There are moments in human evolution when spectacular failures of history unintendedly hike humanity to higher levels of political awareness.
I believe one such moment happened in the biblical era when it was written in the book of Isaiah 4:1-2 “When that time comes, seven women will grab hold of one man and say, ‘we can feed and clothe ourselves, but please let us say you are our husband’.”
Though one can easily dismiss this as another moment of patriarchal indulgence, the drafters of the Bible could not have imagined that, decades later, Frederick Engels would, in his 1884 treaties The Origin of the Family, affirm the birth of this new society - a society where women reorder socio-sexual relations in a manner that castrates male power, income and class from having an overriding influence over their choice of sexual partner.
As he eloquently put it: “A new generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences.
“When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual - and that will be the end of it.”
One other such moment is thrust upon us by Ayanda Mabulu’s vulgarisation of Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma’s sexual image. There is no doubt that Mabulu’s portrayal is grossly disgusting and stretches the boundaries of human decency, just as it does those of freedom of expression.
But we must not end with his condemnation. We would fail as society if we did not address the source and commission that entitles it. Mabulu has exposed the hypocrisy of our public morality.
It is our culture as South Africans to manufacture vicarious moral outrage without swallowing the attendant consequences of our own complicity, we are always loath of taking responsibility.
Men and women of vice in the echelons of politics have created the image in Mabulu’s mind. Nobody else but politicians have released into society the idea that Dlamini Zuma is contesting for its presidency to pleasure Zuma. If they haven’t, they have allowed the image to fester and grow without decisive condemnation, for they, as they claim, are the leaders of society.
As we frog-march Mabulu to the stake, we should also gather those, particularly from the congress movement, who have referred to her as “Zuma’s wife” despite the fact she is lawfully divorced from him. After all, matrimony is by its nature conjugal, if not sexual.
If anyone is convinced that Zuma is using his ex for political gains, gender theory would demand of us to deal with him, the abuser, not her, the victim of his sexism.
Thus to attribute Dlamini Zuma’s campaign to familial relations is to shame her for Zuma’s alleged chauvinism.
This is the level of political bankruptcy and selective morality we have descended to.
I have no business or intention of punting Dlamini Zuma’s cause to be president of the ANC. But I am inclined to fighting against sexism and patriarchy so that my daughters can be free to want to be president if they so wish.
If I may be frank, if Zuma is using her, so what? Why must she as a woman not use a man against a society that will never give her a fair opportunity without the backing of a man? I dare say that there is probably not a woman in Africa who is as politically emancipated as Dlamini Zuma - even Muammar Gaddafi is said to have punted her as his preferred prime minister in his elaborate plans to be the president of an African state.
There has never been a time in the last 20 years when Dlamini Zuma was not an option for deputy president - even under Mbeki she was encouraged.
Her NEC nominations after Winnie Madikizela-Mandela speak for themselves.
Therefore, it is not borne out of any hitherto evidence that she is not a tried and tested cadre of the ANC, no matter who her ex-boyfriends are. If anything, she commands such remarkable political agency that should leave us ashamed to even suggest she needs a man to advance her cause.
But we know the truth, she is a woman of sound and incredible mind; if she is colluding with Zuma, we would have no choice but to admit that she is doing so out of mutual affection and consent. It means she is a willing participant, so why would we cry foul when Mabulu says it?
Truth is, we are not really offended by Mabulu for the painting, we are upset that he has ousted us for the closet-chauvinists we really are.
We still think in 2017 that a man can willy-nilly control a woman of Dlamini Zuma’s education and stature. It is all a shame. The veracity of our argument against a woman president is just as hollowed, we cannot back it up with anything but sleaze, conspiracy and rondavels.
Seeking a female president is not inconsistent with the ANC’s progressive women’s emancipation record. Saying we don’t need a female president is the same as saying
“Standard Bank does not need a black CEO, but just a CEO”. We must also not spare the black urban, business and professional class that punts this verbiage while they see no shame in rushing to the front of the affirmative action queue to amass wealth for the elite.
In anything, Mabulu has now more than ever convinced me that the ANC needs a female president to stop it from collapsing into a congress of male chauvinism. Men in the congress have behaved themselves appallingly and show no signs of abating their ways, we deserve better.
Is this about women or just Dlamini Zuma in particular? No, it is about being progressive. It is also about Lindiwe Sisulu and Baleka Mbete, because anybody who thinks South Africa needs a female deputy president, is living in a strange continuum. We have already had two.The writing is on the glass ceiling, it may just be time to break it. As you were South Africa, on your marks.
* Hoveka is a speechwriting specialist in the public service, he writes in his personal capacity.