After 27 years in power the ANC still has an ambiguous and immature relationship with the responsibility to govern. On the one hand it loves to exercise absolute power, the enforcement of the state of disaster being the most extreme example. On the other, it shrinks away from implementing the rule of law and stands back from its responsibilities to watch, as if an interested spectator like the rest of us.
While it does seem now that the legal uncertainty about former president Jacob Zuma’s status has been cleared up, and that the police will arrest Zuma on Wednesday failing an unlikely court intervention, damage has been done. For democracy to thrive all institutions need to play their part, and in what is hoped will be the final act of the Zuma tragedy, two so far have failed us completely: the police and the ANC itself.
It puts us in a situation where the country and its citizens are sent conflicting messages: does the rule of law apply or not?; are the courts to be trusted and respected or not?; is the arguably still new constitutional order accepted by the majority, and our leaders, or not?
As many political parties (other than the ANC) and commentators have pointed out, there are inflection points in all societies, and for us this is one of them. Being a young democracy such points are watched with anxiety. It is a huge event in any society for a former president whose party remains in power to be jailed. If it does happen, SA will stand tall as a constitutional democracy where everyone is equal before the law. If it does not, the damage to our reputation — and, far more importantly, to our institutions, especially the judiciary and its standing in society — will be immense.
This underlines the importance of taking responsibility rather than allowing events to flow without intervention. Both the police and ANC stood by and watched, and both are responsible for the damage.
Police minister Bheki Cele said on Monday that the reason the police did not implement crowd control at Nkandla on Sunday was because there were at least 100 armed men among the crowd, coming from hostels and parts of KwaZulu-Natal where firearms are plentiful and are used to settle scores. Blood would most certainly have been shed.
This is true. It was a complex and dangerous situation, far more so than an ordinary ANC gathering. Zuma’s victimhood aroused Zulu nationalism and ANC factionalism, but more so the former. The question for Cele is: why did the situation develop in the first place?
From Friday, after the surprising decision by the Constitutional Court to hear Zuma’s rescission application, there was understandable confusion about whether the court order was implementable. Legal experts themselves were at odds, and Zuma appeared completely confident on Sunday that having opened a fresh dialogue with the court he would not be arrested.
But it had been expected for at least four days that crowds would flock to Nkandla to rally support and make a potential arrest risky and untenable. It was expected that such crowds could be armed and dangerous. It was obvious there was a need to secure the area well in advance in the interests of safety, to avoid harm and in the interests of public health, to enforce disaster regulations. Yet it is only now that police are moving into gear, securing the area, enforcing regulations and planning for an arrest.
Like the police, the ANC also stood back and watched the spectacle for two days. Why? The first thing it did when crowds began to gather at Nkandla was cancel its planned national executive committee (NEC) meeting. This it did in the belief, Ramaphosa has said, that NEC members would need to rush to Nkandla. The opportunity the ANC had to speak out with dignity and unity, and to lead, was foregone. Zuma took centre stage and occupied television screens for the weekend, venting conspiracy theories and claims that he was being detained without trial.
As it happened, NEC members did not rush to Nkandla. The two who did — Tony Yengeni and human settlements minister Lindiwe Sisulu — abandoned their leadership roles entirely. Yengeni appeared on stage with Zuma for his address to his supporters and Sisulu, dressed in high fashion and stilettos, was clearly there for the cameras and made no sensible comments.
As a result, those who turned out, and all those who watched events from home, heard only one version: the one in which Zuma did no wrong and is again suffering persecution. It is now incumbent on the ANC to give its view: are the courts to be trusted and respected or not; is the constitutional order accepted by ANC leaders or not?
• Paton is editor at large.
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.