Zuma vote confirms ANC is party of the past

It turns out that even opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) have a problem adding up numbers.

We saw that this past Tuesday as Baleke Mbete, the Speaker of Parliament, announced the outcome of the vote of no-confidence in President Jacob Zuma.

Mbete’s announcement that the “yes” vote totalled 177 got opposition MPs onto their feet, celebrating in jubilation. The celebration was short-lived. The “no” vote numbered 198, Mbete quickly announced.

A total of 384 votes were cast on the motion, of which the opposition got less than half and nine MPs abstained.

The opposition’s expectation of victory obviously clouded their judgment.

They can be forgiven, however, for getting their maths wrong. Outside of parliament and watching from their homes, scores of South Africans had similar expectations as MPs. They couldn’t imagine ANC MPs would vote to retain a President who has singularly cost them 15% in electoral support, is morally inept and harms the country’s economic health.

And so one must ask: how did this happen and what is the likely consequence, for both the governing party and the opposition.

For starters, it’s worth recognising the significance of the day: it was historic. The vote of no-confidence was not only the eighth since Zuma took office, but it was also the first time ever it was conducted secretly. A new record of television viewership was possibly set on August 8.

Enabling that defining moment was the unusually admirable conduct of Mbete. She prioritised the rule of law, not the president. Whilst an open ballot decision would surely have been overturned by the courts, it would have curried favour with Zuma, whose support she needs to realise her own presidential ambitions.

But for once, Mbete didn’t care to please Zuma, who was expressively against a secret ballot. Her defiance of Zuma’s wishes was occasioned either by a failure on her part to secure any assurances from him of support for her campaign or she was simply more concerned about her own place in history. She didn’t want to risk a further stain on her reputation for a man who had not reciprocated her goodwill towards him. Whatever her reasons, Mbete will always receive a pleasant mention whenever we recall that momentous occasion on Tuesday, August 8.

To the ANC, in contrast, the vote on the motion of no-confidence was about the here and now. It was not about preparing the party for the future, but rather freezing it in the moment in order to protect the hegemonic, patronage-faction. The idea of a change of President rattled the patronage-faction and Zuma loyalists. It raised the possibility of cleaning house and a permanent loss of jobs. Ministers closely associated with Zuma are incompetent and unlikely to be re-appointed to Cabinet. That’s why one did not expect a great number of them to vote for the dissolution of Cabinet, which is what would have happened had the motion of no-confidence in the President passed.

A surprise, however, was the majority that Zuma still enjoys in the ANC caucus. Unlike their ministerial colleagues, they were unlikely to lose their jobs in the instance of the Cabinet being dissolved.

Of course, some are sycophantic and would have voted for Zuma regardless of the issues in question.

Let’s assume that the others were persuaded by the two-pronged argument presented by the leadership of the party and caucus. That argument likened Zuma’s exit to regime change, the destabilising impact of which would be fatal to the organisation.

They did not so much defend Zuma, but contended that their stance was in defence of the organisation against an imperialist inspired agenda.

Regime change is not an uncommon concern in the liberation movement. That’s not unexpected in light of our anti-apartheid history and international stance since 1994. Support from the Communist Soviet Union didn’t entirely endear the ANC to the capitals of Western Europe and the US. Nor did insisting on Africa’s equal participation in international forums after 1994, when the norm had hitherto been talking down to this continent’s leaders, improve our status in the eyes of Africa’s former colonial masters.

None of this was remotely connected to what occasioned the motion of no-confidence in Zuma. The President’s misconduct is self-evident and there for all to see.

So why did most ANC MPs believe that the bogey was real, if they really did?

The answer is they’re either pathetically gullible, or are simply party apparatchiks who cannot imagine the world outside of the ANC. To them the ANC constitutes the entirety of the universe. The party comes first, above anything else.

So the bogeyman – ie. regime change – is real within the ranks. To the outside world, however, talk of regime change when Zuma is the obvious problem, makes ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu sound like a crazy person. Really, he’s not making any sense at all.

What of the argument that voting Zuma out would have been akin to detonating a “nuclear bomb” on the party?

The move would certainly have shaken the organisation. But the party must in any case, undergo dramatic change in order to improve any prospect of stemming electoral decline. A shock, therefore, would not actually have been a problem, especially if it had a catalytic effect for the better. And that’s what Zuma’s ousting would have done.

There would have certainly been disagreement over the choice of a new president. Zuma’s faction would have preferred a person who did not present an immediate danger to them.

That danger would have been the firing of all ministers implicated in state capture and immediately setting up a commission of inquiry.

Out of office, Zuma would have been relatively weak. He would no longer have had the leverage to threaten ANC national executive committee members or state officials into compliance. Having voted him out, the caucus wouldn’t have easily endorsed Zuma’s choice for his successor.

The balance of forces would have swung decisively in favour of the reformist faction.

In sum, the ANC lost an opportunity for the spurious reason of avoiding further instability. Only a serious disruption can change the ANC. Zuma won’t bow out easily and is determined to have his ex-wife succeed him, by hook or crook.

His detractors must be as prepared as he has been, if not more so, to unsettle the ANC, but for purposes of reforming it.

Removing Zuma would not only have been disruptive, it would have initiated a change in public sentiment towards the party. Although the opposition initiated the motion of no-confidence, everyone would have known that it took the ANC to make it work.

Heading up to the vote the dominant call was “the ANC must save the country”. That call prepared the way for Zizi Kodwa, the party’s spokesman, to claim that “the ANC put the country first, worked with fellow patriots for the benefit of all”.

At some level perhaps what happened on Tuesday reaffirms what some have already said: the ANC is a party of the past. That the party could not fathom initiating a disruptive change within its ranks shows it cannot re-imagine itself differently.

The ANC is no longer just complicit in Zuma’s catastrophe, but is also protecting him. All that awaits the party now is the wrath of the voters. Collective punishment shall and must definitely come!

Mcebisi Ndletyana is an associate professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg