This week the ANC won its political settlement for Jacob Zuma. It fell broadly within the prerogative of the NPA and was couched in enough case law to make it apparently legal and internally coherent. But this, like so often in law, was a case of the lawyer deciding first what the right course of action is and then finding enough law to justify it.

On the one hand perhaps the decision was in the best interests of the country (whilst it may not be in the best interests of justice). Jacob Zuma has been on a long leash attacking any institution of state which threatened his ascent to power (with the length of the leash kindly given to him by members of the ANC, COSATU and the SACP for reasons of their own). This is not a case of giving a dog a bone to pacify it but rather of removing the threat so that it settles down quietly. This was done just in time before Zuma and his supporters were given the power of the presidency and enough time to totally annihilate important institutions and plunge this country into political chaos and violence. We've seen in Zuma's rape trial, Malema's statements and the militancy of many Zuma's followers the depth to which they will go in defence of their leader[1].

On the other hand justice may have been best served by allowing the case to proceed, by letting a decision be made by a court of law after full investigation of the evidence. That in invoking this compromise we have irrevocably tarnished our justice system and undermined the public's faith in its impartiality. However, the system may have been tainted even further if the charges had continued and the full extent of the rot revealed. In addition the dangers mentioned above, and the legal justification for not going this root, remain.

Zuma's attacks on the courts, timed coincidentally (?) at the time of Hlophe hearings further indicates his willingness to attack when an ally is threatened. Hopefully (and hope is a tenuous policy) the ANC and Zuma, now off the hook, will drop Hlophe as simply not worth it.

What does all this mean?

Our call for good governance must continue. This must include a call for a judicial inquiry (with full investigative powers) into the arms deal, the dubious medical parole of Schabir Shaik, any abuses of state institutions and now the NIA tapes. It must also include protecting the integrity of the courts and equality before the law.

But it must also contain remedies to less glaringly obvious abuses; an undoing of the Mbeki legacy.

• With regards to state institutions we need to investigate and strengthen the independence of the NPA, reinvigorate parliament and parliamentary bodies and reform and strengthen other public institutions such as chapter nine institutions.
• We need to hold business and all political parties to account and not only those in power.
• With regards to the electoral system we need to push for reform and more direct representation. We need to campaign for transparency in party funding.
• We need to decentralise the power of the president in many not so obvious ways, e.g. appointments of director generals must not be political ones or made by the president.
• Crucially we need to turn our gaze away from the ‘kings of the ring' and realise that extremely damaging forms of corruption, mismanagement and abuse occur by those who surround the people in power. Not that it excuses anything but Schabir Shaik was probably far more aware of his corrupt behaviour than Zuma? We need to make sure that people like Shaik are not anywhere near the levers of power. This is far more time consuming and requires much more knowledge.

In calling for good governance we must not take the route of the opposition and further the ‘victimisation' of Jacob Zuma. We can support a judicial review of the decision of the NPA but we should do so intelligently. The average disillusioned ANC voter considering voting for Cope or the DA must look at this whole circus and think: the political conspiracy they previously dismissed has been ‘proved' and Zuma declared ‘innocent' by the legal system but Cope and the DA are still attacking him, surely this is unfair. This can only serve to assist the ANC's electoral aims.

Importantly civil society must be strengthened so that it can weather the coming storm and safe guard our democracy. This means leading a coalition of organisations from across the board in a campaign for good governance.

But good governance is not enough. We urgently need to cast our gaze ‘downwards' away from the dirty and sordid factional politics that has gripped this country for so long, and focus on issues of practical service delivery. Our water system is increasingly polluted and pipes are bursting; informal settlements without roads and street lights abound; millions still live in shacks and use the bucket system; everywhere infrastructure is crumbling; violent crime is rife with women, children and foreign nationals especially vulnerable; and access to adequate health care and education is still a luxury only some enjoy.

We must acknowledge the successes of our government which include amongst other things: millions of houses having been built; piped water delivered to rural areas; health care (in some areas) improved; macro economic stability and a repayment of all foreign debt; and a significant increase in social welfare.

But the economy continues to grow too slowly and the promised jobs do not materialise. So long as millions, especially young black men, live in poverty and unemployment their anger and dissatisfaction is rife for political manipulation and can be harnessed for dubious political ends and violence.

Protecting democracy requires both good governance and creating an environment of dignity in which we are able to actualise the rights so carefully encapsulated in our constitution. The two are not unrelated but rather symbiotic.

At this late stage we are left with the unsavoury task of holding our nose and swallowing the bitter bill of compromise which Mokotedi Mpshe has served up. Let us learn from the political instability of the past ten years, create programs of action that advance all of our rights and in particular those of the most disenfranchised, and work tirelessly to ensure that our democracy is rescued from under the feet of all of those which would use it as a stepping stone for their own personal gain.

[1] This does not imply that Zuma has overwhelming or even widespread support but rather that he has enough support that can be harnessed to intimidate others into submission in much the same way as the actual perpetrators of xenophobic violence were a minority within most communities but managed to drive out thousands of foreign nationals.

Gilad Isaacs is the co-chair of the Social Justice Coalition. He writes in his personal capacity.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter