It is fine to criticise Cyril Ramaphosa. A person in his position should come under intense scrutiny. But it is not fine to criticise him at the expense of contradicting oneself. For then one loses one’s claim to seriousness.
When Ramaphosa came to office many pundits poured cold water over his incipient presidency. Whoever he might be as an individual, it was said, he was shackled to the disaster that was the ANC. He would have to give Jacob Zuma and other key figures amnesties. Or, if granting them formal indemnities was too shameful, the cases against them would vanish with a nudge and a wink. For Ramaphosa could only govern his party, it was said, if he made peace with its villains. And that would require letting them roam free.
The pundits who issued this warning were wrong. Ramaphosa has not made the sorts of deals that would permit villains to roam free. On the contrary, he is giving the criminal justice system as much space to nail them as is within his power, as constricted as this power may be.
The most obvious example is the commission of inquiry into the South African Revenue Service (SARS). In open hearings, broadcast live to the nation, senior officials have given witness to what appear to be collusive relationships between organised crime and a top bureaucrat. The officials testifying to the commission have not offered evidence that would stand up in court, for that isn’t their role. But in front of the nation they have shown prosecutors where to look.
And this is just the beginning. The state capture commission will convene soon and it promises to do to state-owned enterprises what the Nugent commission is doing to SARS.
Ramaphosa is determined to shine a light into each rotten corner of the Zuma era. He is doing so because in the wake of disclosures come prosecutions.
And that is why things are getting so rough in the ANC. The writing is not just on the wall, it is written in a huge font and in capital letters. A fight to the death has erupted. And it is bound to get really ugly.
Ramaphosa’s enemies have retreated to their provincial heartlands. From there they can raise money and do their utmost to wreak havoc. Their aim is to make the ANC chronically ungovernable such that its president falls.
Pundits have short memories, it seems. Some of the very people who once complained that Ramaphosa would go soft on the rot in the ANC are now complaining that under his watch the ANC is unstable. Of course it is unstable. It is so because Ramaphosa is going after his foes and they are fighting back for all their worth.
Who will win? It is impossible to say. The future has not yet been written. Ramaphosa is taking the greatest of risks and he knows it.
As for the pundits who go after Ramaphosa, first for being soft and then for being hard, they are having their cake and eating it, which, I guess is a luxury afforded to those sitting on the sidelines.
But perhaps there is a reason for these inconsistencies. The pundits who badger Ramaphosa desperately want him to solve all of SA’s problems. And when he can’t, they panic. He can’t solve all of SA’s problems.
These are febrile and dangerous times. Everyone in this game might win or might lose. We don’t yet know whose blood will soak the floor.
• Steinberg teaches African Studies at Oxford University.
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.