ANC deception made Zuma's downfall inevitable

ZUMA | RESIGNATION | SOUTH AFRICA

By Allawi Semanda

African National Congress's (ANC) decision to force Jacob Zuma to resign as the president of Africa's largest economy - South Africa, caught the attention of not only South Africans, but also the entire international attention.

Many expected Zuma's big announcement or what was imminent vote of no confidence had he refused to heed to a 48-hour ultimatum within which the party he chaired for nine years had given him to resign or be thrown out. 

With ANC's national executive committee's decision that Zuma resigns his position as South Africa's president, many commentators and South Africans noted that this had marked the beginning of the inevitable end of Zuma's presidency. Some analysts hailed ANC for standing tall and saying no to Zuma presidency.

Zuma's presidency was characterised by several corruption allegations, which made him and his regime the most controversial in South Africa's modern history. The country's supreme court in October 2017 upholding High Court's ruling to reinstate nearly 800 corruption charges filed against Jacob Zuma, which could have contributed to his loss of trust in the party,

The move by ANC to force Zuma to resign should not be seen as an act of entirely having love for the party and South Africa as a country but rather a sign of selfishness, and political scheming by the new ANC leadership.

At face value, ANC's national executive committee's decision that Zuma resigns, which was supported the party's leader and Zuma's deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa, may look nationalistic, but the move was a web of high politics.

For starters, while I believe it was necessary for ANC to throw away Zuma, this was too long overdue and I do not subscribe to the view that Ramaphosa's team forced Zuma to resign for the love of the party and national interest.

They did this for their own interests after all; Zuma was able to lead South Africa for nine years because ANC blocked several attempts to vote him out of office until when Ramaphosa was strategically positioned to replace his now former boss.

In many ways, Zuma's ANC shielded him even after the country's top courts declared his actions were against the country's interests and contravened the country's constitution.  In April 2016, the country top court ruled that Zuma had "failed to uphold, defend and respect the constitution" prompting the opposition party to sponsor an impeachment vote, which ANC failed with its majority in the house as parliamentarians voted 223 to 143 in favour of Zuma.

Going by the results of the vote, it is clear that ANC kept Zuma in power despite knowing that he had failed to protect the interests of the country. Indeed, last December, South Africa's constitutional court ruled that parliament had failed to hold Zuma accountable on allegations of using the country's funds for personal gains, which he spent upgrading his private home in Nkandla. Therefore, the claim by ANC and team Ramaphosa that they supported the move to have Zuma leave presidency for becoming a "spoiler" is far-fetched because political reasons played the greater part.

It is also important to note that, other than selfish political reasons, covertly, business interests and lobbyists in South Africa too contributed to Zuma's downfall.

Among other accusations levelled against Zuma has been that he had given a lot of power to a famous Indian immigrant family - Guptas. The family is said to have been enjoying unfettered influence not only in South Africa's business and economic sector, but also in political corners that it has been claimed Guptas had power to influence president Zuma on who to appoint as a cabinet minister and which docket.

With such developments, there is no reason why one should rule out Lobbyists and in ANC to have lobbied Ramaphosa - a renowned businessman and his team as a new leaders of ANC to force Zuma to exit South Africa's leadership and pave way for them.

South Africans must pause several questions before they celebrate the downfall of Jacob Zuma. As Indira Ghandi taught us, questioning forms the basis of all progress and those who do not question political moves and steps are condemned to political bondage. South Africans must question why ANC changed all of a sudden to force Zuma to resign after saving him on five different occasions when opposition sponsored impeachment and no confidence especially after the country's supreme court in past ruled that he had violated the constitution.

Otherwise, my prediction is that the downfall of Zuma as seen on both social and mainstream media has been celebrated mostly by common South Africans. On a closer analysis, it has left the integrity of ANC leadership on the spot, with questions such as why ANC party leaders in parliament defend Zuma for long despite accusations they later relied on to abandon him?

Going by his words as he gave his resignation speech from union buildings, "Make no mistake, no leader should stay beyond the time the people they serve. No leader should seek an easy way out because they could face a life without the perks of political office." Zuma left a very unhappy man.

He has left when ANC is more divided than ever and now that he is out of power, let us see if he will indeed find, live and "face a life without the perks of political office" especially that before he resigned as South Africa's president, the supreme court upheld high court's ruling to reinstate his 783 corruption charges. Will he be tried fairly and if convicted, face the law? Now that his Gupta family allies were the first to face the "law", Zuma's future as a free man as he insinuated in his resignation speech is unpredictable.

The writer is a PhD student of international relations and diplomatic studies