Jacob Zuma’s brinkmanship typical of many leaders before him
So much has been made of the tea party that happened at former president Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead last week.
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) commander-in-chief Julius Malema and those accompanying him were at pains to downplay its importance in the greater scheme of South African politics, choosing to gloss over its awkwardness by using the quote “in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, just common interests”.
There is a reason the EFF and Zuma tried to downplay the importance of the meeting, because that’s what it was, a meeting between a man who is set to become the first former president to defy South Africa’s highest court and the most vocal opposition party in the country.
Part of the media speculation about the real reason behind the meeting is that Malema, Tony Yengeni, Dali Mpofu and Mzwandile Masina were attempting to get the former president to reconsider his stance over his chosen path of defying a Constitutional Court (ConCourt) order to avail himself at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture and answer questions put to him.
ALSO READ: MK vets head to Nkandla to pledge support for Zuma
Zuma’s game of brinkmanship is not new, it is the refuge of desperate current and former rulers whose actions have painted them into a position from which escape is impossible.
The late Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe took this brinkmanship to the ultimate when he promised his people to resign but went on national television and made a spectacular about-turn, forcing the hand of the military into ousting him. It was a tactic that had been used before by another despot, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko, who negotiated a deal to share power with other political parties in 1990 but kept stalling on its implementation until 1997, when he too had to be ousted by his country’s military.
But one doesn’t have to go to that far back for examples of leaders who have chosen to defy their own country’s institutions in the hope that their public display of defiance will cow the institution into backing down and admitting defeat. Only a month ago, former US president Donald Trump used brinkmanship to try to win an election he had lost.
Although the contents of the discussion between Malema and Zuma have not been clearly reported publicly, the importance of the meeting being a public one must not be ignored. Malema and those accompanying him could have easily had the meeting without any fanfare but the public display was important.
ALSO READ: Who funded Zuma and Malema’s ‘tea meeting’? DA writes to Speaker Modise seeking answers
The meeting came right after Zuma had indicated that he was ready to go to prison if needs be to avoid testifying to a commission led by ConCourt Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
Whatever Zuma eventually decides to do, whether he chooses to pit his supporters against the country’s constitutional structures by choosing defiance or whether he backs down and does what is asked of him, Malema and his tea party associates have placed themselves in a position where they’ll come out smelling like roses either way.
If Zuma backs down, the EFF leader gets the credit, if not, Malema is still seen as having reached out to a victimised man.
ALSO READ: ‘I am prepared to go to prison’ – Zuma set to defy ConCourt ruling over Zondo inquiry
Mugabe, Sese Seko and Trump all engaged in their brinkmanship because they believed they were above the law. They believed that they could bend established structures to their will, not what the law says.
Malema has just lent his political clout to a man who can easily join the list of those despots. South Africa does not need a modern-day Sese Seko. No one, not even a former president, must be allowed to be above the Constitution.