South Africa's President Zuma: Is this his 'let them eat cake' moment?

A 444 page report details $23 million in public funds spent on Mr. Zuma's home security; a swimming pool is described as fire fighting equipment. National elections are coming in May.

AP/File
The private compound homestead of South African President Jacob Zuma in Nkandla, in the northern KwaZulu Natal province South Africa, Sept. 28, 2012.

This post originally appeared on Africa in Transition. The views expressed are the author's own. 

There is an apocryphal story that in France, King Louis XVI’s queen Marie Antoinette was once told, “Madame, the people have no bread.” To which she replied, “then let them eat cake.”

The reality behind the story was of a self-centered court widely perceived as isolated from the French people. The French Revolution followed shortly after. 

A report issued by South Africa’s national ombudsman, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, brings Marie Antoinette to mind.

After a two year investigation she has issued a report finding that President Jacob Zuma’s expenditure of some $23 million on his Nkandla estate allegedly for “security enhancements” was “inconsistent with his office.”

Among other things, “security enhancements” included a swimming pool, described as fire-fighting equipment.

Ms. Madonsela's 444-page report urges Zuma to repay “a reasonable percentage of the cost of the measures.” The $23 million is several times the amount spent on the security of the residences of national icon Nelson Mandela.

President Zuma has responded that he will study the report and respond in “due course.” Thuli Madonsela has an enviable reputation for independence and probity. The story is carried in the New York Times, March 19, 2014.

The real kicker in the Times story is near the end. “Money to complete the work was diverted from inner-city regeneration projects.”

Here is where the “cake” comes in: diverting money from inner-city deprived areas for a private compound smacks of isolation from the realities of South Africa, and especially from the natural constituency of the ruling African National Congress.

National elections are on May 7 this year.

Up to now, South African voting patterns have largely been along racial lines, with the 80 percent of the electorate that is black voting overwhelmingly for the ruling African National Congress.

However, the party and Jacob Zuma are increasingly seen as isolated, incompetent, and corrupt. There is speculation that while the African National Congress will retain its parliamentary majority, the percentage of seats in parliament that it holds will fall substantially below its present control of two-thirds of the seats.

Should the ANC percentage fall below 60 percent that would be an earthquake in South African politics. There is speculation that if the party representation falls below 60 percent, it will remove Zuma from his position as party leader -- and, likely, the presidency.

This would be a ”revolution” -- of sorts.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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.