South Africa

The dueling headlines tell of the tricky course South Africa has chosen for itself with regard to the situation in Zimbabwe. It is widely recognized that South Africa has the potential to be the biggest external power broker, whether through sticks or carrots, words or deeds. And so far, it is no secret, South Africa has chosen to act so tepidly that the country’s virtual inaction can only qualify as appeasing Robert Mugabe.

And so for readers of, say, the Cape Argus, it may have been reassuring that At Last, SA Condemns Mugabe. But for readers of The New York Times the message was quite different: A.N.C. Rejects Pressure on Zimbabwe. So which is it?

Well, as the Argus story makes clear, while South Africa did finally speak out against Mugabe, it also helped to block even stronger statements from the United Nations Security Council, which has unanimously rebuked Zimbabwe.  And in so doing, South Africa’s leaders have once again forced the world, which little understands the situation to begin with, to wonder, rightly, what on earth Thabo Mbeki could be thinking? Loyalty, even fairly blind loyalty, to the revolutionary generation is one thing. But at some point that currency was long ago spent. The idea that South Africa owes fealty to ZANU-PF at the expense of the masses of Zimbabweans desperate for change is absurd. Mbeki’s approach mystifies and infuriates much of the rest of the world. It is hard to see how either Zimbabweans or South Africans benefit from such an approach to the gravest regional crisis in years.

[Crossposted at the FPA Africa Blog.] 

Thabo Mbeki is receiving criticism from just about all sides these days. His reactions to the xenophobic violence are being called “too little, too late.” The country’s manufacturers fear that rising costs will cut into competitiveness, and heads of state always suffer when their economies falter. Morgan Tsvangirai has asserted that Mbeki is unfit to broker the Zim crisis for SADC. The utterly disillusioned South African Communist Party believes that Mbeki should face a recall and the country should hold elections early to replace him. And then there are the columnists. Increasingly it is difficult to believe that Mbeki will last one more year with the way his critics all around are sharpening their knives.  

Amidst Thabo Mbeki’s very bad few weeks let us not forget that Jacob Zuma has troubles of his own. The latest? Zuma’s presumed choice for the country’s chief justice slot, Cape Judge President John Hlophe, faces accusations that he lobbied at least two Constitutional Court judges for a pro-Zuma ruling.  Hlophe now faces possible impeachment. He also categorically denies the charges as “utter rubbish.” Of course from a career-saving perspective he’d almost have to.

It seems that the various issues that Mbeki and Zuma face tend to break down rather differently. Mbeki’s critics paint him either as incompetent, indifferent, or power-hungry. His are problems of leadership. Zuma, meanwhile, always seems to be in the soup for matters related to ethics or crime or nefariousness. His are problems of integrity. It is hard to determine which is worse, though for the sake or argument I’d maintain that in a democratic system it is easier to rectify incompetence than corruption among leaders. I would further argue that the Big Man syndrome that so haunts Africa tends to stem more from personal malfeasance than from political shortcomings. That said, neither is especially appealing in a leader and one would hope that someone with both governing savviness and personal probity would emerge from within the ANC.   
 

From Zapiro, The Mail & Guardian 29 May, 2008:

This analysis in The Mail & Guardian seems to capture pretty well the ways in which recent events — most obviously, but not solely, the explosion of violence against foreign Africans — seem to have shaken the ruling party from its complacency. The responses from Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma have been especially telling.

Even as Zuma has shown a fairly deft political touch on many of the issues facing the country, especially compared to Thabo Mbeki’s tin ear, it is still disquieting to hear talk from Mbeki’s anointed successor of the ANC being the inevitable outcome of divinely sanctioned rule destined to endure forever. This is not the sort of talk that seems likely to convince outsiders and the ANC’s internal critics that the country is moving in the right direction. Such perceptions are not vitally important. Nor are they meaningless.

Mbeki, meanwhile, continues to oscillate between shrill and defensive posturing and seeming fecklessness. One wonders who will be happier when the 2009 transition rolls around, the masses of South Africans who have soured on Mbeki and his leadership or Mbeki himself, who will likely find a golden parachute into the private sector.

Michael Gerson has a blistering column in today’s Washington Post about the crisis in Zimbabwe and what he sees as South Africa’s enabling of Robert Mugabe’s despotism. There is little new in Gerson’s column for those who have been following the crisis for a while, but perhaps voices like his will lead to more pressure from the American government on Thabo Mbeki, whose last year in office has been characterized by myriad failures real and perceived.

The ongoing xenophobic violence in South Africa has now spread beyond Johannesburg and may well explode into a national crisis. Metrorail authorities are beefing up security in anticipation that the trains are ripe for attacks on presumed foreigners and others.

The recriminations, of course, have already begun, with many pointing fingers at Thabo Mbeki’s government. For a roundup of South African press opinion see here.

Times are certainly strange in South African politics in a post-Polokwane world. After all, where else could a non-violent, indeed, from a constitutional vantage point rather smooth, inter-party leadership transition lead to what is effectively a lame-duck political status for many of those in power across the country at the national, provincial, and local levels? Indicative of this strange set of curcumstances, Thabo Mbeki, whose handling of the Zimbabwe crisis only served to damage further an already crumbling reputation, caved in his support for the controversial Scorpions crime-fighting unit largely because of pressure from Jacob Zuma and Zuma’s supporters and that organization will soon disband unceremoniously.

Clearly Mbeki is aware of this status, as is Zuma, and to their credit, neither man is pushing too hard in the face of realities: Thabo Mbeki is still the president of South Africa; he will not be a year or so from now. Zuma knows that this gives him leverage, but so far he has been loathe to use it too obviously. It remains to be seen whether this tenuous situation can hold. And the standard caveat applies: If Zuma goes down on corruption charges, the whole dynamic of the game changes overnight. Zuma knows this. So too does Thabo Mbeki.

At The Mail & Guardian last week longtime observer of South African politics Mark Gevisser, author of Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred, compares Thabo Mbeki to Barack Obama and wishes that the former would learn from the latter.  My only caveat: Beware analogies drawn too closely, as context matters.

A number of civil society groups concerned with Zimbabwe’s welfare and operating under the banner of the Institute for a Democratic Alternative in Zimbabwe have slammed the Southern African Development Community and Thabo Mbeki for their lack of resolve on the Zimbabwe question. In a damning quotation Wellington Chibebe of the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions asserts, ”For the SADC to have mandated President Mbeki to continue with the (facilitation) exercise, that is the joke of the year.”