Posted on September 22, 2008 - by Justin Hartman
Zuma has the last laugh
Hey, it looks like you're new here to my blog! You may want to consider subscribing to my RSS feed and you'll automatically get notified when I post a new blog entry. If web feeds aren't your thing then why not join my email list by clicking here. Thanks for stopping by.
The big news of the weekend is the resignation of Thabo Mbeki and I can’t help but feel that Zuma is sitting with a God-forsaken smile on his face right now at the irony of how he’s finally got his revenge.
I don’t think even Zapiro realised just how pertinent his cartoon of Zuma raping the justice system (below) would be in the days leading after its publication in the Sunday Times.
Our acquitted rapist, fraudster and down right dimwit has successfully managed to escape any prosecution and in turn flip the whole political situation on its head by having the ANC recall Mbeki. I guess it’s a case of he who laughs last?
I’ll state this outright - I hate Zuma and I despise anyone who supports him however, I do think this new political turmoil is very much needed in a country that has lived far too long under Mbeki’s denialist regime.
Mbeki is a clown. HIV/Aids never existed, Mugabe was never the problem in Zimbabwe and crime in our country was never an issue. These are just some of his insane beliefs we’ve been subjected to over the last few years and I’m happy we’ve seen the end of it.
While I really think Mbeki being ousted is a positive thing I’m deeply concerned about where we go to from here. I have no faith in Zuma or his political allies and I can’t see how the new regime is going to be any better - in fact, I think it’s going to get worse.
Overall I have to say these are troubled and uncertain times and I’m watching the political space in trepidation of what will happen next.
I am the MD and co-founder of 
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
I couldn’t agree with you more, but really I think it could have been handled a little differently! I mean, constitutionally Mbeki was not able to run another term anyway.
Its going to be an interesting few months ahead, shaky, but interesting…
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
On the one hand I agree Byron. 8 months left of his presidency is not a long time to have seen this out but revenge was the motivating factor in this decision.
Well, that’s how I see it anyway.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
aah, so that was _that_ cartoon - I missed it last week.
now watch Fifa get cold feet and give 2010 to whoever is plan b. troubled and uncertain indeed…
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
Revenge was definitely the motivation behind the decision for sure. At the end of the day though, whats done is done, and the truth will one day show. I don’t think Zuma is innocent, and I am sure that Nicholson was paid off, but thats just the way I see it.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
Mbeki was indeed a clown, but Zuma is definitely a few notches up the bozo ladder from him. I think I agree with everyone who has commented.. I just wish there was something ordinary people could be doing to work towards fixing this situation before things become desperate.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
I agree with you that Mbeki had to go, however, I can’t see the possibility of Zuma replacing him as a good thing at all - so I agree with you there. In a time of political turmoil you need a solid leader - and Zuma hardly qualifies.
As a matter of fact, I think the word clown suits him better than it suits Mbeki, he’s already demonstrated an immense lack of thought on numerous occasions (a shower to prevent AIDS anyone?)
I sortof echo Byron’s comment about the pay-off - the numerous members of the ANC that commented seemed a little bit “too sure” about what the decision would be - all that talk about Nicholson “looking sober” and “they’re sure he’ll make the right decision.” I smell a sewer full of rats.
And Nicholson’s comments about conspiracies? That was irresponsible of a senior judge, considering the current political climate.
Last thing I agree with you on - I hate Zuma too.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
Just a correction … Zuma has not been acquitted of fraud or corruption. The charges were dismissed which means that he is not “not guilty”. It does leave the door open, implausible as it will be with a Zuma government, of charges being reinstated!
But why is Zuma that bad? I mean, he thought a shower protected him from HIV, that is one up on Mbeki who barely believed it existed! He recognises that there is/was a problem in Zimbabwe, that is one up on Mbeki who denied there is/was a problem! He acknowledges there is a crime problem, which is one up on Mbeki who said “what crime problem, I have never been a victim of crime”. Yes, he is corrupt, but so is Mbeki and the entire ANC elite!
Think what benefits we will get out of a Zuma regime: a new Minister of Health (probably Nosizwe Routledge, remember how everyone cried murder after Mbeki sacked her for doing the right thing?), we will also get rid of those idiots in Cabinet like Alec Irwin, Charles Nckula and Essop Pahad! Also, think of it this way, how many African countries actually have a change of leadership where the incumbent doesn’t get his way?
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
“And Nicholson’s comments about conspiracies? That was irresponsible of a senior judge, considering the current political climate.”
How could it be irresponsible? The nature of Zuma’s claim to the court was based on a political conspiracy - of course the judge had to comment on it since this is the question he was asked! He was not ruling on Zuma’s guilt or innocence but rather on the procedural point of whether the correct procedure was carried out by the NPA. When Zuma asked the court to review it he cited a political conspiracy as the motive for the NPA not following the procedures as set out by law. Thus Nicholson was obliged to answer that question in his judgment!
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
White folks comments in rainbow nation
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
@Evan Bletcher
I don’t think the concern is as much for Zuma’s policies, or lack of them - he’s cosied up to so many people both locally and overseas even he must be confused as to where he stands.
From my point of view, the problem is quite obviously the following:
1. his mental capacity and lack of basic education
2. corruption charges leveled against him that he has not be cleared of
3. more importantly, the image this presents to the rest of the world and the effect it will have on our international relations
Where Mbeki at least managed to present some kind of statesmanlike image, Zuma comes across to the average 1st world citizen as a backward, belligerent and wilfully ignorant criminal.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
“…of course the judge had to comment on it since this is the question he was asked!”
No … the question asked was whether the charges against Zuma had followed correct procedure, which they hadn’t - and in this case his judgement was correct.
However, he then went one step further and started theorising about conspiracies - that wasn’t part of his mandate as far as I was concerned - and he specifically implicated Mbeki, which gave the ANC all the ammunition they needed to get rid of him. None of this had been proven or even investigated - all we’ve had so far are wild utterances by JZ’s crowd, not to mention that loudmouthed idiot Malema.
Stop for a moment and think of the image our country is presenting to the rest of the world right now … these are days where I can be seriously ashamed of calling myself South African.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
@Luke I think you hit the nail on the head. For me those are the core issues as well and I agree that Mbeki had flaws but presented himself as a “good” politician. Zuma on the other hand leaves much to be desired and lacks some basic political skills and etiquette.
I think both you and J Hayes are correct in the concern over how we are perceived by the rest of the world. This is a BIG concern but at the same time I’m more worried over the state of the nation and whereto from here…
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
You have not read the judgment. I did and it took me a long time - it is a very long judgment. Arguing that the procedure has not been followed is only one step, it doesn’t get the charges withdrawn unless you can show that your rights have been violated. In order to show that his rights had been violated Zuma had to show some sort of conspiracy (not necessarily a political one) since if he did not there was no motif for the NPA and the court would just have ordered the NPA to allow Zuma to make the representations that he was not allowed in the first place. The judgment is clear, that the procedure had not been followed and that this violated Zuma’s right since there was a motif for the NPA to do this! If he did not refer to the conspiracy question then Nicholson’s judgment would have been moot.
In terms of South Africa’s image abroad? Well I will tell you since I live and work abroad and the image is positive … there is a change of leadership as a result of a leader (Mbeki) being help accountable by the electorate in an African country! Wouldn’t it have been nice for Zanu-PF to have done the same with Mugabe? Or wouldn’t it have been nice for this to happen to Charles Taylor, or Hosnei Mubarak? Who replaces him is a separate issue, lets see what Zuma is actually like! I mean George Bush was very popular before 911, so was Tony Blair! Really, what I am saying is lets give the guy a chance before we try to bring him down!
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
@Luke
“1. his mental capacity and lack of basic education”
Since when is mental capacity or education a necessity for good leadership? George Bush has an MBA from Yale! Most apartheid leaders were leading academics!
“2. corruption charges leveled against him that he has not be cleared of”
We all know that Zuma is guilty, we don’t need a court to tell us that. On the other hand we all know that the arms deal was the most corrupt deal ever in this country. We all know that half (actually all) the cabinet took bribes, so does this invalidate the candidacy of the entire government for the presidency?
“3. more importantly, the image this presents to the rest of the world and the effect it will have on our international relations. Where Mbeki at least managed to present some kind of statesmanlike image, Zuma comes across to the average 1st world citizen as a backward, belligerent and wilfully ignorant criminal.”
I would disagree! The image that Mbeki has brought to the world of our country is a denialist mentality - in denial of all the problems, Zimbabwe, crime and HIV! Mbeki is viewed in most of the Western world as a failure!
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
Mr Blecher, please feel free to argue the finer points of this situation until the cows come home. Personally I believe that if anybody thinks (or wants to convince themselves) we are better off as an emerging democracy with Zuma at the helm they need to have their head read.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
I never said we are going to be better under Zuma than Mbeki! I am far from a Zuma fan, I would rather we had neither Zuma or Mbeki! What I am saying is that we should give him a chance before we judge him! It seems as though everyone who has been critical of Mbeki is now his number one fan!
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
You lost me at George Bush
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
Then all is lost! It wasn’t rocket science!
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
To imply that Bush has normal mental capacity or that his leadership has not been disastrous on all the levels I am concerned about Zuma’s begs questions about your own mental capacity.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
@Luke
You implied that education was a necessary condition for good leadership by saying that his lack of basic education is a “problem”. My example of George Bush, who is incredibly well educated indicates that education is not a necessary, nor sufficient condition for good leadership. In fact, history shows that a good education is not a pre-condition for good leadership, lets throw out two recent examples:
George Bush, MBA (Yale - top 10 global university)
Robert Mugabe, 7 degrees including from Oxford, London and UNISA
I was not implying that Bush has normal mental capacity or has been a good leader, in fact I was implying that he has been a very poor leader, as represented by his unpopularity in his own country (yes, he is very, very unpopular in the US). So just because a person is poorly educated it does not mean they will be a poor leader. Trevor Manuel and Tito Mboweni have no education in economics or finance yet they both have been recognised as being good leaders in their fields! Performance in government in South Africa is actually negatively correlated with education - the most successful government ministers have actually been the ones with the least education. I am not implying that one has to be poorly educated to succeed in government, what I am saying is that one should not assume that there is a correlation between education and leadership, or even intelligence and leadership!
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
Bush’s MBA is meaningless, we both know that. If you read my comment, I said “basic education”, which I stand by as a prerequisite for diplomacy and leadership at an international level. This conversation has become tedious.
Visit My Website
September 22, 2008
Permalink
It is becoming tedious … we both have strong views on the matter!
Visit My Website
September 23, 2008
Permalink
Aw, c’mon, guys
Zuma might be all these things and more, but would it really hurt that much to unite behind him? Haven’t we white people been on the sidelines long enough. If you can’t beat them…
Visit My Website
September 23, 2008
Permalink
I beg to differ. Tito Mboweni does actually have a MA in Development Economics. Not that he seems to understand what he’s doing half the time. But this is all beside the point. We were talking about Nicholson’s judgement.
The issue of the case was not having the charges withdrawn. The issue was having the procedure declared unlawful. That was it. The so-called conspiracy has nothing to do with it, and it was a matter that Nicholson was not required to rule on, nor should he have in the first place. In effect, Nicholson has actually made allegations, which a judge should never be doing in the first place.
In any case, Mbeki is now appealing the matter to have those particular comments from Nicholson put aside, something which is clearly his right.
Visit My Website
September 23, 2008
Permalink
@JHayes
Development economics is very different to economics or finance. As an economist I would be the first to argue that it is not a good qualification for public finance which is what the Minister of Finance does!
I suppose the appeal will decide if Nicholson was correct or not! Although I would suggest reading the judgment first since Nicholson explains in particular detail why he was required to comment on it.