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% [?]

Zuma’s Baggage Too Much For South Africa To Bear

Jacob Zuma, the leader of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress, may have been left off the hook on a technicality on corruption, fraud and money laundering charges, but it would be better for him to defend himself in court to lift the cloud of allegations of corruption swirling around his head.

On Friday, South Africa’s High Court ruled the fraud and corruption charges against Zuma — the front-runner to succeed South African President Thabo Mbeki next year — were invalid because prosecutors failed to follow proper procedures. Zuma faces 16 charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering, including receiving bribes totaling $500,000 from arms dealers. Judge Chris Nicholson ruled that the National Prosecuting Authority should have consulted Zuma before it pressed corruption charges against him in 2007. Importantly, Judge Nicholson emphasized that he was not giving a verdict on whether Zuma was innocent or guilty and said prosecutors were free to bring charges again.

The increased political pressure now likely to come from Zuma’s buoyant backers and the question marks raised about the prosecuting authority’s competency over this, the second procedural lapse in the case, will make it very difficult for them to press on with charges. Nicholson’s decision in the Pietermaritzburg High Court clears a significant hurdle for Zuma, 66, to secure his party’s nomination for president in next general elections.

South African President Thabo Mbeki’s second and final terms ends next year. Such is the African National Congress’s political dominance that whoever is the party’s chosen candidate for South Africa’s presidency is assured victory.

Yet, if Zuma does not answer the allegations fully in court, the lingering questions over his involvement in alleged corruption will continue to paralyze government, erode public confidence and undermine the democracy. A new South African president will need to tackle a pervasive air of public corruption, which will demand honesty.

Judge Nicholson rightly heavily criticised Mbeki and his government for routinely abusing public institutions to launch vendettas against critics. Yet, in his campaign to quash the corruption charges against him, Zuma and his sometimes violent supporters have attacked the judiciary, democratic institutions, the media and his critics to such an extent that the country’s not yet consolidated constitutional system, institutions and values are put at risk in the same way as they were by Mbeki’s previous manipulation of them.

   Jacob Zuma in Traditional Zulu Garb
Zuma may be popular, but there is a considerable opposition from within the ANC against him, a populist, sexist and homophobic leader with controversial views on HIV/Aids. Zuma claimed he could see by the way a women dressed and sat that she was looking for sex and that he should oblige. Furthermore, he said that he thought having a shower after unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner would would help prevent infection. He has urged the police to shoot first and ask questions later to combat high crime levels. He is under fire from his own camp for flip-flopping on economic policy depending on the audience.

The fierce campaign to secure the presidency for Zuma and the equally stiff opposition to it has paralysed the ANC and the government in such a way that making Zuma president of South Africa will not end. Such is the enmity he evokes from those within the ANC who oppose him that his presidency is likely to be prone to log-jams, making it hard to execute policies which would benefit the country’s poor. Zuma has surrounded himself with hardline demagogues. This will make it difficult for him to bring in new talent — so necessary to energize the country — from across the color, ideological and political divides. Others fear Zuma will be held hostage by special interests and partisan factions from both the left and the right who have rallied around him.

South Africa is stuck in a number of interlocking crises: broken families, communities and society; high levels of poverty, unemployment and crime; perceptions of widespread corruption; increasing racial tensions; faltering democratic institutions; rapidly declining public confidence in government’s ability to deliver services; and looming economic problems.

The country must deal with these problems in an increasing complex, dangerous and economically treacherous world. The ANC and South Africa need a less divisive and more unifying leader, with fresh ideas, to give imaginative leadership to the country’s mountain of problems. Zuma is certainly not the answer.

William M. Gumede is Associate Editor at Africa Confidential. He is Research Fellow at the School of Public and Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He recently released the bestselling book Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC. Close. Other articles by Mr. Gumede — Read Here

Popularity: 10% [?]

Theme: Capitalizing on Opportunity
Ref: http://www.weforum.org/africa2008

World Economic Forum on Africa opening plenary session

The panelists are:

1. John Agyekum Kufuor, President of Ghana
2. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa
3. Bingu Wa Mutharika, Presidnet of Malawi
4. Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi
5. Raila Amolo Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya

Chaired by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum.

Popularity: 15% [?]

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% [?]

In 1991, A prominent African leader stood up against injustice in a neighbouring land. “The cry for freedom, as well as the cry for justice, stops at no border,” he declared.

That leader was Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. He was speaking in Harare, opening the Commonwealth meeting that would decide to begin lifting the people-to-people sanctions that had been imposed against South Africa.

“As you stand on Zimbabwean soil,” President Mugabe said, “only a stone’s throw away from South Africa, the world expects us to spare no effort in helping to achieve an outcome there which will bring comfort to the oppressed people of South Africa.”

It is now well past time that South Africa returned the favour. Quiet diplomacy is dead. One of Africa’s brightest hopes has turned into the continent’s most dismal failures. In an era in which our continent is meant to be embarking on an African Renaissance, Zimbabwe is both an obstacle and an embarrassment.

President Thabo Mbeki’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” in Zimbabwe has finally been denounced as a disaster by world leaders. The criticism has extended beyond muted signs of displeasure to condemnation.

Senior ANC leaders have urged Mr Mbeki to alter his stance, while MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai has expressed a desire for South Africa to be replaced as mediator in the crisis.

It is worth examining what effects this policy, which has led Mr Mbeki to claim there is no electoral crisis in Zimbabwe, has had on the country.

Zimbabwe, once one of the healthiest economies in Africa, has been plunged into a crisis that worsens every day. Inflation stands at over 100,000 per cent, and is predicted to hit the 1.5 million per cent mark by the end of the year.

Its healthcare system has failed, with many children orphaned by an Aids crisis, which Mr Mbeki refuses to take seriously. Political violence, intimidation and corruption remain endemic. None of this has been ameliorated by South Africa’s diplomatic efforts.

This policy has resulted in strengthening Dr. Mugabe’s regime and other countries’ desire to effectively address the plight of the Zimbabwean people.

By indulging Mugabe’s insistence that the criticisms levelled against him are part of a neo-colonial plot, President Mbeki has granted the man a legitimacy that he would not otherwise have.

It is never quite clear to anyone precisely what quiet diplomacy is meant to accomplish. Is it supposed to bring about a fresh round of elections — free and fair this time round? Is it meant to bring about a transfer of power to the MDC or within a “reformed” Zanu-PF? Is it meant to bring about some kind of government of national unity?

South Africa’s treatment OF Zimbabwe’s opposition has been shameful. President Mbeki’s public embraces of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF cronies contrasts sharply with his studied avoidance of Mr Tsvangirai.

The ANC’s unswerving loyalty to its fellow liberation government has undermined any claim it might have wished to make as to the even-handedness of its approach. This, of course, reflects the ANC’s attitude towards political opposition more generally.

The tragedy has been that it is in the interest of all to stand firm in condemnation of the actions of the Zimbabwean government. It lacks the economic and military clout to seriously threaten its international critics.

There is everything to gain in pragmatic terms by supporting reform in a country that has demonstrated such economic potential, and a moral mandate to criticise Mugabe’s corrupt despotism.

A far better response would have been the more robust one. Standing up to the Zimbabwe government would have limited their ability to manoeuvre diplomatically and politically, making it harder for them to acquiesce in the current crisis.

Had South Africa been firmer from the outset in dealing with the regime and challenging its actions, it might have been able to limit the machinations of Zanu-PF and the generals now lining up to try and succeed Mugabe.

A tough stance that refused to indulge Mugabe’s delusions might not wake him up to reality, but his isolation would afford him less political protection than he currently has.

This is not to advocate a US-style hawkish diplomacy against Zimbabwe. That would be entirely inappropriate for the situation and the country, and would have a very dubious prospect of success.

Rather, to stand up to Zimbabwe would involve stronger words supported by resolute action, a refusal to indulge Mugabe’s fantasies, and joining the rest of the world in the sanctions they have placed on the regime.

The world currently awaits the results of this most contentious of Zimbabwean elections. A change of stance from President Mbeki might go miles in delivering a resolution. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

The South African government should tell Mugabe that the human rights abuses, police brutality, arbitrary arrests and beatings of opposition politicians have to stop. These actions should remind South Africans of the worst days of apartheid.

About The Author: Donald Mogeni —

Popularity: 31% [?]