So it would appear, according to the media and opposition mouthpieces at least, that the president is all but set to grant Schabir Shaik a presidential pardon. At least that is what the opposition allege and the media are not too shy to fan that particular flame. And why not? Zuma and Shaik are circulation gold bar none except Julius Malema. But of course whenever things get hysterical in this wonderfully heated country of ours, the whole point of the matter becomes a sad and sorry victim to agendas.
Fact is the opposition and general society are quite right to be vigilant against abuses of state power, especially where it pertains to people getting an unfair advantage by virtue of their connections. Tolerating such would be tantamount to negligence and an abrogation of our duties as citizens and guardians of our own democracy.
Where the point is missed though is when the matter gets crystallised into personalities instead of the more significant legal and political issues at play. We must not forget that in a society as (increasingly) fragmented as ours, turning matters into us vs them and pointing angry fingers only ever serves to cloud the issue and make any attempt to gain positive ground futile. Thus I despair when the opposition turns the (non?) issue of Shaik’s (unconfirmed) plea for a pardon into an attack on Zuma’s integrity as a person and a leader.
Currently we have random journos following Shaik everywhere but the gents and not quite thrilling us with somewhat less than riveting detail of his grocery-shopping expeditions and leisure activities in a sad attempt to stir up some indignation and mass revolt against one man who is quite irrelevant in the day-to-day running of the state. All that this achieves is that the opposition and their friends in the media come across as angry little political ferrets concerned only with personal crusades against individuals. Who wins when a sad little man is hounded around by vultures just waiting for him to either drop dead or break down and confesses all in humiliation?
Don’t get me wrong, democracies need watchdogs and “angry ferrets” to keep a vigilant eye on things — it was such ferreting that exposed the dark underbelly of the arms deal after all — but when your goals reach beyond being a noise in the crowd and you are trying to project yourself as a viable ruling/governing alternative, a more positive and less hysterical approach is needed.
The electorate indicated exactly how they felt about JZ and his perceived integrity in last year’s elections. And his increased approval ratings since show that his perception as a leader is growing. Why then choose to attack that? What could be gained? I would contend that a more positive approach — and one which would not alienate the opposition further from the electorate — would be for the president to be asked to detail openly the criteria he uses when considering appeals, for him to reveal the full list of applicants for pardons and then be held accountable to his own criteria if and when appeals are granted.
This removes the vindictive personal angle from the matter while also establishing a standard the president can be held to in later years when he has no personal friends on the pardons list. The pres will always grant some pardons, and he will always be expected to make that list public. He simply has no other choice. Why then scream and shout about who is on that list when no-one knows for certain if a formal, final list has been compiled? It is very easy for the Presidency to deny any allegations regarding this as until they release the list, nothing can be proven. Surely if I can figure this out then our dozens of well-respected analysts can? Shaik’s pardon is quite probable, but it is by no means done and dusted, unless of course someone out there is holding out on evidence to the contrary?
It is far easier to discredit a person through their own actions rather than through finger-pointing and name-calling. Again, a lesson that should have been learnt at some point between JZ’s dismissal as deputy president in 2005 and last year’s elections. Right now JZ and the ANC have endured enough vitriol and media persecution to have absolutely nought to lose by going ahead and granting Shaik a pardon. Really, can JZ be any more vilified over this than he already has?
A more positive approach says you are concerned about broader democratic values over cheap immediate political points. The tripartite alliance is doing a great job of showing just how damaging a petty points-scoring contest can be. Why then would any political body serious about being seen as a viable alternative follow exactly that model?
If SA had to choose between screaming idiots who were at the forefront of the struggle and screaming idiots who were living a life of privilege during that time, I know who 75% of them would go for.
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
