Jacob Zuma, the president of the Africa National Congress (ANC) and South Africa’s president-in-waiting is the quintessential African politician. Only that he is late to the scene by 30 years. He is rough. He is randy. He sexual escapades, which he wears on his sleeves, are well documented. He has many wives. His first wife committed suicide. In the last written note testimony authored, she blamed Zuma for her death. He famously said as a Zulu man he never seduces a woman to have sex. He simply knows from the way the woman sits whether she is inviting him to have sex or not. Once he notices the lady’s posture, he proceeds accordingly depending on his dress mode, by either unzipping his trouser or more easily by throwing to the side the skin garment loosely dangling around his waist.

Things being equal, he will be crowned the next president of South Africa. This is the same man who famously said by taking a shower after unsafe sex he will be protect himself from contracting Aids! There is no doubt Zuma presents Africa’s past, not its future leaders. With a mindset of this nature, South Africans are waiting for a threatening hurricane, and they are not blinking yet. Africa’s fascination with the ugly, the bully, and rowdy leaders has for a long time fascinated anthropologists and South African’s flirtation with Zuma falls into the same setup.

The events that led to the resignation of Thabo Mbeki as South Africa’s president has shown the intriguing nature of politics in South Africa. On one side the orderly transfer of power to the interim president, Mr Kgalema Motlanthe and the sweeping edicts from the higher echelons of the ANC was breathtaking.

This is the oldest political party on the continent, and by recalling the president in a most undignified style, it showed how power is not only wield, but its filtering process was brutally on display too.

Mbeki despite his intellectual aura has the charisma of an undertaker and that did not help.

The enormity of power displayed by the ANC in recalling president Mbeki must be appreciated at several levels. First, it must be acknowledged especially in this part of the world that a party with historic continuity and memory is good for the politics of any country. ANC has shown that it has structures, and that it has teeth to bite. In Kenya for instance, where the average lifespan of a political party is three to five years and the party dies and a new one created as a result of ethnic reconfiguration, ANC’s power structure and discipline was poignant lesson for local politicians.

Second, Mbeki by answering the call of his party in throwing in the towel showed the maturity of politics in South Africa. He definitely has his support within the party.

Nelson Mandela

He could have counterattacked the Kenyan way by shouting loud that foreign money was poured to fight him or even go personal with Zuma. Remember, he won over forty percent of the vote during the leadership contest for the president of the ANC when he lost to Zuma.

Third, the silence of the great man Nelson Mandela was telling. He simply kept mum, not because he was for either side of the political divide. No! As a dignified ex-president he knows his role as an elder statesman and left politics to politicians.

That was an excellent lesson for those retired presidents with itchy fingers for powers like Jerry Rawling of Ghana.

Zuma’s ascendancy to the pinnacle of political power is a cruel reply of what has happened in other African countries in the 1980s and 90s. He has faced all kinds of allegations ranging from corruption in an arms deal to a rape allegation.

On corruption, we see a replay of the typical African politician’s strategy. Zuma had a financial adviser who was convicted and is currently serving sentence for his role in the corrupt arms deal. Zuma was heavily implicated as an accomplice by the judge who sentenced his adviser. He was then rightly fired as vice president. Pursuant to that, the government undertook investigation and referred criminal charges against Zuma. Being the typical African politician, he frustrated the legal process in all manners conceivable. Challenging and appealing every decision made against him by any court. At the same time, he was fermenting the party against Mbeki.

Zuma’s presidency will be calamitous. He is supremely unsuitable to be the president of any country, leave alone South Africa with its past tortured history and promising future. He will take South Africa down the ruinous road tin-god dictators with similar background took their countries in Africa.

With a party that sees his weakness and vices as the archetypical African male strengths, one will soon see the replay of unsavoury scenes reminiscent in other parts of Africa replayed gleefully by Zuma and his supporting orchestra. What is South Africa’s enthralment with this horrid character and his seedy past?

Popularity: 6% [?]

By Khamati Shilabukha

In the past few years, there have been efforts to re-position Africa in the globalising world to take care of relationships among its states and the rest of the world.

The association of African states was restructured from the Organisation of African Unity, to the African Union. Many would argue that this is merely a change in name and not in the character of the organisation.

Proponents of the “new” outfit argue that it is meant to generate a new awareness of who we are. Many also hold the view that Africans are too divided to evolve into a meaningful regional identity.

This argument stems from the myriad conflict situations in the continent. The conflicts are both intra-national and international, with the former more prevalent.

Intra-national conflicts are often the result of internal (political/economic) power squabbles. Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Rwanda, Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Algeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya are some examples of countries that have experienced such conflicts. They have all received adequate media coverage. But the other genre of conflict has not received the same kind of coverage, yet it is crucial in the pursuit of a global and modern Africa.

This conflict derives from all forms of discrimination including racism and xenophobia. It is vicious and has gone on for some time. These forms of discrimination are serious, and efforts have been made to put them on the global agenda.

The most appropriate example is the current attacks on foreigners in South Africa. The question that begs answers is, why at this time in Africa? All sectors of a society have an obligation to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. We need to examine the extent to which as leaders, scholars and policy makers, we can intervene in this scourge called xenophobia.

It is argued that xenophobia is a result of poor intercultural communication. Members of one culture do not understand, appreciate and accommodate those from another culture. They lack adequate information to deal with such people with the least stress and threat.

But acquiring such information does not come easy and the poor management of communication often leads to strife. This could be the case in South Africa. One major source of information that allows us a wide world view and a more holistic perception and appreciation of others is the mass media. But the mass media, as inanimate objects, cannot do anything. It is those who use and manipulate them that can make the difference.

Xenophobia is a global problem. Although the phenomenon is ubiquitous in contemporary societies, its targets vary across countries and nations. It is such that even those who have been a subject of hate also develop hatred for others. But how does this hatred come about? Anthropologists and other social scientists posit that a population composed mainly of foreigners is an environment in which xenophobia can easily thrive.

They distinguish three theoretical approaches to the rise and diffusion of hatred. The first relates to socio-economic status of individuals, the second pertains to their cultural identity and the third the general attributes of society.

Source of hatred

The first approach derives from the “power theory” – a paradigm that views the relationship between groups as a function of their competitive positions. This concept suggests that a threat of one particular group to another is a source of hatred. When people feel insecure in the face of threat, they portray resentment and hate. But here, the intensity of hate need not necessarily depend on real competition on the job market but on the perception of threat. This is sufficient ground to induce animosity. Much of this is absent in the South African situation.

The cultural symbolic approach holds that animosity towards the other is not a consequence of economic competition between rival groups. It is a product of early political and value socialisation. The main issue here is the fear of loss of social status and identity.

Thus, cultural differences among people could be responsible for conflicts and hatred. In this approach, it can be explained that people would prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than be exposed to “strangers”. Defining a group of people as “un-belonging” to the national “we” deprives them of the right to belong. Much of this is also absent in South Africa.

The third approach, termed phenomenology, attributes xenophobia not to economic strains or cultural divergence but to general attributes of society. When society experiences deep crises, which occur intermittently, anomic tensions encroach upon social postures.

This leads to a crisis of collective identity “so that the calm self-certainty which might enable unproblematic relations with the minorities gets lost”. Under this approach, xenophobia is interpreted as a way of reassuring the national self and its boundaries, as an attempt at making sense of the world in times of crisis. This could be happening to indigenous South Africans.

To start with, the impeding fallout between President Thabo Mbeki and Africa National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma could be disillusioning to many ordinary citizens of African descent.

Many of them subscribe to ANC with a passion yet they find themselves on the sidelines when major party decisions are being made. At the same time, they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of their country.

Many South Africans still live in squalid conditions and the dream of land reform has turned into a pipe dream. These issues run so deep in their collective psyche that they need reassurance of economic and social survival. But they are directing their anger at the wrong enemy.

Many of the low class Zimbabweans, Malawians, Zambians and nationals of other countries are escaping economic hardship and political violence which South Africa has refused to acknowledge as a problem, especially in Zimbabwe.

They should commit themselves to assisting them to the best of their capacity. And this applies to other countries with a chance to host other Africans in need of refuge and sanctuary.

Popularity: 32% [?]