Former President Jacob Zuma
By Lebona Lekoena: In the complex tapestry of South African politics, former President Jacob Zuma remains a figure of significant controversy and influence. His recent actions actively campaigning for the MK Military Veterans Association’s (MKMVA) party, and urging the public not to vote for Cyril Ramaphosa’s African National Congress (ANC) have sparked debate and speculation about his motives and the potential consequences for South Africa’s political stability.
Zuma’s directive for the public to withdraw support from President Ramaphosa’s ANC is a provocative move that seems to defy the party’s unity. By aligning himself with the MKMVA, which is reported to have formed a political party, Zuma could be signaling a strategic positioning aimed at exerting pressure on the ANC or fostering a political realignment that might serve his interests. Some observers might suggest that Zuma is attempting to leverage his considerable support base to influence the ANC’s internal politics and policies.
On the other hand, this could be interpreted as an act of political sabotage, potentially designed to weaken the ANC from within. If Zuma is seeking expulsion from the party, it could be a calculated step to galvanize his supporters, possibly leading to a split that might mirror the previous defections from the ANC, such as the formation of the Congress of the People (COPE) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). This would be a risky move as it could lead to further political fragmentation and instability, reminiscent of the July unrest that followed Zuma’s incarceration.
However, one could argue that Zuma’s latest political maneuver might not be aimed at expulsion or causing unrest but rather at securing a legacy or safeguarding his political relevance in the face of legal challenges and diminished influence within the ANC.
Regarding the ANC’s response to Zuma’s actions, the party finds itself in a delicate position. Here are several reasons why the ANC might choose not to entertain Zuma’s provocations:
1. Preservation of Unity: The ANC has long prided itself on maintaining a façade of unity, even in times of internal strife. Engaging with Zuma’s criticisms could further polarize the party and erode its cohesiveness.
2. Focus on Governance: South Africa faces numerous challenges, including economic instability, unemployment, and the ongoing management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The ANC may choose to focus on governance rather than internal party disputes.
3. Legal Precedence: Zuma’s legal troubles, including his trial on corruption charges, set a precedent for the ANC’s stance on corruption and governance. By not engaging with Zuma, the ANC reinforces its commitment to the rule of law and accountability.
4. Public Perception: Entertaining Zuma’s campaign against the ANC could be perceived as a sign of weakness and an inability to move beyond past leadership. The ANC might seek to project an image of renewal and forward momentum.
5. Electoral Strategy: As the ANC prepares for upcoming National elections, it must appeal to a broad electorate. Appeasing or engaging with Zuma could alienate voters who are tired of political infighting and looking for tangible progress.
In conclusion, Jacob Zuma’s actions appear to be a complex gambit that could either be a strategic bid for influence or a potential catalyst for political unrest. The ANC’s decision not to entertain Zuma’s provocations seems to be a calculated move to preserve party unity, focus on governance, and maintain a positive public image while navigating the political landscape ahead of upcoming elections.
The ANC’s leadership, under President Ramaphosa, has been characterized by efforts to clean up the party’s image, confront corruption, and restore investor confidence in South Africa’s economy. Responding to Zuma’s challenges could distract from these objectives and undermine the progress that has been made.
Moreover, the ANC must consider the implications of giving Zuma a platform or legitimizing his dissent. By not engaging with him, the party may be attempting to reduce the oxygen that fuels his campaign, thereby minimizing the impact of his rhetoric on the electorate. The ANC’s leadership likely understands that acknowledging Zuma’s provocations could inadvertently strengthen his position and embolden his followers, potentially leading to increased division within the party and the country at large.
On the other hand, it is essential to recognize that Zuma still wields influence among certain factions within the ANC and the broader South African public. His ability to mobilize support should not be underestimated, as seen by previous demonstrations of loyalty from his adherents. The ANC must therefore navigate this situation with caution, balancing the need to maintain discipline and unity within the party while avoiding actions that could provoke a significant backlash from Zuma’s supporters.
Ultimately, the ANC’s decision not to entertain Jacob Zuma’s divisive campaign reflects a strategic choice to prioritize the stability and coherence of the party, as well as the overarching goal of governing in the interest of all South Africans. Whether this approach will mitigate the risk of unrest or further political fracturing remains to be seen. However, it is clear that the ANC leadership is acutely aware of the delicate balance required to maintain its position as South Africa’s ruling party in the face of internal and external challenges.
Lebona Lekoena is the chairperson of the Free State Publishers and Editors Forum. He writes in his personal capacity.
Lebona Lekoena