Much has been said about Jacob Zuma’s suitability to be the president of South Africa; much too about his integrity and intentions. He is certainly no Nelson Mandela. But it is far too early to say whether he is a Robert Mugabe as some of his detractors suggest. For the moment, the world has to wait and see whether he is as divisive in office as he has sometimes been in his long bid for power.
What is clear is that South Africans have voted for him and the ANC in their droves. They have done so despite the allegations of corruption, despite the suggestions that in power he would change South Africa’s Western-style constitution (which he denies) and that he would move to redistribute wealth to the poor, target whites, bring tribalism into government by favoring his fellow-Zulus — and in the process do untold damage to the country. All this so many South Africans ignored. It is said they have done so out of loyalty to the ANC and its role in the freedom struggle. That will certainly have been the case for older South Africans. But many people voted for it simply because of Zuma’s bold promises. They like the idea of redistribution. The end of apartheid brought them political freedom but for the vast majority, there has been no economic benefit. It is not just the massive unemployment. So many South Africans are living in abject poverty. They want out — and are prepared to listen to anyone who promises them a golden future.
That is going to be Zuma’s biggest headache. Expectations are impossibly high. Voters have been led or chosen to believe that he will give them jobs, homes, good schools and hospitals, roads and cheap electricity — not in the distant future, but immediately. Even if the world were not in the middle of a financial economic crisis, of which South Africa is not exempt, he will not be able to fulfill any of this in the short or even medium term. Disillusionment is inevitable. That is when the temptation to exploit racial and tribal differences will be at its strongest. Divide and rule is always too easy an option for governments unable to deliver on their promises. Particularly worrying is the accusation from Zuma and his followers that the previous Mbeki government was too “business-friendly”. Governments need to be business-friendly. It is business, not the government, that will provide the jobs and prosperity that South Africans want. But Zuma does not believe that.
For that reason, there has to be concern about what sort of South Africa will emerge under Zuma — and the world will be watching to see and analyze every move he makes. That will probably cause friction. Zuma has learned to be a master of defiance.
Since the end of apartheid its deliberate decision to lay past divisions aside and actively pursue reconciliation has been a powerful inspiration to the rest of the world. Part of that was due to the personality of Nelson Mandela, although not wholly so. There were others who championed reconciliation, not least Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It is no coincidence that Tutu has expressed deep reservations about Zuma as president. The rest of us will have to wait and see.
Taleban probing Pak frontiers
The Guardian commented yesterday on the latest developments in Pakistan, saying in part:
Ten days after the government of Pakistan agreed to the imposition of Shariah law in Swat, Taleban fighters spilled out of the valley into the neighboring district of Buner, just 60 miles from the capital, Islamabad. For the 650,000 inhabitants of Buner, the Taleban are not just the law. They man the roadblocks, order NGOs to leave their offices and loot them. If US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton reacted with horror and hyperbole (she said Pakistan represented a mortal threat to world security), the response in Islamabad was positively lethargic. It dispatched only six platoons of paramilitaries — not even army soldiers — to retrieve control of bridges and government offices. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said Clinton should understand that local customs are the guarantors of peace in Swat, but also hinted that the peace deal was conditional. Which of them is reading the situation correctly?
The physical proximity of the Taleban to Islamabad is misleading. They may have come down from the higher mountains and be threatening the plains. But the Taleban presence in Buner is more of a worry to Mardan, the second largest city in the NWFP, than it is to the Punjab. And it is one thing for men to be told to keep their women indoors in the NWFP and quite another for the same thing to happen in the urban belt running from Islamabad to Lahore. There would be bloodshed if they tried imposing Shariah on Karachi. Will Pakistan fall to the Taleban? The answer is that parts of the country have already fallen to them. But that does not mean Pakistan as a whole is in danger, even though there are fault lines running through the country, and through the Punjab itself, which militants are exploiting. Relations between the US and Pakistan are at an impasse. Neither can abandon the other, but neither can deliver what the other really wants. Pakistan’s army has neither the power nor the will to destroy the Taleban.
