TEN QUESTIONS THAT JACOB ZUMA MUST ANSWER

THE NATURE OF SOUTH AFRICA'S DEMOCRACY

1. The ANC and South Africa's Constitution

Jacob Zuma has refused to recognise South Africa's Constitution as the primary set of values and principles defining our democracy. He has twice stated that he believes the ANC is "more important" than South Africa's Constitution, indeed, that our Constitution only exists "to regulate matters". He has said that "no one person can be above the ANC" and threatened that "once you begin to feel you are above the ANC, you are in trouble", he has even asked how a person can live "if not for the ANC"?

Zuma's interpretation of the Constitution and its relationship to the ANC has consequences for the nature of our democracy. One such consequence is the ANC's tendency to conflate its will with that of South Africans more broadly or, as he put it: "once the majority [party] says that this is what they say, one should abide by it. That is democracy". This attitude is perhaps best illustrated by the current drive to disband the Scorpions, a decision not tested in the public domain, designed to drive an entirely political agenda and, no doubt, informed by the misplaced notion that the ANC is more important than the Constitution.

The Question that Zuma must answer:

"Will you retract your statement that the ANC is more important than the Constitution and acknowledge that it is the cornerstone of our democracy and supreme law?"

2. Separating party and state

Following on from this, as head of the ANC's deployment committee, Zuma has overseen the deployment of hundreds of ANC cadres to every kind of South African institution, from chapter nine bodies to the public service. It is an unconstitutional policy, which politicises the public service and independent institutions. Yet, it is one which he has repeatedly defended. He has argued that "there is no contradiction" in the policy; that there is "nothing wrong" with the principle and that "it does not, in any way, undermine the provision in the constitution [that party and state be separate]".

Zuma has explicitly defended cadre deployment as a democratic policy that "does not retard" the separation of party and state while deliberately ignoring the politicisation of independent institutions like the Public Protector, arguing that "no party would be able to abuse its power, because the constitution and these institutions are there as watchdogs in order to ensure that nothing goes wrong". Related to this, he has defended Ministers using public money to campaign for the ANC by asking "how do you distinguish these two? How do you say that because I am a Minister, well, let me not campaign because some are going to say that I am abusing my position. It's can't be. You have to campaign for your party." It is this attitude that informs the ANC's approach to fundraising, where influence with public representatives is sold in exchange for donations to the ruling party.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Will you stop the policy of deploying ANC "cadres" to key positions in the institutions of state, including those designed to limit and balance the power of the governing party?  Do you recognise the conflict of interest inherent in this policy?"

3. Legitimacy of the Opposition

Jacob Zuma has repeatedly suggested that the ANC governs by divine right, implied that opposition is illegitimate and that democratic elections are simply an obstruction to ANC rule. Three times now he has publicly declared that "the ANC will rule South Africa until Jesus comes back" - first in 2004, then again in 2007 and, most recently, in May this year. He has even implied that those who do not vote for the ANC will be damned, telling voters to support the ANC because they will be "blessed on earth and [in] heaven".

His latest such declaration is perhaps the most disturbing. He claimed that "God expects us to rule this country because we are the only organisation which was blessed by pastors when it was formed. It is even blessed in Heaven. That is why we will rule until Jesus comes back. We should not allow anyone to govern our city (Cape Town) when we are ruling the country." Implicit in that statement is the idea that the ANC governs by divine right and that, in turn, opposition to it is not only illegitimate but, in fact, opposition to God. It also implies that the result of a democratic election in Cape Town is unacceptable and that the ANC owns the city by right.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Will you publicly acknowledge that all political parties are equally legitimate before the law and that the results of any free and fair election must be accepted by all parties?"

THE KEY ISSUES FACING THE COUNTRY

4. Zimbabwe and quiet diplomacy

Jacob Zuma has repeatedly and explicitly defended quiet diplomacy, justified rigged elections and failed to condemn a tyrant. His description of the 2002 Zimbabwean Presidential elections as "legitimate, valid, free and fair" ignored substantial evidence to the contrary and your feigned ignorance about what is happening in that country - "What is it about Zimbabwe that makes everybody feel so agitated?" - is indicative of his and the ANC's refusal to put democratic ideals ahead of party political solidarity. Zuma's claim that "nobody in the world can say they have done better on Zimbabwe" suggests a level of denial comparable with President Mbeki. Zuma's allegiance to President Robert Mugabe, whom he publicly embraced after the 2002 election to shouts of "Amandla" and about whom Zuma has asked "how can we condemn him?", is inconsistent with South Africa's own democratic values and those in the African Charter of Human Rights. He has said the ANC government was not elected to deal with Zimbabwe, that it is "not our duty" - this is to ignore not only South Africa's and Zimbabwe's interests but the universal democratic values and ideals to which we have all committed.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Will you acknowledge that the South African government's approach in Zimbabwe has failed and that a human rights-based approach to foreign policy is needed, backed by appropriate international pressure when necessary?"

5. The Arms Deal

Jacob Zuma has defended a corrupt deal, repeatedly refused to investigate serious allegations and turned a blind eye to malpractice and dishonesty. In 1999 he told Parliament that government was satisfied that "the entire weapons procurement process has been an open and transparent procedure", that it was "was transparent every step of the way", he said that Parliament should not investigate allegations of corruption or risk ending up "discussing rumours and allegations that do not exist," which was, "unnecessary". Five years later Zuma argued that a corrupt arms deal was "just a figment of the imagination", that those who sought to interrogate it had "found nothing" - that "nobody has found anything" - indeed he has even gone so far as to ask, feigning ignorance again, "What is the problem?" And his assertion that "Whenever there has been a discovery of corruption, [the ANC government] has acted. Where there has been an investigation, at whatever level, it has never interfered" is as unbelievable as it is disturbing.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Will you admit that government interfered with independent investigations into the arms deal and ask the Chief Justice to appoint an independent judicial commission of enquiry to fully investigate all corruption allegations relating to the deal?"

6. HIV/AIDS

Jacob Zuma has repeatedly defended President Mbeki's Aids denialism, denied the damage his and the Health Minister's views have caused and, by his own actions, has undermined the fight against HIV/AIDS. Just after President Mbeki questioned the link between HIV and Aids for the first time (in 2000) Zuma defended him by saying "I do not know what damage one is causing by asking questions" and argued that Mbeki had caused "absolutely no damage" by doing so.

Zuma has repeatedly denied that the Presidents actions around Aids have been destructive, again feigning ignorance: "I do not know what damage the President has caused" and "I am not aware of South Africa losing credibility". Zuma has described Mbeki's stance on HIV/Aids as "towering" and whose interventions on Aids he has defended as "innovations" which greatly enhanced his international stature as "a serious thinking President and head of state who knows exactly what he is doing." That Zuma also justified government's long delay in complying with the Constitutional Court order to provide Nevirapine (He said he did not want to exclude "different views" and that he did not know how long it would take before government came up with a "final decision"), makes him complicit in one of South Africa's greatest tragedies.

Finally, Zuma's testimony that he took a shower after unprotected sex in the belief that it "would minimise the risk of contracting the disease" is as deplorable as it is a double standard, after all, he has repeatedly advocated that "no amount of intervention by government will succeed until people of their own accord heed the call for changing behaviour to save themselves".

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Will you distance yourself from the current ANC government's Aids denialism and admit the damage it has caused to the fight against the pandemic?"

CONFUSION AND DOUBLE SPEAK

There are a great many issues on which you Zuma have contradicted himself - either through actions or words - the consequence of which is confusion and a lack of clarity. The impression created, in almost every instance, is that Zuma's own personal political ambitions have overridden a once principled position.

7. The role of the Scorpions

In the past Zuma has defended and promoted the Scorpions as an essential part of South Africa's fight against crime and argued that they would not be able to operate outside of the law; yet today his party has acted to destroy them.

In 2000, Zuma highlighted the Scorpions as one of a number of steps government had taken to "deal with corruption". He assured the National Assembly that "there is no tension between the National Police Commissioner of the SA Police Service and the National Director of Public Prosecutions" and, perhaps most significantly, he stated: "...I can certainly give the assurance to this House that there is no abuse of any regulation, rule or law in the context of the operation of the Scorpions. We do have existing policing rules that they are utilising at the moment, as well as those that determine how the justice department operates. At the moment they are operating within the laws. We should have absolutely no fear that they could be out of bounds and abuse the rules because they are operating within the rules of the country." Zuma was explicit about where the Scorpions were situated in government: "...the department which is responsible for the Scorpions is the Department of Justice".

Yet today Zuma and his party have acted to disband the Scorpions and his acolytes have contradicted Zuma's previous assurances, arguing that the Scorpions are a law unto themselves, a view the ANC has endorsed.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Can you explain why your party is acting to disband the Scorpions, when you have defended the unit's existence on a number of occasions in the past?  Do you support Gwede Mantashe's stated position that the Scorpions must be disbanded because they are investigating ANC leaders?"

8. Labour laws

On many occasions, most significantly to Parliament, Zuma has defended our labour legislation as perfectly conceived and entirely adequate, and rejected calls for it to be made more flexible; yet recently he has questioned that self-same legislation and suggested it is inadequate. For example, he told the National Assembly in 2003 that our labour laws are "indeed conducive to job creation", that he didn't think "we can fault the laws." Zuma argued that labour legislation had nothing to do with unemployment, that "there are other factors that relate to the increase in unemployment or whatever, not the labour laws" and said that "the labour laws are very user-friendly for the most disadvantaged group of our people, the workers. Therefore they cannot be associated with creating unemployment."

But again, Zuma's position seems to have changed. He recently stated that our restrictive labour laws - in particular the minimum wage - prevented many people from finding work - that the minimum wage "does not consider the second economy". He criticised trade unions, saying that "the workers that belong there, the unemployed, can't reach the bar" and you argued that this is a "contradiction" which government needs to address, "because there is no regulation that says ‘how do we make the two [the first and second economy] link?'" Zuma recently called for greater labour market flexibility on the grounds that rigid labour laws were "counting out the poorest of the poor" from the job market. He then retracted his comments under pressure from Cosatu.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"What is your position on labour market flexibility? Do you think that current labour laws hamper job creation or not?"

9. The independence of the SABC

In the past Zuma has defended the SABC's independence as essential; yet today his party - under his leadership - has acted directly to undermine that independence and to replace a board it feels is biased against it, with one the it feels will favour it. Zuma previously told Parliament that it was the ANC government that "called for the independence of the SABC". Indeed, he argued that it was "the ruling party in particular" who had championed an independent SABC. He said "that is why we have that independence" and warned that "we cannot undermine it" before assuring Parliament and that he did "not think there should be any worry about that [its independence being undermined]". Zuma also defended the process behind the board's selection, saying the ruling party could never simply impose its will, or remove a board: "There is a process" he said, "which determines how the board comes about".

But today the South African public is forced to watch the battle between President Mbeki and Zuma play itself out over the composition of the SABC board. Indeed the fight no longer seems to be over whether or not the board is independent, but which faction of the ANC it is loyal to. Zuma's allies have stated that the current board - elected by the very process he defended - "is not a good signal" and have implied that, because there was a change in the leadership of the ANC, so too should there be a change in the SABC board: "[the ANC] voted for change, not the status quo". As a result of this feud, "the process" that determines the selection of that board has been undermined and ridden over roughshod to the point that it has become farcical.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Do you believe that the SABC should be an independent institution and can you guarantee that the process to appoint the Board will be free of executive and ruling party interference?"

PUBLIC PROFILE

10. Suitability for public office

Jacob Zuma has made several pronouncements in relation to his forthcoming corruption trial which indicate a seeming lack of respect for the rule of law and bring into question his ability to hold the office of President.

He has repeatedly promoted the idea that public servants should be upstanding and honest, and that they "in particular, more than anybody else, ought to be aware that they should be more upright and transparent in so far as the use of public funds is concerned". He has stated that "...I do not belong to those politicians who make mistakes and believe that that is how politicians operate", rather that he believes politicians should be "exemplary in what they do". And he has said, with regard to the fight against corruption, "the most important thing is that we have a system to deal with it and, who comes to the net is not the issue, it could be anyone".

Yet Zuma's own actions (and many of his other statements) run contrary to these ideals. He has said, when politicians do not act appropriately, that he is "not among those who condemn politicians" and he has refused to relinquish his position as head of the moral regeneration movement on the grounds that he had "not engaged in any immoral activities." Yet two courts - the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Constitutional Court - have found that Zuma was paid monies by Shabir Shaik "in order to influence" him "to promote Mr Shaik's business interests". And, despite Zuma declaring "[I am ready] to defend myself and clear my name", he has acted to delay and prevent his trial from reaching court.

But Zuma's seeming disdain for the rule of law (perhaps exemplified by his attitude to the Constitution) does not end there - it extends to the most basic human rights enshrined in our Constitution. His statement that "same sex marriage is a disgrace to the nation and to God" and his claim that "when I was growing up, ‘ungqingili' [homosexuals in isiZulu] could not stand in front of me, I would knock him out" were disgraceful and certainly not becoming of the highest office in the country - the very office designed to embody, protect and promote this country's constitution, its values, ideals and principles.

The question that Zuma must answer:

"Can you offer South Africa the assurance that, if elected to the Office of President, you will uphold the dignity of that office and that you will step down from office should you be convicted on a criminal charge?"

Document issued by the Democratic Alliance June 19 2008