By Dumisani Hlophe
There are some interesting dynamics to the revival of corruption charges against former president Jacob Zuma. These dynamics, revolve around the meaning and substance of the rule of law and constitutionalism; and internal political postures within the ruling African National Congress (ANC).
On the face value, the decision to press long term corruption charges against former president Jacob Zuma is hailed, in some quarters, as South Africa’s manifestation of the rule of law. It is presented as evidence for constitutionalism in this country. This, for some, is proof that no one is immune from the reach of law, regardless of one’s political status in society.
In this regard, law by itself, and its application, is presented as an objective phenomenon. It takes no sides, and applies to all equally. However, this absolutism is not matched by reality.
 |
| Photo Cred: Daily Maverick |
There seems to be a correlation between those in political authority and the decision of who gets prosecuted or not. There has been arguments before that Zuma needed to be president to avoid the charges conferred upon him. Indeed, when he became president of the ANC, en route to be state president, these charges were dropped.
The NPA back in 2008, did succumb to political pressure, and dropped the charges. Therefore, paving the way for Zuma to become the state president in 2009. Whilst president of the country, the charges remained muted until the Democratic Alliance(DA) fervently put back this issue into the prosecutorial and judicial agenda.
Therefore, whilst Zuma was at the helm of political authority within the ruling party, the ANC, and as the state president, he could not be prosecuted. Neither could those, who were in his political faction within the ruling ANC. Despite serious accusations around the state capture issues, current ANC Secretary General, remained relatively untouched. The same applied to the Northwest Province, Premier Supra Mahumapilo.
When the political tide was starting to turn against Zuma in the run up to the 2017 elective conference, the criticism and inquiries against state capture activities gained momentum in the National Assembly. A number of ministers that were purportedly politically aligned to Zuma, were howled before parliamentary committees to answer questions. But then, these are the same ANC members of parliament that over time, defended Zuma’s Nkandla project, and all his ill governance.
This political influence on who gets prosecuted or not, is not limited to politicians in authority. In some instances, it maybe driven by powerful corporate interests, and fronted by both the media, and political elites. It is for this reason that there is so much inconsistency in the media coverage of corruption between the private and the public sector. In some instances, politicians facing allegations and even charges, do not get as much media coverage, as others are subjected to.
 |
| Photo Cred: The Globe and Mail |
The so-called enquiry into the state capture in the National Assembly led mainly by ANC MPs, was precipitated and motivated by the change of political leadership within the ANC. The same can be said about the sudden heightened activism by the anti-corruption law enforcement agencies. There is a direct correlation between such activism and bravado, with the emergence of the new political leadership both within the ANC, and at the state level.
Thus, this link between change in political leadership and law enforcement activism, determines that it is not so much the rule of law that is at base, but rather, who is in political authority. This common denominator here, is simply the change of political power within the ruling African National Congress.
Therefore, the recent demonstration to the rule of law and executive oversight, has intrinsically been linked to the change in the political guard with the ruling party. Thus, the rule of law, and constitutionalism is subjective, depending on the political authority at the time. In liberal capitalist democratic dispensation, the law, the constitution, and the national assembly, exist to protect the interests of the strongest economic interests in society.
This impact: of the power of private corporate interests, the mainstream media biasness, and political authority; on the decisions to investigate and prosecute those that are no longer politically powerful, will create both political and democracy challenges, if not problems.
Publicly, it is likely to be perceived as persecutions of political foes within the ruling party. It may be presented as part of political contestation. Then there will be accusations of “abuse of state institutions, resources, and processes” in order to deal with political foes within the ANC.
In the process, the prosecution of Zuma, is likely to be the rallying point for those in the ANC that want to challenge the current collective leadership. Those that are adversely affected and aggrieved with various political leadership and management changes within the ANC, are likely to try generate a faction against Ramaphosa’s leadership based on these developments.
However, the difficulty is that Zuma is not an ideal ANC politician to craft a forward looking faction around. This is partly because he has been a president of both the ANC, and the country already. Moreover, whilst he finished his ANC presidential term of office, he left the state president position unceremoniously. Therefore, he has no forward looking political capital. If anything, his political stature may just be slightly divisive through the actions of the likely few to accompany him to court proceedings and support him.
There is also the race dynamic. Zuma supporters through the trial, may claim that the “White Monopoly Capital” is persecuting Zuma for whatever reasons. Linked to this, those that are currently sitting in the leadership positions of the ANC, are likely to be accused of “allowing themselves to be used by white monopoly capital” against Zuma.
This raises an interesting dynamic on black solidarity. In the main, what should inform solidarity with black leadership: should Zuma be supported on the basis of being black, or must such support be linked to some black transformation principle, and cause that Zuma pursued and delivered as state president?
In the final analysis, this trial might expose the myth of the rule of law and constitutionalism as a neutral and objective phenomenon. It might show that the powerful economic elite, working in alliance with senior politicians and senior state bureaucrats, determine the application of the rule of law. These powerful elite class, might determine who gets prosecuted or not, based on their own interests, rather than the rule of law.
The trial will also test the contours of black solidarity. Interestingly, it might show that black solidarity is not a matter of mere skin deep, but a matter of principle.
©All rights Reserved. No publication either in part or in full without the expressed approval of the author. Twitter: @KunjaloD