A week is a long, long time

There’s an old saying, that a week is a long time in politics. Tell me about it! What a week it’s been — in politics and in finance. I went on a short trip to Europe, and by the time I got back to South Africa, everything had changed: in politics in South Africa, and in finance around the world.

In South Africa, Jacob Zuma’s court case had been thrown out, and Thabo Mbeki had been forced to resign.

I saw headlines about the Zuma case while I was in London — and of course I immediately turned to the Internet to get all the details. How strange — the Zuma faction had been making all sorts of noises about how the judiciary was counter-revolutionary and could not be trusted — and how they were praising the judge for ruling in their favour. Not only that, but the judge had apparently agreed with the argument that there was a conspiracy against Zuma.

A friend who’s a former banker in London pulled out the Financial Times — there was Zuma, right on the front page, dancing his victory dance, and singing his favourite song, “bring me my machine gun.” “This is not good for South Africa,” said my friend. “This newspaper is read by all the bankers and financial investors. How do you think they will react to see the next president of South Africa singing such a warlike song?”

The judgment in the Zuma case motivated and empowered his supporters to move against Thabo Mbeki, gathering enough support within the ANC’s top structures to force him to resign. Sad for Mbeki, and shocking for South Africa, but overall a good sign for democracy.

I’m not happy that Zuma’s now a shoe-in as president. But the axing of party leaders and the downfall of prime ministers and presidents is what happens all the time in working democracies. Similar scenes have played out in Britain many times, for example — Margaret Thatcher was ousted in a similar way, and at the moment Prime Minister Gordon Brown faces a growing challenge to his leadership.

I missed Thabo Mbeki’s resignation speech, as I was on the plane to Entebbe, but here in Uganda people are commenting about how impressive it is that Mbeki bowed to the will of his party, and resigned. Mbeki may have had many failings as a president, but his stepping down gracefully has to be commended. What a contrast to the likes of Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Kibaki in Kenya, and Uganda’s own Museveni, who’s been in office forever.

In the world of finance, too the ground has shifted. Two sundays ago, I was with some friends in the City of London, the financial district — we walked past the Lehman Brothers building — an imposing skyscraper, looking down on the street with its darkened glass façade. How confident, stable and arrogant it looked. The next day, Lehman Brothers, one of the oldest banks in America, was bankrupt — and almost all of the employees in that huge building out of a job.

Sometimes, when my life as a freelancer seems insecure and risky, I wonder whether I should have gone for a more stable, secure job — something in government, or banking maybe. So much for that — the events of the past week or two serve as a powerful lesson — in life, nothing is certain, there are never any guarantees.

First published on Citizen Journalism in Africa on 23rd September 08

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.