive performance by the Democratic Alliance in winning the Western Cape and setting itself up as the official opposition in 3 provinces, coupled - and this is very important - with Jacob Zuma's commitment to a consensual style of leadership, we can begin to explore as South Africans a middle ground of shared beliefs and values.

Dr Denis Worrall
Email: kamreyac@omegainvest.co.za for all enquiries

Copyright 2008. Omega Investment Research. All Rights Reserved
www.omegainvest.co.za


US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

THE ANC SPLIT: SUSTAINABLE THREAT OR SHORT TERM HICCUP?

How seriously should Mosiua Lekota and Mbhazima Shilowa’s break-away Congress of the People (COPE) be taken? In a nutshell, seriously. Is it a positive development? Unquestionably.

The ANC’s Polokwane conference last December was dominated by one big personal issue: who was to lead the ANC? – Jacob Zuma or Thabo Mbeki. This was central and dominant; policy issues were secondary. Reasons for supporting Zuma varied. The SACP and COSATU, who were they to contest a general election on their own probably would not get more than 8% of the vote, believe – with good reason – that they can manipulate Jacob Zuma into supporting their more left-wing interpretation of ANC policy.

To others, because he had crossed them or because they dislike him (he is perceived to be arrogant and aloof), the main priority was to prevent Mbeki from being re-elected – and the only person who could do this was Zuma. Among those who supported Zuma for this reason are ANC notables like Tokyo Sexwale, Mathews Phosa, and Cyril Ramaphosa – all three of whom Mbeki in 2001 had publicly accused of plotting against him. (Incidentally, Tokyo Sexwale, before throwing his weight behind Zuma, courageously launched an individual and personal, but unfortunately futile, campaign for the ANC presidency in mid-2007.)

Two important things happened at Polokwane. Firstly, Zuma was elected. Although defeated the general assumption was that Mbeki would see out his term. His humiliating and forced resignation in September 2008 was largely the result of certain judicial decisions – and the dynamics which these set in motion and which his enemies on the left took advantage of. But the second development coming out of Polokwane was a dramatic increase in the influence of the SACP and COSATU within the ANC alliance. Emboldened by their success in getting Zuma elected, they began calling the shots – and, reminiscent of passages in Whitaker Chambers Witness, they know what they want, they know how to get what they want, and they have the passion to follow through. But having called the shots – starting with a purge of Mbeki sympathisers at all levels of government – they overplayed their hand. And this is reflected in the emergence of the Congress of the People.

The break-away led by Lekota and Sam Shilowa (Sam and his wife business woman Wendy Luhabe add considerable credibility) is not “the splinter” the media initially described it as. What emerged from the well-attended National Convention which the duo organised in Sandton at relatively short notice over the week-end of 25 October was a significant (for want of a better description) middle class response to the trends and the events set out above. (By the way, all speakers at the convention wore suits and ties. Zuma, addressing an ANC rally the next day, wore a baseball cap and leather jacket!)

Firstly, it reflects unhappiness at the way Mbeki was forced out of office. Wendy Luhabe in an interview in The Independent on Sunday (9 November) says of the decision to summarily dismiss Mbeki: “In hindsight, the ANC’s decision to recall former president Mbeki has become a gift – a gift this country will only appreciate 10 to 20 years from now. This is because it forced the decision to launch a new political party and has got South African talking, casting a sharp light on the murky side of political life.”

Secondly, it reflects revulsion at the debasement of political language and dialogue, and crude political behaviour especially from ANC’s youth league. (The reason Desmond Tutu said he would not vote.) Thirdly, deep concern at increasingly vituperate attacks on the judiciary. And fourthly, and very importantly, the increasingly dominant influence of the SACP and COSATU and concern at its impact on economic and social policy. While the break-away group has yet to formulate its own social and economic policies, it is this further factor which explains its emphasis on constitutional reform aiming at greater accountability: the introduction of individual Parliamentary constituencies (as opposed to proportional representation) and a directly elected president.

The establishment of the Congress of the People has implications for all political parties in South Africa – including (and perhaps especially) Helen Zille’s Democratic Alliance. [The resignation last week of Simon Grindrod, Deputy President of the Independent Democrats, from the ID and his decision to join COPE is a case in point] As far as the ANC is concerned, the process of re-alignment is not complete – particularly as regards individuals. Although they have Trevor Manuel with them, Tokyo Sexwale, Mathews Phosa and Cyril can’t be happy with Blade Nzimade and Gwede Mantashe calling the tune within the ANC.

The break-away has happened very quickly, and nobody knows what the new party’s social and economic policies will be. But from what I hear and read I get a sense that the predominant feeling is one of expectation, with some surprising people discreetly indicating support. Jakes Gerwel, who is extremely close to Nelson Mandela, in a column that he occasionally contributes to the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper Rapport, discussed the implications of Obama’s victory under the heading “Turn-around needed here as in America”. The column concluded with the sentiment: “Are there presently South African political figures and leaders who can achieve something similar?”

Dr Denis Worrall Email: kamreyac@omegainvest.co.za

Copyright 2008. Omega Investment Research. All Rights Reserved

www.omegainvest.co.za

If you would like to reproduce any of Denis Worrall’s E-Letters you must include the source of your quote and an email address (denis@omegainvest.co.za) Please write to info@omegainvest.co.za and inform us of any reproductions. Please include where and when the copy will be reproduced.

Denis Worrall is Chairman of Omega Investment Research, a South African based investment advisory and strategic marketing consultancy. He is a graduate of the University Cape Town (M. A.), University of South Africa (LLB) and Cornell University (Ph.D) where he was a Fulbright Scholar He started his career as an academic lecturing at universities in the US, Nigeria and South Africa . His last post was as research Professor at Rhodes University. He practised as an advocate for seven years in Cape Town, before going into public life. He has been a Member of Parliament, chairman of the Constitutional committee of the Presidents’ council, South African Ambassador to Australia and the Court of St James (London).

Insight is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Denis Worrall, South African lawyer, politician and business personality, covering concise and to the point opinion on sub Saharan economic and political affairs – www.omegainvest.co.za

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/