Undermining the rule of law

I’m hopping mad.

Zacob Zuma, the man who is likely to be South Africa’s next president, is in court today, to try and ward off a corruption case against him. It’s the latest in a long series of court appearances, as Zuma’s lawyers try every tactic to avoid or postpone his corruption trial.

That’s not why I’m mad. I’m mad about the stance that Zuma’s party, the ANC, is taking on the case. The front page headline on Business Day today, one of the biggest dailies here, is “ANC fears ‘mobilisation’ of judges against Zuma” (see www.businessday.co.za/articles/frontpage.aspx?ID=BD4A815022). The Argus, Cape Town’s afternoon paper, carries the headline, “Zuma slips into court”, with a sub heading, “Trial smacks of apartheid, charges ANC.” The article carries a quote from the ANC’s spokersperson, saying “this trial smacks of apartheid… when if you told a story often enough, it became fact.”

The statement that this trial smacks of apartheid is laughable. This is 14 years after the end of apartheid. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is an institution of the new South Africa, staffed with professionals from all racial and ethnic groups. There may be some old, apartheid-era judges left on the benches, but the judiciary has been dramatically transformed since 1994 — most of our top judges are black, many are women, and many of them have a solid record of involvement in the struggle against apartheid.

Furthermore, the assertion that the case amounts to nothing more than the repetition of a fabrication, is blatant nonsense. Zuma has already been shown to be corrupt. Because this happened during the trial of somebody else — Schabir Shaik — Zuma and his supporters can assert that he hasn’t been found guilty. While that may be technically true, the fact remains that a court has already established that Zuma took money from Shaik as part of a corrupt relationship. The NPA has boxes and boxes of documents and extensive forensic audits, to back up its case. I’m not saying that this in itself means Zuma must be convicted, but clearly there is substance to the case — substance worth serious consideration by a court. It’s not just based on rumour.

The ANC is the ruling party. It has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, has ‘deployed’ its members throughout state institutions, and has implemented a long-running programme of transformation. Yet the language it uses is from the past, as if it were still the outsider, struggling against an unjust regime. The language is the language of war, and political intrigue, plots and conspiracies. Judges who rule against Zuma are accused of being ‘counter-revolutionary’.

This is very, very dangerous stuff. It’s one thing to say, let Zuma have his day in court. It’s another to then begin a campaign to discredit the entire judiciary and prosecutorial system. The idea is that even if Zuma goes to trial and is found guilty, the verdict will not be accepted, as the courts will be seen to be suspect.

The ANC, which has considerable power in South Africa, is playing the victim and setting up imaginary enemies, in order to try to save its chosen leader, Zuma. In the process the party is prepared to  undermine public confidence in institutions vital to our democracy. The outcome of this can only be bad. A democracy must be based on the rule of law and if faith in that law, and in the institutions that uphold it, is undermined, the very foundations of our democracy will begin to crumble.

And all of this not in defence of a principle, or of human rights, but of one deeply flawed man. It’s shameful and disgusting.

This post first appeared on the Citizen Journalism in Africa site: www.citizenjournalismafrica.org on 4 August 2008.

Killing for Zuma

A lot has already been said and written about this in the South African media, but I think it’s important enough for me to add my two-cents’ worth.

On Youth Day, June 16th, Julius Malema, the leader of the ANC Youth League, said at public rally that the youth were prepared to kill for Jacob Zuma — the ANC President and likely next president of South Africa. Zuma himself, who stood up to speak at the same meeting shortyl after Malema, did not publicly rebuke him at the time (though in the subsequent furore he has since criticised the remark).

In the outcry and outrage that followed this remark, Zuma at first defended Malema, and Malema himself refused to apologise, saying he didn’t mean the words literally. Then a few days later, Zwelinzima Vavi, the head of the giant trade union federation, Cosatu, said the organisation’s members would be willing to sacrifice their lives for Zuma.

I am heartened by the widespread outcry over this and the fact that South Africa’s Human Rights Commission has threatened legal action against both Vavi and Malema unless they retract their statements. But I’m deeply, deeply disturbed that the two men do not seem particularly sorry for what they said, and have tried to explain away their remarks, rather than retract them. But whether or not there are retractions and apologies, I’m disturbed that such thing were said at all.

I’m disturbed because I see in this kind of language, strong echoes of the kind of language used by Robert Mugabe. What Zuma and his supporters have in common with Mugabe is that they combine religious references, with a strong sense of menace and threat. Mugabe says only God can remove him from office, for example, while Zuma says the ANC will rule until Jesus returns.

Now, lest I am misunderstood, I’m not saying that Zuma, Malema and Vavi are like Mugabe in anything but their language. Yet. But that ‘yet’ is the crucial word. I am deeply disturbed my these recent statements because they illustrate a way of thinking — an elevation of people and personalities above principle and performance, and a sense that might is right — that they, as leaders, have been placed where they are by God — that they have a divine right to lead, no matter what.

This is deeply undemocratic. We need our elected leaders to understand, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are not placed there by God, but by us, the citizens. They have been elected by us to serve, not to rule. And if and when we feel that they are not serving us in the way we wish to be served, we have the right and the means, to fire them and find somebody else.

The language used by Vavi, Zuma and Malema is worrying because it represents a step, or a few steps, towards a Mugabe. Once you believe you are chosen by God, you soon believe you are entitled to rule and to rule forever. You start to believe that your words and thoughts are God-given, and that you can do anything you want. And you start to believe that your opponents are your enemy, that they’re on the side of evil. And when that happens, human rights disappear, and violence and torture become the order of the day.

As we in South Africa watch the unfolding of events north of the Limpopo we need to urgently look to our own back yard, lest we see a repeat performance in our own land, in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now.

(This post appeared on the Citizen Journalism in Africa website on 26th June 2008: www.citizenjournalismafrica.org)