TWEET OF THE WEEK: Dislodging Zuma requires political warfare, not posturing

Welcome to Tweet of the Week. Every Friday, I use this column to hand out an award to one person who has tweeted something of significance. There are no strict rules, only that the tweet in question must offer an important insight, define a debate (notorious or otherwise) or mark an occasion.

This week the Tweet of the Week goes to @ANCParliament for:

"#Ramaphosa: We are required to be bold, drawing our conviction and courage from our forebears. #PresidencyBudget?"

Profile: @ANCParliament is the official Twitter account of the ANC in Parliament. It has about 15,800 followers.

Citation: There is much talk about bravery and courage these days from those within the ANC who stand opposed to President Jacob Zuma and lament the decay he has caused. But for all the talk, actual hard action seems to be at a premium. If those inside the ANC who really want the president gone actually want to make a difference, it’s time to start using every weapon they can get their hands on. The ANC constitution  is a good place to start.

The ANC’s constitution, these days little more than a pretence, has much to say about party discipline and the conduct of its representatives. Rule 25 goes into great detail setting out the many and various indiscretions that would constitute misconduct. But of them all, it would seem inarguable that Zuma has violated clause 25.17.6.

"Behaving in a manner which provokes or is likely to provoke or has the potential to provoke division or impact negatively on the unity of the ANC" constitutes misconduct, it states. With regard to Zuma, the case seems to be open and shut.

There are numerous other clauses relevant to the president’s circumstance. For example, much compelling evidence exists to suggest  Zuma has violated clause 25.17.8 as well. It states that "abuse of elected or employed office in the organisation or in the state to obtain any direct or indirect undue advantage or enrichment" also constitutes misconduct.

Were the party’s constitution to actually count for anything and someone inside the party to evoke it — indeed, evoke it in the belief such a complaint might go anywhere — that’s as good a case to make as any. Only, it would inevitably end up dependent on a court judgment to that effect; likewise, a great many other clauses outside 25.17.8.

But clause 25.17.8 is special, in that it is entirely a political consideration. Unity is not some universal legal concern but a principle defined and upheld by the party and at its own discretion. And so, while any finding in relation to it might be taken to court, the point is, the ANC could arrive at one first and of its own volition, rather than the other way around.

That Zuma has brought disunity to the ANC’s ranks would seem incontestable. One need look no further than the top six members of the party.

Certainly ANC chairperson Baleka Mbete has said as much. "We go to Polokwane in 2007 and elect a leadership led by Msholozi, it becomes a war and it’s still being fought," she said in April 2015.

"There are people there in Parliament, who have allowed themselves to become [part] of a whole huge agenda, Zuma must go … Zuma must go and they can’t wait for the next congress of the ANC or national general council," she said.

The argument can be made that none of this is Zuma’s fault, but that would be difficult to maintain. Zuma has done much to exacerbate the problem.

His decision to fire Pravin Gordhan as finance minister led directly and incontrovertibly to disunity. ANC deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa said: "It was just a process of informing us of his decision" and: "It was not a consultation because he [Zuma] came with a ready-made list."

The ANC’s parliamentary caucus is so divided that ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu had use the majority of a budget vote speech this week to explain to them that they could, under no circumstances, support a vote of no confidence in the president

Ramaphosa later said: "There are quite a number of other colleagues and comrades who are unhappy about this situation … The minister of finance … was serving the country with absolute distinction. For him to be removed … is to me unacceptable."

That sentiment was echoed by ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, who said of the move: "The president came with a list. [He] said, ‘You can comment if you want to comment, but this is my decision.’"

ANC unity is a euphemism for collective leadership. Zuma has done great damage to the idea. Whatever you make of it, it relies on consultation and increasingly Zuma has demonstrated little more than contempt for it.

The Sunday Times reported a week or two ago that ANC deputy secretary-general Jessie Duarte and Mantashe fell out over the booing of Zuma during his Workers’ Day address. The paper reported that Duarte had accused Mantashe of sending Zuma "out to the wolves" by sending him to the rally.

Finally, ANC treasurer-general Zweli Mkhize has wasted no time berating Zuma for the manner he went about dismissing Gordhan.

"Unlike previous consultations, which take place with senior officials of the ANC during such appointments and changes to the composition of the national executive, the briefing by the president left a distinct impression that the ANC is no longer the centre and thus depriving the leadership collective of its responsibly to advise politically on executive matters," he said in a statement on April 1.

And that’s just the top six. The ANC’s parliamentary caucus is so divided that ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu had to use the majority of a budget vote speech this week to explain to them that they could, under no circumstances, support a vote of no confidence in the president. Likewise the national executive committee (NEC), which has now quashed two internal calls for a similar vote of no confidence in Zuma.

All of this is before you get to the party more generally and, ultimately, the alliance itself; and through all of which runs the same fundamental schism, to the extent it all seems to be held together only by the thinnest of threads.

The evidence for all of this is overwhelming.

Then there is Zuma. His statement about his fellow party members, that "I know they are stealing. I’m just watching them. I know them," is tantamount to blackmail, never mind the unethical admission inherent to it.

That statement alone would seem strong grounds to bring a case against him for violating clause 25.17.4: "Behaving in a manner or making any utterance which brings, or could bring, or has the potential to bring, or as a consequence thereof brings, the ANC into disrepute."

It is another clause that would seem tailor-made for a political judgment that does not depend on any legal consideration apart from fairness and reasonableness. On both counts, Zuma would struggle to defend the sentiment that he knows people are stealing, both with regard to himself and the party more generally. It is indisputable that it brings the party into disrepute on both counts, and doubly so because he has been unwilling to elaborate on it.

There is much else in the ANC’s constitution that one could take issue with when it comes to the president. The point is, no one in the ANC ever does. It is difficult to explain why. Not so much when it comes to those who have Zuma’s back, but with regard to those who want him out. However big that faction is, it exists and in the ANC’s own constitution it would seem to have a strong weapon. Why not use it?

If Derek Hanekom is prepared to table a vote of no confidence in Zuma at an NEC, why not lay a charge against him? What is the downside?

The failure to do so makes you wonder just how serious those people inside the ANC who wish Zuma gone really are. Even if they stand no chance of winning an internal disciplinary case, should Zuma stack the relevant panel, when you are at political war, you use every mechanism at your disposal to put pressure on your opponent. At the very least, any attempt on Zuma’s part to have such a case dismissed would put him under even more pressure.

Besides, the ANC prides itself on internal resolution to party political problems. It is on that basis that Mthembu made his appeal to MPs — the ANC deals with its own. Only it doesn’t. It doesn’t want external processes but it doesn’t want internal processes either. All it wants is gestures, to give the illusion there is still some kind of moral conscience lurking in the bowels of the beast.

Are these people just posturing? Pretending to take a stand so that, when history is written, they will be on the right side of the story?

Given Zuma’s ability to quash, bypass or altogether avoid these sorts of inquiries, inside and outside the party, you’d be a fool to think this sort of thing was guaranteed any success, but it goes to intent. What is the plan here? And, if you have already nailed your colours to the mast, what exactly do you stand to lose?

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the greatest obstacle to the ANC’s resolving its own predicament is the courage of its members. There seems to be a great appetite for public statements, as many of those now alienated from the inner circle have found their tongues, but only a limited amount of courage when it comes to hard action. And the latter, not the former, is the real test of conviction and principle.

For those who care inside the ANC, the question is this: what is the point of the party’s constitution? Why does it even exist if, in the face of such flagrant abuse of tenets, no one is willing to evoke it?

It is time for those inside the ANC who stand opposed to Zuma to realise they cannot fight this sort of battle piecemeal. If it change you want, if it really matters, then you need to realise this is a fight to the bitter end and sacrifices will have to be made.

Malcolm Tucker, in the satirical British TV show The Thick of It, gives the idea his usual blunt touch in his speech to his troops, just after an election has been called:

"JB, Cal Richards and their hordes of fucking robots, they’re coming over the hill towards us and all you have got to do is this. Bend down, pick up any fucking weapon you can and twat the fuckery out of them."

It’s not quite Shakespeare but it makes the point well enough. This is no longer a battle of sentiments. It is a war to the bitter end. For those in the ANC who are truly invested in it, it is time to use everything at their disposal.