We need to interrogate why there is such desperation to reinvent the unimpressive governance record of President Cyril Ramaphosa. The fear that the country would implode imminently in the event Ramaphosa was no longer the head of state is a deeply troubling sentiment among some sectors of society. That does not speak to the leadership brilliance of Ramaphosa (which does not exist) but to self-deprecation of sectors of society that think we need him as some sort of redemptive figure in the aftermath of the state capture years. Let us unravel what is going on here.
First, the idea that things will get “much worse” in South Africa if Ramaphosa was no longer our president is based on a false premise that national life under his leadership is stable. That is patently false. Some superfans of Ramaphosa are so blind to the true state of the nation that they pretend that life currently is, on balance, not all that bad. That is not true. Beyond the obvious economic data that are a sufficient indicator of disastrous leadership — an economy hardly growing beyond 1.5%; unemployment that is obscenely high, quite apart from income, asset and wealth inequalities that conduce to political instability — there are more worrying additional features of our society that are indicative of a slow slide from a democratic state towards a gangster state.
When children are being kidnapped and held for ransom, police killed by police because of entrenched factionalism and corruption within the police service, and all of this, in turn, being quite apart from the politicisation of crime intelligence, assassination of top cops (including experts on gangsterism) whose existence are inconvenient to political thugs and their private sector sponsors, then you do not only have a state that is corrupt, but a democratic edifice under severe attack.
This did not begin with Ramaphosa’s leadership, but his leadership has made a negligible difference to these violent structural unrealities. Some people are shamelessly lowering the leadership bar for Ramaphosa because they love him. It is that pathetic.
How did the US dollars enter the country? Why didn’t you get it banked as soon as possible? Why didn’t the person who supposedly bought animals from you get his goods timeously? Why didn’t you take the country into your confidence?
How can you trade democratic accountability for an affable smile? That is madness. The country’s future is literally at stake in our decision about whether to be guided dispassionately by normative principles or gut sentiment towards the incumbent leader. Ramaphosa is at best a mediocre president and so fighting on his political behalf, with no consideration given to the record of his presidency, is most imprudent. You can like someone and think he is no longer fit for highest office. Just as you can like someone and think that, from a process viewpoint, they should face an impeachment committee and have prima facie evidence of serious wrongdoing tested. After all, facing such a committee does not mean you are guilty but simply that you have a case to answer, which no innocent person should fear, especially an innocent person who is in love with the rule of law and constitutional supremacy. Any feelings about the apparently shoddy work done by the section 89 committee can be inadvertently demonstrated during step two of the impeachment process.
But that is not even the most important point I wanted to land. The nexus point here is that we are in danger of being distracted by arcane legal debate. The real issue the country should grapple with is not whether this or that source of law had been correctly interpreted or applied by the section 89 independent panel. That can play out, within the relevant forums, in parallel with a more important political and ethical set of debates. We should not be distracted by lawfare. I think the following issues need to be centred very quickly in our political discourse as a country, as we continue to suffer the material gap between constitutional vision and reality.
First, on Phala Phala, there are questions I have as a citizen which are unanswered on Ramaphosa’s version, and I couldn’t care about the report being taken on judicial review in the sense that the failure to answer these questions makes Ramaphosa dodgy unless and until he answers them satisfactorily: How did the US dollars enter the country? Why didn’t you get it banked as soon as possible? Why didn’t the person who supposedly bought animals from you get his goods timeously? Why didn’t you take the country into your confidence, showing a commitment to transparency, and tell us about the theft at your farm if it was garden variety crime? Why would you tell Namibian authorities to handle this mess with discretion if no laws or ethical principles are violated? Did you declare this as income for purposes of taxation? And, sidebar, what was wrong with your safe that you consented to the stuffing of the money into the sofa, and do you appreciate how dodgy this looks?
Taking the report on judicial review does not settle these questions. Legal challenges cannot overcome common-sense concerns.
Second, beyond the section 89 report, we must broaden our focus again, and return to the big political picture. Why do we fear our collective capacity to survive the ANC? Why do we fear our collective capacity to nip ANC sins of incumbency in the bud with or without Ramaphosa’s lukewarm leadership?
I am not convinced most of those defending Ramaphosa do so out of deep commitment to the rule of law, and a genuine appreciation of supposedly fatal legal weaknesses in the work of justice Sandile Ngcobo and his two colleagues. Many of us are motivated by an irrational fear that we cannot stay the democratic course without Ramaphosa. That is an existential crisis that makes no sense. Ask yourself this, “If Ramaphosa could keep Zuma-era thugs like Arthur Fraser in the state, and also anti-democratic and technically disastrous ministers like Bheki Cele, on what basis do you think of him as the gold standard of an anti-corruption president?”
The ANC is beyond the pale, and Ramaphosa is just another ANC president.
Never forget that.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.