ColumnistsPREMIUM

AYABONGA CAWE: Jacob Zuma’s ‘spy’ testimony a show of force

The former president used his insight on exile life to sow suspicion and confusion

Former president Jacob Zuma appears before the commission of inquiry into state capture in Johannesburg, July 16 2019. Picture: REUTERS
Former president Jacob Zuma appears before the commission of inquiry into state capture in Johannesburg, July 16 2019. Picture: REUTERS

Very few ever recover from some allegations. Once that “match-stick” is lit, there is no turning back. Even those whose track records are redeemed in the face of these allegations can never run away from the pain of the accusation. 

This is what makes the allegation of having been a “spy” so effective. It is a useful method for eliminating political enemies. The National Party government used this tactic to sow confusion, division and suspicion in communities, in the ranks of the liberation movement and in the public psyche.

It might make sense to dismiss Jacob Zuma’s allegations against Siphiwe Nyanda and Ngoako Ramatlhodi as part of a project to sow division, confusion and suspicion. Doing so would, however, obscure the utility of this approach in the “war of position” under way between different ANC factions, and Zuma’s role in it.

His responses may have been directed to judge Raymond Zondo, but his audience spanned beyond  that. His testimony was primarily a show of force (and “insider knowledge”) directed at ANC comrades and society. It also placed the credibility of the commission, the public protector’s recommendations from which it emerged and the ANC leadership under a cloud of public “suspicion”.

It was a masterstroke. Zuma knows two characteristics of post-apartheid life that give traction to the spy claims and the claim of a grand global conspiracy. The first is the secretive nature of liberation movements worldwide. The ANC is not exempt from this. Information and its dissemination in times of repression was a “life or death” matter.

This secretive approach to what happened in exile continues to play a silent but material part in how we speak about the historiography, legacy and memory of resistance. For instance, little is written about the betrayal of high-ranking ANC leaders such as Francis Meli (Alan Madolwana) or London ANC chief representative Solly Smith (Sefofane Khunyeli). What is often written is that betrayal was as much a part of the struggle as the heroics under torture.

This “conspiracy of secrecy” reinforces a monolithic view of the struggle as a uniform social response to apartheid, without any fundamental differences in those opposing apartheid or any crucial betrayals. The connection Zuma was forcing many to make is between the failed Umkhonto we Sizwe campaigns and assassinations of key leaders in exile and at home, and the immutable fact that the ANC and other liberation movements were infiltrated at the top.

Once this connection is made, it matters not in the public imagination that it is Paul or John who is fingered as a spy. Any and every relevant scrutiny of Zuma’s exercise of his executive authority can be attributed to shadowy spies and their handlers. It has only worked and had tongues wagging in different directions because it is taboo to speak about sensitive things that happened in exile and in the camps.

The second issue that makes matters complex is how narrow our formulation of “state capture” has been. State capture is synonymously associated with the Guptas.

As American scholar Noam Chomsky has suggested, these state-corporate relations take policy and administrative decisions away from the general voting populace to service the “real constituency” — the super-wealthy and corporate power. In SA this can be found at multiple levels, from the collusion of officials with local business people in municipal tenders right through to, in some cases, the corrupting of democratic processes through money. 

It shouldn’t then be surprising that the Bosasa revelations came as a shock to many. It is because we have narrowed our aperture to focus on Saxonwold without understanding that state and market interests transcend and predate Zuma and the Guptas. They will be an issue after him.

We need a much broader formulation of what state-market relations should and should not be. In the absence of this, the cry by Zuma will receive a receptive ear from many who see the impacts of these state-market relations.

• Cawe (@aycawe), a development economist, is MD of Xesibe Holdings and hosts MetroFMTalk on Metro FM.

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon