The last time the ANC’s top leaders felt the urge to save the party from falling apart was in 2008. And, guess what, Julius Malema was at the centre and, to some degree, the cause of the cracks.
Party treasurer-general Mathews Phosa and President Jacob Zuma were dragged to an impromptu press conference at Luthuli House after Mosiuoa Lekota, now Cope president, indicated that he was serving divorce papers on the party. He cited the removal of Thabo Mbeki as president and Malema’s bad behaviour as reasons for calling it quits.
At another damage control press conference the same week, the defensive Phosa prevented Malema – who sat next to him – from addressing the media by physically holding his hand tightly to shut him up. He was already a liability. The party was facing an unprecedented split since Robert Sobukwe left it in 1959 and perhaps heading for the toughest polls ever. Almost four years later, the top six – who are supposedly responsible for charting the party’s direction for at least five years – were forced to come out to demonstrate that they were in charge. Again, guess what, Julius Malema is at the centre and the cause of the divisions.
Coincidentally, Phosa was again on the defensive and, this time, trying to explain why he did not shut Malema up when he insulted Zuma at a lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand last week.
On both occasions, the public display of unity was a political façade. And the body language betrayed their pretentious, publicity stunts. Even the glorious pictures of the past presidents behind them could not save them.
One writer indicated this week that the top six only realised at their first formal meeting after the 2007 Polokwane conference that they had nothing in common. It is true. But it happened much earlier than that. Their lack of trust emerged hardly hours after being elected, on the grounds of the University of Limpopo. This newspaper reported on December 23, 2007, that “the dust in Limpopo has hardly settled and a new fierce succession battle is on the horizon as businessman Tokyo Sexwale eyes the ANC presidency in 2012.”
“But he is likely to lock horns in another dirty succession battle with newly elected ANC deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe, and the new treasurer-general, Mathews Phosa”. Before anyone could leave the campus, there were even questions about the credentials of Thandi Modise, deputy secretary-general.
Some in the so called Zuma camp suspected that her loyalty to Thabo Mbeki has not entirely diminished. They pointed out that she had accepted to be on Zuma’s slate – a factional nomination list – simply because she never forgave Mbeki for overlooking her for a cabinet post ahead of her junior colleagues. This, perhaps, explains the continuing bad blood between her and secretary-general Gwede Mantashe.
Zuma was also very suspicious of Phosa’s ambitions. He was neither sure of Motlanthe’s intentions. Ironically, Zuma was not comfortable with Motlanthe sharing an office with Mantashe. It is interesting how Mantashe seems to have switched his allegiance. There are no permanent friends in politics.
Baleka Mbete was not regarded as a threat. But her ambitions to occupy the second highest office in the land created a schism between her and Motlanthe. Therefore any illusion that Tuesday’s press conference was a show of unity is a worst form of political denialism and illusionary conjunction. It is like believing that Mbeki and Zuma’s joint statement in the spring of 2005 was a display of unity and leadership.
Seven years later, divisions have forced the party’s most senior politicians to try the same stunt. However, they were right to confront the Malema factor.
And Zuma had grounds to raise concerns about his colleagues appearing on the same stage as the boy who takes pleasure in undermining his authority.
It was not the first time Zuma confronted his colleagues about their shady dealings with the youth league.
The day before Malema appeared at his first disciplinary hearing last August, Zuma confronted Motlanthe about placards – declaring him president – to be displayed by the Malema gang.
The president then questioned Phosa for providing counsel to the young Turk.
After a heated debate, there was a three-sentence statement reaffirming that the top six officials were united in disciplinary actions against Malema.
But the statement’s unison tone was shattered by the battle for Mangaung, where Zuma will seek another term against the wishes of a faction in the alliance. Again, Malema is a pawn in the succession game.
Motlanthe failed to rebuke Malema and his supporters for mocking Zuma during the Limpopo provincial conference last year.
However, he spoke against T-shirts bearing his face and declaring him for president last month.
And Phosa should have grabbed the mike from Juju the moment he started spewing his bile against the ANC president at Wits.
But Phosa has never been bothered by Juju’s behaviour. He once defended him at a disciplinary hearing.
However, neither is Zuma innocent. Actually, he sowed the seeds of disrespect, divisions and ill-discipline in the party. Remember, it is the same guy who never spoke against factional T-shirts bearing his face declaring: “100% Zuluboy”.
Zuma had failed to discipline Fikile Mbalula, Malema’s friend and Sports Minister, when he publicly described Mbeki as a “conniving leader”, “intoxicated with power” in April 2009.
Zuma once told a rally in Rustenburg in 2006 that the league has and will always determine the outcome of succession.
He seemed to have enjoyed the humiliation of his predecessor. He seldom condemned the burning of posters and T-shirts bearing Mbeki’s face.
In fact, Zuma once told the public that Malema will be a future president of the country, creating the monster that he could hardly control. He and his top five colleagues were beneficiaries of the mayhem.
The ANC even admitted in its current draft strategy and tactics document that the party has failed to deal with ill-discipline and factionalism in its ranks since Polokwane. So, Zuma must fall on his sword.
Ironically, ANC leader and former government policy guru Joel Netshitenzhe once used the movie The Queen to draw a striking analogy, indirectly cautioning Zuma against celebrating Mbeki’s downfall. “In the film, The Queen, the British monarch says to the prime minister: ‘… because you saw those headlines and you thought: one day that might happen to me. And it will, Mr Blair, quite suddenly and without warning’. This is supposedly after the prime minister had ridden on a wave of adulation – with the royal family isolated – after the death of Princess Diana,” Netshitenzhe wrote in 2008.
Zuma in this context is Tony Blair and Mbeki the queen, who is still regarded as the epitome of British nationalism while Blair’s unceremonious departure from the Labour Party should be a warning to our president.
It will be insensitive and simplistic to equate the suspension of Malema to the death of Princess Diana. While the latter was loved by her people, Malema is hated with equal passion, and his political death will not spark the storming of the Bastille.
However, with or without the Malema factor, Zuma is facing relatively similar challenges as Mbeki. A section of the party doesn’t want him. His deputy is ambitious. Mbeki had Mbalula and Zuma has Malema as an irritation while the alliance is falling apart.
Both men presided over a sick economy, with unemployment and poverty posing an Arab-spring type of uprising, if Phosa is to be believed.
They have failed to shake the lethargic public service, while incompetence and corruption in municipalities have triggered sporadic violent protests. Like during the Mbeki administration, his intelligence services have been paralysed by partisan infighting.
Both men suspended their police and prosecutions chiefs when they were facing the toughest period of their presidency.
Therefore, it is a miscalculation for Zuma to obsess about Malema, a minor distraction.
Motlanthe is not going to surrender his intention to contest power just because Malema is out of the picture. It is equally naive to believe that Malema’s suspension is a blow to Phosa’s plot to remove Zuma.
Zuma should also not worry much about Mangaung. So far, he has the numbers – it seems.
But he must be worried about his second term. Most of the sycophants in the national executive committee, cabinet and other provincial structures ingratiate themselves to him simply because of the magnetic and beneficial power of his office.
A second term is likely to be painful. He will be a lonely sitting duck. He must look around at the Mbeki-loyalists-turned-Zuma-sympathisers in the NEC and cabinet.
He is not going to turn around the economy, the public service and crime in the next 24 months; therefore the unrest will intensify as the majority of ANC voters are getting tired of the elusive “better life for all” slogan.
But unlike Mbeki, Zuma’s popularity among citizens has not taken a huge knock. Last month’s Markinor survey showed that 61 percent of South Africans were happy with his performance.
Even though it is a five percent decline, it is not as bad as Mbeki’s rating tumble from 73 percent in 2006 to 63 percent in November 2007, a month before he faced a party revolt.
At the Mangaung elective conference, Zuma is likely to emerge with a weak, factional and useless NEC, unable to help him to think innovatively. With Malema pissing out of the tent, and some turncoats turning against him, Zuma’s power will diminish and his authority weakened. During such weakness, someone – not necessarily Motlanthe – will emerge. - Sunday Independent