The Big Read: What is Zuma really after?

Saturday was a crisp, clear, gorgeous day and President Jacob Zuma's inauguration went off sedately and without incident.

After the president-elect took the oath of office he gave a no-frills speech pledging greater focus on economic growth and creating jobs with the National Development Plan.

Then he left the 4500 invited guests assembled at the Mandela Amphitheatre and walked down to the lawns of the Union Buildings to make a speech to the more than 20000 citizens who had come to cheer him and celebrate his second term of office.

Speaking in Zulu, with a sprinkling of English, Zuma took on a much more radical tone.

"There will be radical transformation of our economic policies. Don't be scared when we take tough, unusual, decisions to transform . we won't be ashamed, we won't be afraid of anyone. We will do what we promised during the election campaign," he said.

As usual, no detail was provided but it was clear that Zuma was taking a more radical tone in his address to the crowd than he had in his swearing-in speech.

What lies behind this radical tone in certain forums, particularly on issues related to the constitution and economic transformation?

Why does he want to change the constitution to effect this "radical" transformation? Will he do so? Does the constitution stand in the way of the transformation of the economy?

Zuma has on several occasions during the election campaign made it clear that he wants some constitutional change but has never given specifics.

Just two days before the May 7 election, delivering a blizzard of news bites - including calling for a woman president: his former wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, perhaps? - Zuma let slip that he wants a two-thirds majority so that he can fiddle with the constitution.

"We need an overwhelming majority so that we can change certain things, so that we can move faster . There are things you need to remove so you can move faster. I won't be specific."

It was not the first time that Zuma has hinted that he wants to change the constitution. In January he told supporters in KaNyamazane, near Mbombela, that the ANC had been hamstrung by the constitution.

This newspaper reported him as saying: "We want a huge majority this time because we want to change certain things that couldn't be changed with a small majority, so that we move forward, because there are certain hurdles.

"People talk about a constitution they have never seen. We saw that constitution."

The ANC did not get a two-thirds majority in the elections this year but the EFF has made it clear that, should Zuma want to act in tandem with some of its programmes, it would support him in changing the constitution so that they could implement these programmes.

The two are in a delicious position: their 62.15% and 6.35% tallies put them well ahead of the 66.6% they need to start fiddling with the constitution.

EFF leader Julius Malema, speaking at the Independent Electoral Commission of SA's results centre, put it very plainly: "We are not going to bed with anyone who doesn't represent what we stand for. The ANC with us has a two-thirds majority.

"If they want to amend the constitution and put in a clear clause [on expropriation of land without compensation] they must not worry. Here is a two-thirds majority. And if the DA wants to remove Zuma in a motion of no confidence, we will vote with it."

Now that Zuma might have an ally in parliament as far as changing the constitution is concerned, in the form of the EFF - whose leader, Malema, he seems to loathe - will the president attempt to corral the EFF into a joint two-thirds majority that would allow him to make the changes he says he needs?

The ANC has rejected the nationalisation of mines at three of its key policy meetings in the past five years [its national general council, its policy conference and its national congress]. It has also thrown out the idea of expropriation of land without compensation. Instead, it has put in other mechanisms for redress.

So what exactly are the "certain things" that Zuma claims "couldn't be changed with a small majority so that we move forward because there are certain hurdles"?

I have spoken to journalists, analysts and government spokesmen and I cannot find any area of government work that needs a constitutional change. Unless I am missing something.

So what is this radical talk we keep hearing from the president? What constitutional changes does he seek and what does he want with them? The election and the hyperbole that came with it are over.

We now expect the president to give a unified message to the country, not speak in radical tones to a crowd of supporters and then lean right when he sees a bunch of businessmen.