EUSEBIUS MCKAISER

Dear President Cyril Ramaphosa:

If you are capable of leading SA then why don’t you? If you are capable of being presidential then why aren’t you? If you are capable of helping the ANC renew itself then why don’t you? If you are willing to place constitutional supremacy and the oath of your office above party loyalty then why don’t you? If you want to demonstrate that the only kind of ANC unity you care for is unity founded on shared belief in ethical leadership and not unity with anti-constitutionalists who steal from the state and trample on the rule of law, then why don’t you?

If you want to be the country’s first citizen in your deeds and one that leaves a legacy of excellence as head of state, then why are you so criminally disinterested in taking the hard decisions necessary to get this country on a path that will lead to the constitutional vision you helped to craft and adopt in the 1990s? Why, Mr President, are you in office nominally but in reality utterly absent-minded, more comfortable with a half-joke than a half-decision? It’s time we talk honestly about your shortcomings since achieving your bucket list item of becoming SA’s president.

Take your latest gaffe (and I’m being very charitable in calling it that). Former spy boss, the utterly discredited Arthur Fraser, says you are implicated in serious criminality, and lays a complaint with the police, with evidence that he claims adequately supports the bald assertions made in his accompanying affidavit. You respond with a series of statements that raise more questions than they answer. You simply do not know how to, or care to, role-model maximum transparency. Fraser’s selfish and political motives aside, the nexus questions are: did you commit any crime? Do you have a case to answer on? Nothing in your communication thus far illuminates the matter. Instead, much to the delight of Fraser no doubt, you dig a hole for yourself by being imprudently opaque.

“I have never stolen any money!” you chanted over the weekend, adding also that dirty tricks is what this is all about. Here’s the problem, sir. First, no-one accused you of stealing money, so it is a red herring to say you are not guilty of that which you have not been accused of. You may as well have shouted: “I have never drunk milk directly from the bottle!” You are changing the conversation. Leave that kind of fallacious response to shysters. Second, putting Fraser on trial won’t help. We can agree that Fraser is not a reliable character while still being independently interested in the veracity of the claims he made. That is why addressing the substantive set of issues should be the sole immediate goal of your communication with us, the citizens. We are now your audience, not Fraser.

So, to that end, we need the following questions settled with haste: Did you keep foreign currency at your farm and exactly how much? How did you get this money, and for how long did you keep it on your premises? Did you report the currency in your possession to all the relevant authorities? Did you routinely keep foreign currency, not banking it? Why? Tell us more. If this was the proceeds of legitimate business, would your banking and tax records reflect this to be so? Care to show us the receipts, not as a legal necessity but to eliminate the doubt that has now crept in?

And, most importantly, once you were told that there was a burglary at your farm, did you report the matter to the SAPS? If not, why not? Also, why did you let so much time lapse, never taking the country into your confidence, and only reacting now that a disgruntled spy with several axes in his grubby hands is wielding one in your direction? As a constitutionalist, do you think your actions and inaction are consistent with the letter and spirit of our legal architecture including the rule of law?

These are just a few of the questions I would dearly love to engage you on as a matter of public accountability. You do, uhm, value public accountability yes? Then you cannot hide behind the abuse of the refrain that “there is an investigation under way” as a reason to not talk to us. It is as lame as that much abused bit of Latin in the oft-repeated phrase, “The matter is sub judice.” If your truth is indubitable, then it will check out in a court of law even if you speak about the issue in a robust conversation aimed at public accountability. You do not undermine nor do you pose a real, direct and substantial risk to the administration of justice by being transparent about a matter the police may or may not be actively investigating. The political communication from you around this is typical of your resort to obfuscation and silence rather than talking frankly. It is not a good look, Mr President.

Fraser, by the way, is also useful to us in this discussion as an example of another leadership weakness of yours. You actually care more about your political opponents, and ANC unity, than you care about good governance. Why on earth was this guy even serving within the state at your pleasure? How did you arrive at the conclusion that letting SA Inc down with that kind of appointment is constitutionally acceptable? You continuously sacrifice the interests of the country by not wanting to upset ANC factions that may give you a hard time inside the national executive committee. That is also why your cabinet is full of deadweight. But, Mr President, there is a giant leadership problem you have that sits right here. Let me explain, bluntly. And hear me out.

You wrongly chose to make it business as usual in being hamstrung, as head of state, by Luthuli House.

I get the fact that we do not have a presidential system. You are not directly elected by us. Our party political system makes it impossible to ignore the political reality that comes with ascending to the position of president via internal party political processes. That is true. That is not trivial. And only someone with a theoretical understanding of politics would minimise these factors within which your leadership is located. But this is where you need to make a tough set of lonely, deeply personal, but principled set of legacy decisions. Do you want to perpetually and solely focus on re-election or do you want to fight to rebuild government in the aftermath of state capture?

I am sad to say this, but you have already squandered crucial time and opportunity in your first term to do that which is in the interest of both the ANC and the country. You wrongly chose to make it business as usual in being hamstrung, as head of state, by Luthuli House. You already opted out of a project of role-modelling for future ANC leaders how to switch from internal party victory to leading thereafter on the basis of the national constitution once successfully elected as your party’s candidate for country president. What did you do? You froze. And you have not moved since freezing. You are stuck in the frame of election as country president. Around you there is now just degradation. Do you want that kind of legacy to continue? Or will you make a belated effort to rescue yourself from a chapter in political history that will deem you, at this point, if nothing changes drastically and immediately, as, at best lacklustre and at worst morally complicit in ANC predation on democratic SA?

The implications would be two-fold if you were to choose the country’s interests as superior to those of your party. First, it means taking unpopular decisions about who you keep on and who you get rid of, within your lawful powers in government. Presidential powers were meant to be exercised seriously. Beyond hiring and firing, it also means being more demonstrably serious now about accountability within your cabinet, and creating a culture of responsive governance and leadership. That could then cascade down to other levels. Second, it means showing serious thought leadership, for goodness sake. Stop governing by setting up commissions. Stop kicking for touch. What, for example, do you think about BBBEE? About how to grow the economy beyond 2%? About racism, misogyny, inequality, violence, poverty? You never demonstrate any serious intellectual engagement with the most pressing issues of the day. You just smile, wave, smile, wave, smile, and wave. That is not a good look, Mr President.

Lastly, is it risky to dare annoy your ANC comrades by de-emphasising ANC factionalism in how you lead the country? Absolutely it is risky. Some would say I am giving you foolish or naive advice to ask you to be less bothered by political hyenas. But here is why, if you want to think of this in a gaming way, you should try what I recommend. If you do what you’ve been doing, at best you will be a two-term president who hands over a weak state to the next person who takes over. I would rather you had failed to win a second term because your party hates your commitment to the country more than you being a pedestrian president who managed to win two terms.

The one thing we can say with certainty is that the unity at all costs approach to government will not reverse the state capture years. Indecisiveness and meekness will not reverse the state capture years. Not upsetting thugs and anti-constitutionalists will not reverse the state capture years. Keeping in your cabinet people who do not respect the rule of law will not renew the ANC nor eliminate poverty, unemployment and inequality.

Do you want the certainty of a horrible legacy or take a chance on yourself, your beloved ANC and the country by actually leading and not being paralysed by your self-chosen burden of ultimate political office?

Time is running out Mr President. Your time in office cannot be more of the same.

— McKaiser is a contributor and analyst for TimesLIVE