Zuma: It is not the media which is different this time, it is his ‘allies’

February 12th, 2010

A few years ago, the Citizen newspaper made a big story out of remarks by commentator Max du Preez that then-president Thabo Mbeki was a womanizer. The president’s hired gun, Essop Pahad, intervened and the paper was made to climb down quickly.

Two years ago, the Sunday Times splashed across their front page the story that a charge of rape had been laid against then-ANC deputy-president Jacob Zuma. The paper took heavy flak but the evidence emerged within a few days to prove them right.

Zuma’s supporters - a mish-mash of groupings united only by their dislike of Mbeki - rallied behind him and accused the media of persecuting Zuma. They felt justified when Zuma was acquitted and he emerged stronger than ever.

Two weeks ago, the same Sunday Times splashed a story about Zuma fathering what appears to be his 20th child out of wedlock with the daughter of a friend. This time those allies who had backed Zuma and attacked the media were divided. The ANC first put out a tepid defence of Zuma on the lines that the story was an invasion of his privacy and he had behaved culturally appropriately.

Within a few days, though, the ANC changed its tune and moved to damage control rather than defending the president’s behaviour. Zuma himself, having initially tried to brazen it out, apologized.
Cosatu, after an initial silence, called on people to accept his apology. The SACP remained silent. Those who initially charged the media with invading Zuma’s privacy had dropped this line within a few days. It just didn’t hold water.

So we have three incidents involving ANC leaders accused of inappropriate behaviour with three different outcomes. What changed along the way?

Of course, the obvious difference between the first Mbeki incident and the other two was that on the first the newspaper did not have the evidence to back up its claim. It was also at a time when Mbeki was at the peak of his power and did not hesitate to wield the authority of his office against his critics. On the other two stories, the newspaper and stood its ground and the evidence carried it. The difference between the first Zuma story and the second – and the very different reaction – was a changed political climate.

Two years ago, Zuma’s allies were prepared to swallow all their differences and any weaknesses Zuma had because there had been a behind-the-scenes decision to back the one man they felt could depose Mbeki – and that was their over-riding aim. It brought together forces as disparate as super-wealthy business leaders in the ANC, the bling-leadership of the ANC Youth League and the Left in the form of Cosatu and the SACP.

This time around, it was not that the Sunday Times had more evidence, nor more credibility. Now was it that Zuma’s conduct was significant worse than in the previous episode. It was that the political ground had shifted.

For one thing, around the rape charge there were many demonstrations of support for Zuma. This time around, the media is filled with pictures and quotes of ordinary people saying they are fed up with his behaviour.

In the ruling alliance, the support for Zuma is no longer unconditional. The disparate forces that had put him in power were no longer prepared to back him whatever he did. He was put on terms, and he had to back down.

It comes at a time when the Left is uncertain that Zuma will deliver to them the policy changes promised during elections and so this time they used the scandal not to rally support behind him but to show him how dependant he still was on them.

Zuma’s most solid constituency, the more conservative, traditionalist forces who had previously backed him on cultural grounds, saw that he was also prepared to bend traditional values when it served the expectation of a “big man” leader. He had cut the ground from beneath them.

Zuma has survived this round, but I doubt he will ever be the same again as a political force. Some commentators have said he is the great survivor who has bounced back again and again, but I believe there has been a fundamental shift in the way he is perceived by the public and treated by the allies who brought him to power. He survived this round because the ANC could not afford to put a fourth president into office within just two years – which would make the party and the whole country appear unstable– but also because his competing allies could use the incident to tighten the harnesses around his neck. Their interest is not in toppling him, but making him more responsive to their competing demands.

It may be that a weak, vacillating president just became not quite a lame duck president, but certainly a lamer one. Expect him to throw sops to his right and left in a bid to placate his rival constituencies.

The Left continues to parry with him. They put up their list of candidates for the important National Planning Commission, while complaining that parliament (where they can exert more influence) is left out of the selection process. They push candidates onto the SABC board, but join the sharp criticism of the new Broadcasting Bill. They are allies, but tough ones with sharp elbows and keen eyes.

They can do nought else. To reject Zuma would be to relinquish much of the power they have. Their own candidates for national leadership – like Gwede Mantashe and Blade Nzimande – are direct targets of the centre and right of the alliance (in the form of the Youth League) who will have to fight to maintain their positions.

The centre-right of the party have yet to coalesce around a leadership more solid than Julius Malema. He remains a loose cannon and a divisive force, while the centre seeks a more reliable figurehead. There is no challenge to Zuma yet from these quarters.

Most interesting – and heartwarming – is that in the past two weeks the public spoke through the media to the country’s leadership, and the ANC had to respond. The President and the ANC’s climbdown was the best show of democracy we had in months, probably since Mbeki was driven from office at Polokwane.

Sometimes months go by when one feels that the media has little impact on the ANC and ordinary peoples’ voices are not being heard. Then something like this happens and the impact of popular sentiment and the media clamour is profound.

*This column first appeared in Beeld, 13 Feb 2010.

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism