On Tuesday I went to Parliament to listen to President Jacob Zuma’s response to the debate on his state of the nation address. Hold on to your seats, sit down, and listen: I was charmed.
When reading from his prepared speech President Zuma was plodding and not very convincing, but when he departed from his speech and ad-libbed, he was charming and charismatic. He seems to have the ability to tell people what they want hear as if he really believes it.
More importantly, unlike that other guy who was President for nine years, he was not defensive or bitter. He looked like someone who was enjoying the moment and really believed that debate, engagement with different opinions, and listening even to those he disagreed with, was a good thing.
The contrast between the tone and content of President Zuma’s speech, and the kind of statements which have emanated from the likes of Julius Malema, some Cosatu guys and some of Zuma’s henchmen was remarkable. Not a bad word was spoken about the opposition and all the criticism and suggestions from the opposition benches were acknowledged and dealt with in an honest and seemingly sincere manner.
Of course, words are cheap and it will be the actual choices and decisions of the new President that will determine his future.
Listening to President Zuma I could not help but wonder how he will manage to keep the ANC together in the next five years If he continues with his conciliatory tone he will surely anger the bitter hardliners and committed ideologues in his party. At some point the ANC Youth League, War Veterans or other members of the walking wounded will become restless.
The Cosatu moves in the Western Cape to try and undermine the DA government is a case in point. This kind of undemocratic action cannot be squared at all with the kinds of noises Zuma has been making. How long before Zuma angers his allies and before he is called a sell-out? And how will Zuma deal with that?
If President Zuma changes tack and angers the media and the opposition by acting in a cynical and overtly partisan manner, the narrative might just take hold that Zuma is a flip-flopper whose words are meaningless and who, therefore, cannot be taken seriously and cannot be trusted. His authority – already tenuous because of the manner in which he became President – will be seriously eroded.
One thing about that other guy – remember him? – is that although he was not the most honest person and had a serious problem with facing reality or telling the truth, he hardly ever told people stuff just because he believed that that was what they wanted to hear. Poeple dying of Aids? Well that other guy would tell people maybe Aids was an invention of the CIA. Crime bad? Well tell people it was a figment of our imagination.
Zuma seems different. Pity about the way in which he became President. Watching him it was difficult not to remember that he took a sizable amount of money from a convicted crook, then did favours for that crook. met with an arms company executive and then received money from that arms company, and produced illegally obtained evidence to get him of the charges that resulted.
Only time will tell whether we will all become so enamoured by President Zuma that we will be prepared to forgive and forget the ethical disasters of his pre-Presidential days.
The perfect politician!
Prof, I have always said that the choice for Zuma as a President, both of ANC and the Republic, was a well-thought, thoroughly discussed and decided one. Take some time and ask the people who know him well. The man is indeed capable, forget the human error of him having met that Shaik guy for a while. His greatest strength is his ability to remain calm at all costs – has anybody ever seen him angry? no. More importantly, he is a warm and caring person, suprisingly, even opposition leaders acknowledge this fact openly.
“Pity about the way in which he became President. Watching him it was difficult not to remember that he took a sizable amount of money from a convicted crook”
Prof, come on, we know Zuma is a shady character, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Let it go.
I’m really optimistic about the Zuma administration. Can’t believe I am actually agreeing with Spuy…
Well he’s got my benefit of the doubt…
I suspect though — just like I told all those so confident about Obama, that they were being naive and believing what they wanted to believe, listening to words, and not noticing hte difference between the words and actions — that Mr. Zuma may be charming, but he ain’t got anything remotely close to a moral compass…
The man was the head of Umkomte’s Initelligence!! I think his middle name is extremely apt.. he is quite able to smile at you, while twisting the blade stabbed in your back…
I’d be happy to be proven wrong.. I’d be overjoyed to be proven wrong… My baggage just dno’t include any ‘white guilt’… unlike others…
Anyway.. shall be interesting..
Prof
I do believe that Zuma is sincere about the promises he is making. I do believe he means what he says. Problem is that he may not be the person who is running the country. He does not seem to be the leader but instead; he seems to be led.
Case in point: Zuma told Kathleen Hays of Bloomberg TV in New York that there will not be any interference with the independence of the Reserve Bank and that the policy of inflation targeting will not be changed. He has been in ‘power’ for less than 3 months, yet we see signs that Tito Mboweni, probably in pursuit of another term, is yielding to the demands of the unions.
Zuma may say all the right things, but those who wield power, will do things differently; regardless of the wishes and aspirations of the supposedly Makulubaas – Zuma.
We should give Mshlolosi a fair chance. He’s an absolute breath of fresh air in comparison with that previous Africanist clot.
And I liked the way he openly mocked the civil servants on TV!
If the goodwill between races in our society can survive / outlive those stultifying former ANC exiles we have a chance of reconciliation.
Professor, I think that Zuma’s response to the debate spawned by his sate of the nation address, however charming it may have been, bodes quite ill for South Africa. And I base this view on two well-considered remarks which you ventured.
First, I think most would agree that Zuma’s supporters have shown clearly that they are markedly unwilling to brook let alone engage with contrary views. That their apparent leader (good point Tony) seems willing to take a more moderate position may very well sit badly with them.
Secondly, as you say Professor, if Zuma recognises this risk, he may come to tow the line. And that of course will run contrary to the rather heartwarming moderation he has shown of late. Now, what would the press make of that? As you note, the logical conclusion would be that Zuma is a maker of empty promises.
It seems that Zuma may be destined to upset his allies regardless of what he does. You see, as things stand, Zuma is either going to be a sell out or a political operator willing to say what it takes. Either way, his supporters in the more vocal factions in the ANC camp may well come to question his commitment to the pursuit of whatever ends they have in mind.
I think, as I mentioned earlier, that this could bode ill for South Africa in that the thus far demonstrably intolerant factions within the broader ANC camp may come to see themselves as crusaders of a sort. Champions who need to save not only the fabric of a constitutional democray they scarely understand, but the ANC also.
I think that there are a lot of good intentions (and probably some outright greed) among the leadership clique. However, what we have seen about the handling of power, and respect for law, does not bode well.
An example is the response to the (admittedly dire) SABC Board. Zuma’s men (including women) want ehat they want, and are not too concerned about the law, and the Constitution. When they realised that the Board had appointed an interim chair, and that this was the preserve of the President, what did the Minister do?
He declared the Board to be illegal! No matter that the President had failed to act when the Chair resigned. No, attack the Board as a way of pressuring them to resign.
This is political cynicism of the worst kind. people don’t seem to know what is appropriate,a nd they don’t care that they don’t know.
“The major problem- one of the major problems, for there are several- one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of whom manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
— Douglas Adams (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy)
Friend, I take your view to mean the following: that people with the ambition to seek leadership are typically so ambitious as to be (a) excesively self-serving which (b) renders them incapable of the sort of broad social concern that leaders probably should have. I hope I have the right of your point.
If I do, do you think it is based on something of an assuption? That assumption being that great personal drive necessarily rules out the capacity for concern or even compassion while we’re at it. With all respect mate, I think it just might be.
Further, I know many of you are very bussy, but would anyone please do me the courtesy of taking a stab at the following questions: should someone who has very cogent grounds for believeing that she (or even possibly he) is the best possible candidate go for the job irrespective of the sort of impressions that doing so may cause? And if so, what sorts of grounds for holding to this belief are we dealing with?
Leigh and Friend:
in my experience, most (many?) politicians really are sincere–as well as ambitious. They think that they can do it all, and keep everyone happy. They think that there is a middle ground with which even the extremes will be happy, if the extremes will only give it a chance. Of course, this is usually fatally over optimistic.
We, those of us watching and not participating, tend to assume that politicians are cynical instead of naive. And, of course, some of them are (Nixon springs to mind–there are others). But I think that there are many who are completely genuine in their attempts to please everyone–and they believe that they can really do it. They believe that their charm, their personality, their ability to sit people down and talk sense to them (what Weber termed Charisma) allows them (and only them) to change the terms of the debate.
But of course this will only work out if they are in power, in the position to work their charms–and so they are willing to say and do what it takes to get elected because then they will be able to fix everything and create the compromises necessary to make everyone happy…..and, usually, some one/group ends up being very disappointed, because the charisma isn’t enough to create 500,000 jobs, for instance.
Now, the people around those politicians usually are the cynical ones–the ones who see that charisma, and attempt to use it to achieve certain goals–usually one of the extremist positions. Or, sometimes, just personal aggrandizement–ie, to get rich personally. Which is usually better for the country as a whole.
Sorry for the cynicism.
Leigh and PM, that was just a quote I found appropriate and it does reflect my own views, but the fact is nobody will be chosen to become anything if he/she doesn’t make him or herself available for the job, so however much sense that statement makes, it’s contradictory. In our country, if the new Constitutional ammendment bill does not pass, everything is in place to have a successfull government. It just seems optimistic though, because our leaders have no faith in the rule of this law, this constitution, they want to rely on their own initiative, which has, thus far failed all of us. The Constitution of our Republic caters for all, everyone’s rights, we don’t need many promises as the leaders should not really bring change to the system, they should bring change to the God damn crime to which they all have their greedy fingers dirty, that is what Mr Zuma’s administration should keep themselves busy with instead of trying to convince the world of how misunderstood the nation have always been and stuff. Fully bru.
I think the guy is leading to a right way, this is SA where we should be united and build the country together instead of what is happening. I still believe he’s gonna change that and make us become one. Nevermind about those who are fighting. He really cares about the poor. I think he’s going to fullfill his promises. Let’s forget about his personal life and concentrate on his presidential side.