THE journalist and political commentator Allister Sparks recently suggested that, in order to get rid of him, and very much sooner rather than a moment later, a soft exit strategy be devised for President Jacob Zuma.
Such a plan would need to include amnesty – Baba is very much afraid that once he steps down he will find himself back in the courts facing all those corruption charges.
To this end, Sparks said, in Business Day on December 2, the ANC and the Democratic Alliance must agree to amend the constitution to empower Zuma’s successor to grant him a pardon. “Jointly, the two parties have the votes to do that. Zuma can then retire quietly to Nkandla while a new regime gets down to fixing the country.”
And there was much to do, Sparks warned, if we were to stave off the looming economic crisis and junk status ratings.
But that was then and this is now. If “fixing the country” seemed arduous a fortnight ago, consider the mammoth repair job we would now have on our hands in the wake of Wednesday’s catastrophe.
Hours after he had fired Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene, Zuma attended a business dinner in Johannesburg. There he delivered a rambling off-the-cuff address that despite ranging far and wide, covering many topics, yet again demonstrated we were not dealing with an embarrassment of riches when it came to a grasp of reality.
Consider, for example, Zuma’s take on basic economic principles: “I am not a businessman or a professor, but I am rebelling against [the idea that] what determines the value of a commodity is the law of supply and demand. I am against that definition. The value of a commodity is the labour time taken in production of that commodity. That’s what determines the value of a commodity.”
Like he said, not a professor. But even if he understood the epic nature of his failings, and just why he had to go, it’s unlikely that Zuma, given the brute peasant nature of his politics, would accept a soft exit before 2019. He knows there is only shame and ignominy in that. That’s why he did it to Thabo Mbeki. No way would he suffer the same fate.
Chances are good, though, that if Zuma did step down early, it would be for reasons of health. This is what happened to PW Botha, who I mention only because there are some interesting similarities between the two.
Botha was 73 when he had a stroke in January 1989. Zuma is 73. He gave the markets a stroke this week.
Botha stood down as leader of the National Party in February 1989, believing his hand-picked successor, finance minister Barend du Plessis, would succeed him. Zuma has a hand-picked successor waiting in the wings, ex-wife Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.
Botha’s plans failed, though, and FW de Klerk got the job. Will Zuma fail here too? Will Cyril Ramaphosa be ANC president? Time will tell.
In March 1989, the Nats elected De Klerk as state president but Botha refused to step down. He hung around for five more months. We last saw him on television in August that year, drool running down his chin. So much for a dignified soft exit there.
But back to Zuma. Perhaps the mountain of outrage and the rand’s tanking that followed Nene’s sudden dismissal has put the speculated cabinet reshuffle on hold for a while. At the time of writing, Trade and Industries Minister Rob Davies still has a job, as does Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande and Minister in the Presidency Jeff Radebe.
Meanwhile, the Zumanaut rolls ever steadily onwards. It will only stop, it seems, when the money’s gone. And that is coming soon. Why else would Nene’s prudential management of the Treasury have cost him the job? And what will his successor, David van Rooyen, have to do in order to keep the job?
The short answer, naturally, is to let Zuma do as he wishes. That’s pretty much top on the list of priorities. For starters, there’s an enormous, resource-sucking patronage machine to feed, and that new airline fleet, and that nuclear deal with the Russians. .
What worries us here, at the Mahogany Ridge, is that Van Rooyen will soon be scheming up ways to find extra cash. (As an aside, we have noted the new minister’s nickname, “Des”, and agree it is more suited to a bookmaker than a book-keeper.)
Raising taxes is perhaps inevitable. But that’s not going to solve much in the long-term. Would he raid the pension schemes? Who can say? We’re in for the hyena ride, and it’s going to hurt.
This article first appeared in the Weekend Argus.
