No security under an insecure president

An insecure man, an insecure presidency and an insecure country. That perhaps best sums up our state.

The worst place to look for some security is in the office of a final-term president, especially one whose acts before and in office leave many unanswered questions.

And much like presidents before who have been anxious not only about their place in history, but about the comforts of their retirement, the years till President Jacob Zuma's departure will be marked by instability in both his cabinet and the value of South Africa Inc, starting with a ratings judgment on June 3.

US historians have a penchant for rating their presidents from best to worst. And as they await the frightening possibility of a Donald Trump presidency, I am sure they are looking at those rankings afresh and wondering just where they'd rank him should he beat a not-so-popular Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

story_article_left1

But I digress. In Zuma's insecurity, the one US commander-in-chief that we tend to compare him with is the disgraced 37th president, Richard Nixon. The only president to resign.

In covering up a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, known as the Watergate scandal, Nixon and his aides harassed activist groups and political figures using security agencies such as the FBI.

In the harassment of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan there's a similarity of method. The National Prosecuting Authority and the Hawks are once again being pulled into the centre of a political wrestling match within the ANC and, because of the blurred lines between the two, the state.

History may well place the Zuma presidency in the same category as Nixon's. Maybe the latter period of Thabo Mbeki's presidency could be, too.

But there's another US president who may be even closer to Zuma, the notoriously insecure Warren G Harding.

Privately, he was quoted as saying "... I am not fit for this office [of president] and should never have been here".

Because of his need for approval, he spent the best part of his two years in the White House serving friends rather than country. This even though the American public was fond of him, electing him with 60% of the popular vote, a record at that time.

Friends-over-country was his downfall, and, in historical rankings of US presidents, Harding is often cited as the worst.

story_article_right2

In the early years of a free South Africa, Zuma wasn't seen as a future president of party or state. At the turn of the century, and maybe to save his own skin, as deputy president of South Africa he claimed to have no ambition to run the country. But after his sacking in 2005, there really was no alternative but to feed that beast.

And a popular president he has proved to be to the public, for the most part. But as his presidency nears its end, his weaknesses are being amplified. What we are witnessing now is the ugly face of his insecurity.

A security cluster beholden to him is being used to destabilise the National Treasury, a ministry that has hindered his ability to serve. Not serve the country, but his many friends.

Whoever was rushed back into the principal's office at the Treasury after that momentous December weekend would be facing the same opposition as Pravin Gordhan. The seat would be as uncomfortable.

This is not about supporting Gordhan over Zuma, it's the office that has to be respected and protected from an insecure incumbent.

E-mail derbyr@sundaytimes.co.za or find him on twitter @ronderby