Consensus is mounting that the country is moving into a growing crisis and that President Jacob Zuma is part of the problem rather than being the solution. The signs can be seen everywhere: from the international embarrassment his State of the Nation Address turned into to the scandals that erupt all the time around state institutions and those heading them.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a sinister strategy that underlies all these events, is unfolding, namely the Zumafication of the country. What does this strategy involve? Zumafication of the country takes place as Mr Zuma no longer runs the country through its institutions such as the Constitution, Parliament, the cabinet and government departments but is increasingly doing so through a personal network characterised by favouritism and cronyism (see Carol Paton's Financial Mail piece here).

His personal supporters belonging to this network are being deployed in key positions all over the country and carry out the president's personal agenda in exchange for power and financial gain. By co-opting the heads of state institutions the state is gradually being kidnapped quite literally. In so doing, the post-1994 phenomenon of political appointments that become a highway to personal wealth is perpetuated.

It is important to understand that a state functions through its institutions and is even constituted by its institutions. The basis for the Zumafication of the state has been laid by the ANC's ideology of transformation. This ideology aims to achieve ANC control over all levers of power, as ANC ideologist Joel Netshitenzhe put it. The process is helped along as the ANC as party is increasingly regarding itself as being synonymous with the "people", government and the state.

The boundaries have been fading at an increasing rate as party interests and the interests of the country have become completely merged. At the same time, the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the state has become blurred and in places it has disappeared altogether.

Then, Mr Zuma's inner circle began to see themselves as the party, followed by Mr Zuma who began to see himself as the party, equating his own interests with those of the state. As far as he is concerned, it therefore follows that the state would build him a residential complex worth millions, an island of luxury amid a sea of poverty because he is the People, the Party, the State and the System.

The Zumafication chain

The Zumafication chain, resultantly, started with transformation by virtue of which the party took control of all state institutions. This "democratic" control was intensified through cadre deployment which ensured that state institutions became politicised so as to serve the party rather than the country. The fact that politics, rather than expertise, became the determinant for appointments started to weaken the efficiency of state institutions and with it, the state as a whole began to weaken seriously.

In the next step Mr Zuma placed state institutions systematically under the control of his own personal network by means of the political exchange transaction comprising blind loyalty, protection and financial gain, all of which is mutual. Zumafication is not a new phenomenon. Noted historian and writer on African matters, Martin Meredith, believes it has as origin the "Big Man" phenomenon in Africa in terms of which many presidencies have in reality become "democratic" dictatorships.

The most important method of Zumafication happens by means of key appointments made by the president under the Constitution, complemented by the indirect powers he exercises over making and influencing such appointments. The number of state institutions thus hijacked by Zumafication is chilling.

Under the Constitution the president appoints ministers, heads of national government departments, and the Chief Justice and the other judges in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, the heads of the army, the police, the secret services, those of public enterprises such as the SABC, Eskom and the SAA, as well as heads of key institutions such as SARS and he appoints the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

That's not where it stops. Subject to the recommendation and approval of parliament, he also appoints the heads and members of Chapter 9 constitutional institutions that have to safeguard constitutional democracy. Given the ANC's 62% majority this is a mere formality.

This involves constitutional institutions such as the Public Protector, the Auditor-General, and the National Prosecuting Authority, the Independent Electoral Commission, the Human Rights Commission and other constitutional bodies.

When independent thinkers such as the Public Protector oppose him, the institution is undermined by cutting its funding. Moreover, as ANC leader with his vast KwaZulu-Natal majority in the party Mr Zuma has a major and even decisive influence when it comes to the appointment of provincial premiers, executive mayors and other influential decision-makers such as the Head of the Special Investigating Unit (the Hawks).

Furthermore, key persons who have personal ties with Mr Zuma are deployed as ministerial advisors in state departments. So Mr Zuma extended his powers to make key appointments and or to have a deciding influence on such appointments far beyond the limits of the law, and in so doing he strengthened his stranglehold on state institutions and the state as a whole.

These chain networks of personal rule and favouritism are firmly cemented by the personal benefits they provide to all involved, and the accompanying personal risk involved should someone dare to break rank. Ultimately, the outcome of this Zumafication is that state institutions serve the interests of the Zuma power network and not those of the country. The logical consequence of this is that corruption, as far as government tenders go, spreads like wild fire resulting in systemic rot.

Mounting opposition

The good news is that opposition against the Zumafication of the country is beginning to mount. This is evident from the increasing criticism coming from opinion leaders across the spectrum such as journalists, politicians as well as from some of the country's top business people, academics and influential foreigners. The recent spectacle in Parliament and the media storm it unleashed have shaken the ANC as well.

It can be assumed that the party's ringleaders are most concerned that support for the EFF and the DA may grow as a result. Pressure on the president can thus be expected to mount. Such pressure is being amplified by the fact that Zumafication is increasingly paralysing the state, which leads to mounting anger and resistance among ordinary ANC supporters because services in their towns and villages are non-existent.

South Africa is also very far from the typical African "capital state" where almost all key events and people are concentrated in the capital. South Africa is a country with dispersed political, economic, ethnic, civil, geographical and organisational power centres that simply cannot be hijacked permanently. It is already clear that there is a strong, informal power block against Zumafication and it is gaining momentum on a daily basis. Moreover, foreign countries hold sway over what is happening in the country, and the President's scandals and the woes they cause are increasingly in the international spotlight. Therefore - as contradictory as it may sound -Zumafication with all the harm that comes with it will eventually lead to its own downfall.

Replacing Mr Zuma will solve the ruling problem but not the more profound dispensational one though. The problem surpasses Mr Zuma and a solution that is more far-reaching than just his removal is called for. The President has too many powers under the Constitution, and the simple majority dispensation is beginning to give rise to majority rule.

Mr Zuma is not the sole cause of the crisis but he is the most serious result of the crisis. Practically, the country is becoming a one party-state with a great deal of democracy but with ever diminishing freedom. The replacement of Mr Zuma may nevertheless be an important first step towards improving the country and the dispensation.

Flip Buys is chairman of the Solidarity Movement.

This article first appeared, in Afrikaans, on the Maroela Media website.

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