South Africa

[Zapiro, Mail & Guardian, 4 April 2008]

One clear division between Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma (and as stark as the political and personal conflicts are between the two men and their supporters, when it comes to policies and platforms most people could not stake out clear and categorical differences between them) comes on the Zimbabwe issue. Thabo Mbeki has been content to embrace “silent diplomacy” that many would be excused for mistaking for complacency and even acquiescence to Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship even if at times it has been unclear precisely what Mbeki could have done in recent years to force change in Zimbabwe. Jacob Zuma, on the other hand, has been rhetorically more aggressive in pushing for regime change across the Limpopo.

Recent events have thrown the differences between the two men into sharp relief. Almost certainly knowing that Zuma represents a desire for change, Morgan Tsvangirai, who has been traveling through South Africa to cultivate support, met with Zuma on Monday, though details of the meeting are scarce as the participants have remained mum. In contrast, opposition parties in South Africa have slammed Mbeki for remarks that most have seen as being fecklessly tepid if not tacitly supportive of Mugabe.

Hopefully by the time Zuma takes office Mugabe will be long gone from the Presidency of Zimbabwe. But if Mugabe manages to hold on for another term, however illegitimate, at least in this one arena the differences between Mbeki and Zuma are clear. 

The largest transaction to occur under the auspices of South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment program appears set to go through, and most observers are lavishing praise on the deal and its ramifications. The Economist has the details.

Stop me if this sounds familiar: Recently prominent South African political leaders met away from the country’s major metropolitan areas in order to determine future leadership. The divisions were stark and clear and the leadership campaign tightly contested between two men, both of whom have their supporters and their detractors.

Welcome not to Polokwane 2007, but rather to the ANC Youth League’s (ANCYL) annual national conference at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein. Some of the dynamics from the meetings in Bloem took on different characteristics from the internecine fighting of their parent organization. For example, in Bloemfontein both of the major factions had supported Zuma, as did the ANCYL constituency generally. But much else was up for debate in the leadership contest pitting Julius Malema (who received 1 883 votes) against Saki Mofokeng (who received 1 696). Malema’s allies swept the top five leadership spots, despite the fact that the voting results were similarly close in the winner-take-all contests.

Is this the future that the ANC can look forward to over the next generation? Constant infighting and bitterly divisive conflict? Perhaps, but quite likely not. The current divisions in South Africa are not permanent, do not have to be etched in stone. Still, the proceedings in Bloemfontein were intense enough to rouse Kgalema Motlanthe, deputy president of the African National Congress, to criticize the “state of disorder” that characterized the ANCYL meetings.

[Crossposted from a much longer post on the Zimbabwe situation at the FPA Africa Blog.] 

While South Africa maintains its wary silence on the elections, the ANC has issued a predictable and unexceptional statement asking Zimbabweans of all parties to respect the results, however they turn out. One hopes this boilerplate does not ask Zimbabweans to respect any results just because the government announces them however. By playing so close to the vest it is tough to determine precisely where the government and the ruling party stand. Finally, Desmond Tutu has weighed in, praising Mugabe’s legacy in a perhaps transparent attempt to soften Tutu’s request for Mugabe to step down peacefully.

Across Africa, and indeed the world, all eyes are on Zimbabwe. That includes mine, as I’ve been writing extensively about the election at the FPA’s Africa Blog. If it is possible to be both optimistic and cynical, that probably sums up the tone of my coverage.

Should a government have any role whatsoever in regulating journalism? That is the central question in the emerging debate about the African National Congress’ prospective establishment of a “Media Appeals Tribunal.” 

My initial reaction is that government is best removed from the business of regulating or challenging or facilitating its critics. This is especially the case when the state supports a substantial arm of the media, in this case the SABC and its extensive radio and television empire. Indeed, to go further, in the long run if anything maybe the ANC and the South African government generally, should be thinking of removing itself as fully from media involvement generally. Even if the SABC continues to thrive, perhaps it should receive only state funding, and not other state input.