'Hands off our president': Why Zuma's charges haven't nixed his support

Rogan Ward/Reuters
Former South African president Jacob Zuma waves to supporters outside the high court in Durban, South Africa, June 8, 2018.
  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 4 Min. )

Jacob Zuma’s two terms as South Africa’s president were dogged by accusations of corruption. It’s a legacy his party, the African National Congress, would like to scrub up ahead of 2019’s elections – predicted to be the hardest they’ve ever faced. Mr. Zuma was asked to step down in February, and he now faces charges of corruption, money laundering, and racketeering; on Friday, he appeared in court, where lawyers won a six-week postponement for his trial. But where some South Africans see a powerful man held to account, and a warning for other politicians, others see a smoke screen. The legal proceedings are an expensive show that does little to change what bribery looks like in their daily lives, they say. “There’s been corruption in South Africa since before Jacob Zuma was president, since before he was even born. Why do people think they’ll get rid of it just by getting rid of him?” says Nellie, a hairdresser and nail artist. She asked that her full name not be used, because she says she distrusts how media portray Zuma and his supporters.

Why We Wrote This

Fighting corruption means catching the big guys, or so political logic often goes. But for some voters, a cleanup campaign only matters if it affects their day-to-day lives, and they doubt this one will.

There wasn’t much to it. In a cramped courtroom Friday morning, former South African president Jacob Zuma sat in the dock and listened quietly as the teams of lawyers in front of him asked to postpone his corruption trial for six more weeks to finish preparing their cases.

The judge said yes. The court adjourned. And not 20 minutes after he had shuffled into the courtroom, Mr. Zuma was walking back out into the bright winter sunlight, a smile cracking across his creased, round face.

For many South Africans, however, this simple moment was also a deeply symbolic one.

Why We Wrote This

Fighting corruption means catching the big guys, or so political logic often goes. But for some voters, a cleanup campaign only matters if it affects their day-to-day lives, and they doubt this one will.

But exactly what it symbolizes is far less clear cut.  

For some, watching their former president appear in court to answer to charges of corruption, money-laundering, and racketeering is proof positive that their young democracy is capable of holding its leaders responsible for their misdeeds. On a continent where impunity for the powerful and well-connected has often been the norm, they say Zuma’s trial will offer a stern warning to would-be crooked politicians of the future.

“This is holding a very powerful person to account in an environment where that hasn’t often happened before, and that means a lot,” says David Lewis, the executive director of the South African nongovernmental organization Corruption Watch.

But for others, the fact that Mr. Zuma has been put on trial is a symbol of just how broken that system has become. They say that instead of focusing on flushing out the insidious and grinding forms of corruption that many South Africans face on a daily basis – like having to bribe police officers and doctors, or watching public money for their roads, schools, and hospitals disappear into the pockets of local officials – the country’s political leadership is using the former president’s prosecution as a smokescreen.

“There are all kinds of corruption in this country that we need to deal with, but instead we’re spending all this money and energy pinning the label on one man,” says Bishop Timothy Bheki Ngcobo, the provincial secretary of the National Interfaith Council of South Africa, who helped organize a vigil of Zuma’s supporters in Durban the night before the court case. (The government has spent more than $1.8 million on his legal fees, according to South Africa’s justice ministry.) “Corruption is becoming a word you use when you want to destroy someone’s image – it’s said without proof or interrogation.”

'Does it matter if he stole that money?'

That image of Zuma – as an underdog being victimized by a scheming political elite – is one the former president himself has long cultivated, says Sithembile Mbete, a political science lecturer at the University of Pretoria.

In fact, she says, it’s the very image that brought him to power in the first place.

In 2005, when Zuma was deputy president, his friend and business associate Schabir Shaik was convicted of funneling 4 million rand (more than a quarter million dollars by today’s exchange rate) from the French arm manufacturer Thales (formerly Thomson-CSF) to Zuma in exchange for facilitating a lucrative contract for the company to provide ships to the South African navy. The contract was part of a larger, scandal-ridden set of military purchases known collectively here as the “arms deal.”

Zuma was fired, and the country’s National Prosecuting Authority quickly moved to bring corruption charges against him as well.

But Zuma fought back, arguing the charges were politically motivated, a way for the then-president Thabo Mbeki and his allies to tarnish his name and destroy his career. Eventually, the charges were dropped, and soon after, Zuma became president.

“In a sense, it was these charges that helped bring Zuma to prominence and power,” Ms. Mbete says. “They made his reputation as a victim of the system.”

That reputation helped carry Zuma through nearly two terms of a presidency dogged by scandals and charges of economic mismanagement. But in February of this year, his party, the African National Congress, asked the president to step down, 14 months before the end of his term.

Many analysts believe the move was designed to help clean up the party’s image before general elections next year, which are expected to be the closest since the party first came to power 25 years ago. And reinstating the president’s corruption charges, both supporters and critics of Zuma say, was a way for the new administration of Cyril Ramaphosa to make a point about how serious it was about rooting out graft in government.

Both sides caught a glimpse of their version of Zuma Friday. In court, he appeared chastised and subdued, nodding politely as the judge addressed him sternly as “accused number 1.” But as soon as he stepped outside to greet the thousand or so supporters who had gathered in the road outside the courthouse, his mood flipped.  

“For many years, people have been saying, ‘Zuma is corrupt,’ but have they ever proved it?” he asked the crowd in Zulu, to loud cheers. Many in the audience wore t-shirts and carried posters reading “Hands off our president” and “Wenzeni uZuma” – What did Zuma do?”

Some were emphatic that Zuma was innocent. But for others, that wasn’t the point.

“There’s been corruption in South Africa since before Jacob Zuma was president, since before he was even born – why do people think they’ll get rid of it just by getting rid of him?” says Nellie, a hairdresser and nail artist from Durban who asked that her full name not be used because she says she is distrustful of how media has portrayed “the people’s president” and his supporters.

“Does it matter if he stole that money? Everyone in power steals money,” says Khethiwe Zulu, who runs a small construction company. “What matters is that he also did good things for poor people in this country. What matters is that he cares about us.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Hands off our president': Why Zuma's charges haven't nixed his support
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today