INSIGHT: ANC’s problems are not problems of Zuma alone

ANC politics was not always consumed by personalities. Anyone who thinks of the liberation-related politics of the 1980s will remember debates over the direction that the struggle should take, both at home and in exile.

Individuals did seek leadership, but they were also identified with distinct political positions. People supported Chris Hani or Thabo Mbeki for political reasons, related to strategies and vision.

Likewise, when the first ANC elections were held inside the country, delegates had a fairly good idea of who supported various positions. There were few who could be identified with any business venture, as far as was known.

In more recent times, depoliticisation has set in. At the same time there is fierce contestation over positions and preoccupation with personalities and personal fortunes.

There is much speculation over what will happen when Zuma leaves the presidency of the ANC and the country. Many hope corruption, lawlessness and violence will abate with his departure and the constitutional fabric of post-apartheid democracy will be restored.

Some have in mind Cyril Ramaphosa as the obvious replacement. He is painted as an efficient leader who “gets things done”.

He has been attributed with qualities that could neutralise or even eliminate some of the wrongs of the Zuma era, whether perceived or actual. The focus on him is not based on political considerations; it is on an individual with personal attributes, real or imagined.

But it is by no means certain that Zuma is about to leave. He need not necessarily serve only two terms as ANC president, while constitutionally he is barred from a third term as president of the country.

If he were to remain ANC president it is possible that he could from that position exercise influence over what is done in the state presidency, depending on who holds that office and the balance of power that results.

It may also be that much of what he has put in place – his “legacy” of enrichment and lawlessness – may remain intact even if he holds neither position. Part of the contestation that is in progress within the ANC relates to ensuring that this “legacy” is in fact secured.

The power that Luthuli House wields over officers of state may be exaggerated, but it becomes key when there is a conflict between what the organisation believes should be done and what the state president wishes to do. The presence of a state president who no longer enjoys the support of the organisation can lead to conflict and the type of situation that resulted in the recall of Thabo Mbeki.

In the event of Zuma continuing to hold the top job in the former it becomes important for him and his supporters that the person who becomes state president is someone on whom they can “rely”. It becomes even more important if he vacates both positions.

Many argue that if Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma were to become president it is likely that the relationship between the ANC and state presidencies will be smooth. Everyone would be allowed to get on with their own business while “problematic” areas for Zuma are left sleeping.

What is often not discussed is whether Dlamini-Zuma is a leader in her own right and what political changes she may bring to the country.

It may well be that Cyril Ramaphosa has done nothing that offends the Premier League or President Zuma. But there seems no doubt, despite his continual efforts to please Zuma, that he does not enjoy the same degree of confidence possessed by Dlamini-Zuma.

There are some relationships that are obviously important to Zuma and those who support him – who may also be vulnerable if legal processes were reinstituted against Zuma after his departure. It may be that Dlamini-Zuma is considered more likely to avert this.

It is not clear that Ramaphosa is as efficient and effective as is claimed by some of his media and business supporters. There are as yet few demonstrable results that can be attributed to his role.

But why should there be an assumption that Ramaphosa is the heir apparent, and can he draw on an organised support base?

Beyond contestation over the succession, since some are hoping for change and have vested that hope in the departure of Jacob Zuma, it is important to unpack this idea. Does so much depend on the departure of Zuma that the mire in which the ANC is currently enveloped will be cleared with his departure?

There is no doubt Zuma has brought special qualities of decay into governance with his shameless enrichment and imperviousness to legality, high levels of corruption and extensive violence.

Yet whether Zuma stays on for a longer or shorter period, the problems of the ANC are not problems of Zuma alone. The ANC is not Zuma and Zuma is not the ANC.

Many who were involved in the struggle are alarmed at the lack of political vision, and the miring of the organisation in continued scandal. That does not necessarily translate into electoral dangers.

We need to analyse how our democracy is functioning, why it can be that members of the ANC and those who vote for it may one day protest against it but at the same time still prefer it to anywhere else they could put their cross.

The ANC, despite all its flaws as a government, has still delivered substantially and is identified with transformation in a way that no other organisation can be. Whatever the corruption, the unsustainable and unfinished projects, there are very many people who are living far better lives today than they did under apartheid. They have access to water, electricity, housing, healthcare, social grants and other basic needs that were not met under apartheid.

This has been uneven and it is well known that some of the inadequacies relate to patronage and corruption. But there is still little faith that an alternative party, like the DA or the EFF, will seriously undertake the transformation of people’s lives. This is not a residual romanticism about the ANC’s role in the struggle but the actual result of improvements that people have experienced in their lives. Inadequate as they may be, less than they could have been, they are nevertheless transformations.

For us as citizens, it is important to refocus the debate from personality driven politics. This is the only way we can change the course of South African history and find ways of realising the country’s potential. We need to restore clean government under the constitution. That may only happen through a combination of concerned citizens from all walks of life, determined to recover the democratic promise of 1994. This means putting personalities in perspective and moving away from the Messiah syndrome.

•  Raymond Suttner is a professor attached to Rhodes University and Unisa, and former ANC underground operative.