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

ZIMBABWE: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

Most people have expressed frustration and sense of anger at the course of events in Zimbabwe over the last eight months. But there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel. So we have drafted a Programme of Reconstruction for that country.

Since the March 2008 election in Zimbabwe, various people have been involved in trying to reach some sort of political agreement between the major parties – whether as a “government of national unity” as proposed by former President Thabo Mbeki or more generally a shared power arrangement. Mbeki, acting as a negotiator on behalf of the SADC grouping of countries, understandably chose to describe the political accommodation which he hoped to achieve as a “government of national unity”. This obviously is based on South Africa’s transformation experience, which worked: between 1990 and 1994 the main political parties served in what was described as a “government of national unity” (GNU). The agreed purpose of the GNU was to defuse the political situation and create space and time for the constitutional, structural and legal changes which would transform South Africa from a white-minority dominated state to a full non-racial democratic one. And M beki was right in thinking that something like the South African transition was needed also in Zimbabwe. However, it is important to highlight a specifically relevant difference between the two situations. As it happened, the ANC in the election of 1994 took control of a fully functioning state. By contrast, the parties who take control in Harare in terms of their political agreement of September 2008 take control of a failed state.

The point is that, however well-intentioned Zimbabweans may be, they are simply not in a position to turn that country around. They are going to need massive international assistance, and that is the purpose of the Reconstruction Programme which we have formulated. While I personally take responsibility for it, I listened to the views of a great many people in formulating it. An electronic copy is available for download here: The Reconstruction of Zimbabwe: A Proposed Strategy for Africa. If you agree with it, we would be happy for you to pass it on to any political or business decision-makers you think should see it.

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).

Email: kamreyac@omegainvest.co.za

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

SADC's responsibility to Zimbabwe

As I predicted, Obama won, and won by a large margin. I have made no secret of the fact that he was my personal choice for the leadership of the US. My choice was based on what I saw of the man on TV, the way he handled himself and ran his campaign and his simple dignity as an individual. He also has a good family life, no scandal and a wife who was just as capable and seemed very straight.

Now that he has landed the job, he will quickly discover that being number one is very different to being a Senator or a number two. As President he has to accept that he takes responsibility, not just for himself but also for all that are associated with him. That is a tough call and history can be a harsh judge.

Here in southern Africa we are about to see another test of African leadership. The SADC Presidents will gather in South Africa on Sunday to discuss two major issues - the Zimbabwe crisis and the situation in the Congo. Both countries have been a problem for the regional leadership for at least 50 years. Both represent failures of leadership, both local and regional and to some extent international.

In the Congo, the colonial power hardly did anything to prepare the country and its leadership for self government. At its so called independence it had few educated and experienced people and with its wealth and ethnic make up, was ripe for trouble. The outbreak of post independence violence was not long in coming and has lasted right through to today. Corruption, greed and poor leadership make a fatal cocktail for failure and they are all there in the Congo.

In Zimbabwe the situation is less understandable or forgivable. While my forefathers were by no means saints, they did not do a bad job of running and developing the country. In fact at one stage I think the Rhodesian government could have been held up in any forum as a good example of a developing country administration that was reasonably honest, capable and efficient. Certainly they prepared the country for the eventual transition to majority rule better that many other States in Africa.

In the mid 80's I had several discussions with the then leader of the new State of Mozambique, Samora Machel, in Maputo. During one of those meetings he said to me that if any country had a choice as to who would be their colonizer, the Portuguese would have to be low down on the list and the Rhodesians fairly high up the list.

The Mugabe regime is in fact one of the best educated in Africa - altogether I once counted 17 PhD Graduates in the Cabinet - many of them taken from well known Universities such as Princeton in the United States. Mugabe himself has six University degrees including law and economics and is by all accounts a very sharp intellect. But it made no difference - we still ended up almost in the same place as the Congo, a bankrupt, corrupt State with a failed infrastructure and deeply affected people where millions are dying early of a myriad of ills, many man made.

But we did not resort to violence to defend our rights or to gain power. This is interpreted by many as a weakness; I think it represents strength and wisdom as well as courage. It also represents leadership. The MDC had the choice of violence as a means to secure change.

For many this was the logical choice as the regime we were up against was using violence against the opposition. We had experience of violence - the struggle for majority rule was partially secured through violence and most Zimbabweans had participated. We know how to use a gun and we understand the power it wields.

But we chose to seek change the hard way - by peaceful, democratic, legal means. Since we are up against a tyrannical regime that has not hesitated to use force against all who oppose them and has access to the full resources of the State when seeking to defend their hold on power, this was never going to be easy.

Friends in South Africa pointed to the UDF and the efforts of young South Africans in the struggle against apartheid. They said we would never get what we were seeking if we did not use such means ourselves. We pointed out that with no independent media available inside Zimbabwe and facing a regime that would not hesitate to use maximum force against us, demonstrations were of limited value.

We stuck to our guns and despite going through 4 national elections during which we were faced with blatant manipulation and rigging of the electoral process, we finally were able, even under completely skewed conditions, to defeat Zanu PF in March 2008. No matter what they have done since then, they have not been able to throw off the mantle of change that that singular event threw over Zimbabwe.

Now we face what may be another seminal moment in the process of transition and change. All 14 heads of State will gather in Johannesburg on Sunday to decide what will happen in Zimbabwe.

The indications are hopeful. Ian Khama, the new President of Botswana has said that new elections should be held in Zimbabwe and that Africa cannot go on trying to justify frustrating electoral outcomes just because they involve regime change. The new South African leadership are impatient with the continued prevarication and want closure. Even elements in Zanu PF are saying we have to see finality. The one thing that the Sunday meeting is, without question, is another test of African leadership.

The Congo and the Zimbabwe crisis are an African problem. They require an African solution. Outsiders cannot really do much apart from help implement to a solution once it is found and agreed on. The only way regimes such as the quasi-military junta in Harare are going to give up power is if they are confronted with irresistible force. That can come from a major power through the use of military power, but that is unlikely to happen and, as Iraq has shown, might create more problems that it solves.

It is best for that pressure to come from the region in the form of leadership. It is quite clear what is required in Zimbabwe (the Congo is more complex) and all that is needed is for the SADC leadership to agree on the way forward in Zimbabwe. I have always said - the one country Zimbabwe cannot say no to is South Africa. If SADC makes a clear-cut decision and informs the Parties in the Zimbabwe conflict of that decision, backed by all regional leaders, the decision will be adopted and implemented.

Then the test of leadership will pass to the Zimbabweans. Just as Obama must now deliver through leadership, so must Tsvangirai and Mugabe plus the team they chose next week to take over from the Junta. We are on the edge of a momentous occasion - just like the Obama election in the States, an African conflict that has not descended into mindless violence and has been resolved by democratic means supported by dialogue. It could never happen without leadership.

Eddie Cross is the MP for Bulawayo South and Policy Coordinator for the Movement for Democratic Change. This article first appeared on http://www.eddiecross.africanherd.com/ on November 6 2008

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

South African President flunks his first test

Nothing could illustrate the failure of African leadership more clearly than the farce that took place in Harare this weekend. Following the debacle last week when Morgan Tsvangirai refused to travel on an emergency travel document restricted to Swaziland, the SADC organ on politics and security convened in Harare this Monday. It was attended by the Presidents of South Africa and Mozambique as well as the Prime Minister of Swaziland and an official from Angola. 

They know exactly what the problem is - in March the MDC beat Zanu PF in a closely contested election and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai beat Mugabe by a wide margin. These leaders know that Morgan got more than 50 per cent of the vote - I understand his actual vote was 54 per cent but after five weeks of procrastination and desperate efforts to falsify the poll the Junta was forced to admit that Mugabe had been beaten but that Tsvangirai had received less than 50 per cent and would have to face a run off. 

The South Africans know full well that the real result was a clear victory for MDC and a humiliation for Mugabe, but went along with the charade and allowed the run off to take place. What followed was three months of intense political violence unleashed on the population by 100 000 youth militia under military leadership in over 2000 camps spread throughout the country. 

When finally it became apparent that any attempt by the MDC to monitor the election would be faced with violence and even the murder of MDC polling agents, the MDC decided to pull out of the contest. Zanu PF went ahead and in complete contrast to the March election, Mugabe was declared the winner in 48 hours and sworn in, in unseemly haste. 

The African observer missions then turned Zanu's world upside down by declaring that the election had 'not been a reflection of the people's will' and stating that Mugabe had not been elected President. Battered and bruised, the MDC and the hapless electorate picked themselves up and were then faced with a demand by SADC leaders that they 'resume' the talks with Zanu PF under the mediation of Thabo Mbeki. 

Mbeki picked up from where his previous mediation had left off, as if nothing had happened in the interim. We are now 4 months down the road on that new initiative and having agreed and signed a power sharing agreement on the 15th September; we are still trying to get the deal implemented. In signing the deal, the MDC massively compromised its rights as the Party that had won the elections outright in March. 

Mugabe, who by all accounts lost the election in March and certainly has no legal or democratic justification to call himself President, continues to act as if he had won the election and Hansard still lists all Zanu PF ministers and Deputy Ministers as Ministers of Government. No doubt they are still on their full salaries and perks even though a number of them were defeated by MDC in the election in March and all of them were stood down as Ministers when Parliament was sworn in a few weeks ago. 

Just to compound this situation Mugabe is treated as a State President by SADC and given full political and diplomatic recognition. The so called 'Global Agreement' provides for a clear separation of powers between the Prime Minister and the President and also sets out in precise terms how the different arms of government are expected to work together. 

Only an idiot could interpret the agreement as meaning that Zanu PF is still in charge and MDC is the junior partner. It is self evident that the allocation of ministerial portfolios should be divided equitably, So when, after weeks of pointless argument Zanu PF published an allocation of Ministerial portfolios that gave Zanu PF complete control of the security machinery of the state as well as all resource ministries and left the rest to the MDC, it was a step too far. 

That brought the region back into the process and gave us the hope that the regional leadership would recognise the illogical and unacceptable nature of such an allocation and impose a solution on the local players that made sense. First it was Mbeki and he made a hash of things - actually endorsing the Zanu PF allocation of posts! Then came the Troika and the aborted meeting in Swaziland. 

Morgan had raised the issue of his passport with the negotiators and when he was issued with a Emergency Travel Document with a single destination restriction he refused to travel. In fact the issue goes far beyond just the question of withholding his travel documents (the passport has been ready for weeks and is sitting in the desk of the Registrar General) it was just the latest of a series of incidents that show that the Junta in Harare has no intention of allowing the new government to be formed. 

They are continuing to restrict and interfere with food distribution by the international community. They have retained tight control over commercial food distribution. The security forces continue to attack any attempts by civil society to support the negotiation process and the media is as warped and restricted as ever. There has been no attempt to implement the 'Global Agreement' in any form up to now. 

When Morgan Tsvangirai failed to attend the Troika meeting it was aborted and reorganised for Harare a week later. In Harare the key player was always going to be the new President of South Africa, Mr. Motlanthe. This was his first real test when it comes to foreign affairs and for most of us it seemed completely logical that he would step up to the plate and smash a home run. 

But no - after 13 hours of intense 'negotiations' they came out of the closet and issued a statement that did not change one single element in the situation (see here). The issue would go a full meeting of SADC Heads of State in two weeks time. What an even larger group of hopeless leaders will do is difficult to imagine. The key player remains Motlanthe, he alone has the power and influence to force a resolution and it just that that is required. The Junta will never give up power without the use of force in whatever form and if that is not going to come from the streets, it has to come diplomatically behind closed doors. 

In 1976 that pressure came from the South Africans in support of an initiative by the American Secretary of State, in 1979 it was pressure from Mozambique, Zambia and Tanzania. The only question now is who will do the necessary in 2008? 

While this charade is being played out, southern Africa burns. In the midst of the global financial crisis, we look indecisive and ineffective. By failing to take crucial decisions on issues such as inter Party violence in South Africa and the resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe - all within our own clear competence, we are failing our respective countries, the region and our people's best interests. 

It was up to the Secretary General of the United Nations to spell out what was needed. He called for an equitable allocation of Ministerial portfolios and the formation of a new government in Harare as soon as possible. He said that only such a move would bring the political and economic crisis under control. He is right, are our leaders up to it this time? Failure is just that would be 'too ghastly to contemplate'. 

Eddie Cross is MP for Bulawayo South and the Policy Coordinator for the Movement for Democratic Change. This article first appeared on www.eddiecross.africanherd.com/ October 28 2008

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