AMID the chaos that played out at the ANC’s Polokwane conference in December 2007 when Thabo Mbeki was shockingly defeated by Jacob Zuma, a significant but seemingly negligent resolution was taken.
All eyes had been on Mbeki’s spectacular fall from grace. Not many had expected a sitting president to be ousted by the same man he had fired as a deputy a mere two years earlier. Copious amounts of ink were spilt on the political genius of Zuma.
Some commentators remembered his first name was Gedleyihlekisa – the one who laughs with you while plotting your demise.
This proved prophetic of presidency that came to be defined by a goofy giggle and the merciless culling of opponents, real or imagined. It has been a story with all the hallmarks of Machiavelli.
Not that Zuma’s rise was not easy. If anything it was skilful political muscling, much of which scholars of history are still to unravel.
But to continue, a rather curious grouping coalesced around Zuma as he ascended to the 10th floor presidential office at Luthuli House. Among them a sprinkling of good men and women made it to Zuma’s national executive committee.
Of course, they were in the minority. The rest were political misfits, fraudsters, the politically-wounded and aggrieved pseudo-leftists. This latter group largely blamed Mbeki for their misery and saw the pipe-smoking intellectual’s DNA on every particle of their political ruin.
So, while shock descended over Mbeki’s supporters and foreign diplomats who, despite their sometimes frosty relationship with Mbeki, found him more palatable than Zuma and had hoped for an Mbeki win, an ANC Youth League sponsored resolution was presented to delegates.
The ANC’s NEC was to increase from 60 to 80 directly elected members, excluding the top six.
Given the winner-takes-all approach adopted by the Zuma camp at the conference, the resolution went through with the greatest of ease.
It was a move designed to achieve one objective really; to accommodate the large group of hangers-on who had helped Zuma to power. There were just too many of them otherwise. And as Zuma rose, so did their expectations. It was a kind of pay-back.
For the first time in the party’s history, the most talented and resolute comrades, those with proven track records, found themselves outsiders. No longer were “struggle credentials” a prerequisite for elevation to the party’s highest decision-making structure between conferences. All that mattered was loyalty to the dancing president who is equally gifted with the best set of pipes in our political arena.
His talents end there unfortunately. But I digress.
This simple historical recap is particularly relevant in the context of this weekend as some desperate compatriots pinned their hopes on the ANC NEC meeting voting Zuma out of power.
It was never going to happen, especially considering how the Polokwane NEC and subsequently the Mangaung NEC of 2012, were constituted.
So brutal was the Mangaung conference that even Fikile Mbalula – the man credited with delivering the ANC’s 2009 electoral victory as head of elections – was left out of the NEC when he sided with the Kgalema Motlanthe camp that opposed Zuma in 2012. Mbalula only returned later after the Zuma grouping felt sorry for him and “co-opted” him into the powerful body.
But at that conference, even the likes of Ruth Bhengu had made it into the NEC. Now if, dear reader, you don’t know who that is, then my point is made.
Loyalty to Zuma and nothing else was and is all that is required to be an NEC member. Why then would you expect this group to vote Zuma out of power?
Unlike Mbeki, who was recalled in 2008, Zuma is still state president and the main employer of most.
The 2007 Polokwane NEC was made up of new people, so the urgency to remove Mbeki was also about self-interest on their part. It was about how quickly they could get to the levers of the power.
Yes, some NEC members subsequently turned on Zuma, but the reality is that most owe their livelihoods to him. He not only presides over the biggest ANC NEC – in terms of numbers – but also leads the biggest executive of ministers and deputy ministers, since the dawn of democracy.
That did not happen by default. It was a move calculated to extend largesse to as many loyalists as possible. The NEC is mostly made up of ministers and their deputies who are beholden to him.
As the saying goes “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. Zuma’s survival is not about his having nine lives, but rather most NEC members fearing that his removal would threaten their own tummies.
Nothing stops a new president from reshuffling the Cabinet once Zuma is removed. But Zuma, as he is said to have boldly told the NEC meeting, is not going anywhere before the December conference.
Even the much-awaited vote of confidence debate in parliament, regardless of how the Constitutional Court rules, will still see Zuma live to fight another day. It’s about the politics of the stomach.
NEC marches to beat of its stomach
All eyes had been on Mbeki’s spectacular fall from grace. Not many had expected a sitting president to be ousted by the same man he had fired as a deputy a mere two years earlier. Copious amounts of ink were spilt on the political genius of Zuma.
Some commentators remembered his first name was Gedleyihlekisa – the one who laughs with you while plotting your demise.
This proved prophetic of presidency that came to be defined by a goofy giggle and the merciless culling of opponents, real or imagined. It has been a story with all the hallmarks of Machiavelli.
Not that Zuma’s rise was not easy. If anything it was skilful political muscling, much of which scholars of history are still to unravel.
But to continue, a rather curious grouping coalesced around Zuma as he ascended to the 10th floor presidential office at Luthuli House. Among them a sprinkling of good men and women made it to Zuma’s national executive committee.
Of course, they were in the minority. The rest were political misfits, fraudsters, the politically-wounded and aggrieved pseudo-leftists. This latter group largely blamed Mbeki for their misery and saw the pipe-smoking intellectual’s DNA on every particle of their political ruin.
So, while shock descended over Mbeki’s supporters and foreign diplomats who, despite their sometimes frosty relationship with Mbeki, found him more palatable than Zuma and had hoped for an Mbeki win, an ANC Youth League sponsored resolution was presented to delegates.
The ANC’s NEC was to increase from 60 to 80 directly elected members, excluding the top six.
Given the winner-takes-all approach adopted by the Zuma camp at the conference, the resolution went through with the greatest of ease.
It was a move designed to achieve one objective really; to accommodate the large group of hangers-on who had helped Zuma to power. There were just too many of them otherwise. And as Zuma rose, so did their expectations. It was a kind of pay-back.
For the first time in the party’s history, the most talented and resolute comrades, those with proven track records, found themselves outsiders. No longer were “struggle credentials” a prerequisite for elevation to the party’s highest decision-making structure between conferences. All that mattered was loyalty to the dancing president who is equally gifted with the best set of pipes in our political arena.
His talents end there unfortunately. But I digress.
This simple historical recap is particularly relevant in the context of this weekend as some desperate compatriots pinned their hopes on the ANC NEC meeting voting Zuma out of power.
It was never going to happen, especially considering how the Polokwane NEC and subsequently the Mangaung NEC of 2012, were constituted.
So brutal was the Mangaung conference that even Fikile Mbalula – the man credited with delivering the ANC’s 2009 electoral victory as head of elections – was left out of the NEC when he sided with the Kgalema Motlanthe camp that opposed Zuma in 2012. Mbalula only returned later after the Zuma grouping felt sorry for him and “co-opted” him into the powerful body.
But at that conference, even the likes of Ruth Bhengu had made it into the NEC. Now if, dear reader, you don’t know who that is, then my point is made.
Loyalty to Zuma and nothing else was and is all that is required to be an NEC member. Why then would you expect this group to vote Zuma out of power?
Unlike Mbeki, who was recalled in 2008, Zuma is still state president and the main employer of most.
The 2007 Polokwane NEC was made up of new people, so the urgency to remove Mbeki was also about self-interest on their part. It was about how quickly they could get to the levers of the power.
Yes, some NEC members subsequently turned on Zuma, but the reality is that most owe their livelihoods to him. He not only presides over the biggest ANC NEC – in terms of numbers – but also leads the biggest executive of ministers and deputy ministers, since the dawn of democracy.
That did not happen by default. It was a move calculated to extend largesse to as many loyalists as possible. The NEC is mostly made up of ministers and their deputies who are beholden to him.
As the saying goes “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. Zuma’s survival is not about his having nine lives, but rather most NEC members fearing that his removal would threaten their own tummies.
Nothing stops a new president from reshuffling the Cabinet once Zuma is removed. But Zuma, as he is said to have boldly told the NEC meeting, is not going anywhere before the December conference.
Even the much-awaited vote of confidence debate in parliament, regardless of how the Constitutional Court rules, will still see Zuma live to fight another day. It’s about the politics of the stomach.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos