Zuma vs Mbeki

Submitted by Muhammad Karim

I feel every South African has this going through their minds, consciously or subconsciously. We’re all witnessing the effects of Mbeki’s passive leadership. He seems to be making some serious faux pas when it comes to current issues such as Zimbabwe (“There is no crisis” and giving the green light to a Chinese arms shipment headed for Zim), and on other pertinent issues he just seems to be very quiet … as if he wants the country simply to trust that he’s doing his job and that everything will be just dandy.

Well, now that the fit has hit the shan, everybody is asking: What the hell is going on here? Why isn’t the president doing anything? What the hell does he mean there is no crisis in Zimbabwe?

We don’t need to see any statistics to know that the president’s approval ratings are probably as low as George Bush’s. OK, not that low, but they are getting there.

Mbeki is fumbling. Even though there has been amazing economic growth, some will argue that it is due to the action of Trevor Manuel and has nothing or very little to do with the president.

Many houses have been built for the people, but a whole lot more could have been built in the same time; there’s been mismanagement and it’s no secret that most of the current housing provided is far from adequate (bad construction, cheap materials, cutting corners and so forth).

On top of all this we have the crime problem, which the president had initially denied before admitting there was a serious issue.

His penchant for keeping ministers who continuously screw up (Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and others) doesn’t help things either. Reality doesn’t show Mbeki in a good light.

Zuma, on the other hand, being the only dismissed member from Mbeki’s Cabinet (and rightfully so), seems to be doing a good job of managing his brand — at least among his loyalists and recently even among some of his detractors.

No doubt, Zuma is eccentric and espouses some of the dodgiest moral values of any politician in South Africa. But wasn’t this also the case with Bill Clinton (an affair with Monica Lewinsky), Boris Yeltsin (being drunk all the time) and some other politicians worldwide who had deviations from the norm that weren’t exactly palatable to the public?

Now I’m not an avid supporter of either Zuma or Mbeki, but recently Zuma seems to be emerging as a far more active leader (or at least his views seem fairly action-oriented) when compared with Mbeki. He’s making sense and coming up with solutions to the situation in which South Africa finds itself (even if they may not be agreeable).

Mbeki’s only comeback recently was regarding his Zimbabwe “crisis” comment: he asked everyone to “credit him with some intelligence” — which didn’t have much impact. It didn’t it get much media coverage and hence didn’t affect public opinion in any way.

Zuma has been sharing his opinion on policy in various circles and has been grabbing media attention on issues such as quiet diplomacy in Zimbabwe and reinstating the death penalty. However, when it comes to a man like Zuma, his stance could be a mere tactic of “playing to the crowd”.

Zuma is good at action, but the whole country will worry about what action that will be. His generally corrupt relationship with Schabir Shaik and his downplaying of that can only mean that we can expect more sweeping under the carpet if he becomes president. There are no Scorpions any more to hold the people at the top accountable.

So this tennis match in the minds of the public between Zuma and Mbeki will go on for a while still. We don’t know who will win, but all we can hope for is that the country’s current downturn will change, no matter who happens to be at the top.

Muhammad Karim is a marketer and aspirant writer who blogs occasionally at www.karim.co.za