South Africa’s post-Zuma political debate is increasingly so reductionist that it resembles the Bush Doctrine (“either you’re with us, or you’re against us”), with no room for nuance.
In reality, it is possible for both of these statements to be true at the same time:
- The President did something wrong and has serious questions to answer
- The Public Protector is incompetent and unfit for office
It is a reflection on the state of our country that so many people of every political persuasion want to believe so desperately that Cyril Ramaphosa can do no wrong, or that he should be “protected”, even to the point of ignoring alleged criminality.
These well-meaning South Africans believe that the Public Protector’s obvious blunders mean that Ramaphosa has no case to answer. Or they accept that he probably does have a case to answer, but they’re prepared to overlook it entirely because, well, he’s Ramaphosa and the alternatives are worse. Neither of these positions is logically sustainable.