Fick ett mail från en kollega angående Jacob Zuma. Min kollega hade läst en text från Mail&Guardian. Tänkte det kunde vara nåt för dig också att läsa. Så här stod det i mailet:
Jag skulle inte köpa en begagnad dammsugare av denne man. Är han verkligen populär??????????
Mail&Guardian (South Africa) – March 14, 2008.
For two months Zuma has addressed the business world, Afrikaners, the Jewish community and farmers, as well as granting interviews to the international media, in an attempt to articulate what he stands for.
Other ANC leaders must be appalled by his repeated bouts of foot-in-mouth disease.
This week Zuma was forced to release a statement clarifying what he really meant by saying this or that. How embarrassing! Emerging from all the interviews and the public addresses has been a picture of a leader who has no core principles and who says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. In other words, an ambitious populist. He has, in effect, questioned a Constitutional Court ruling on the death penalty, preaching a vindictive gospel that is closer to ”an eye for an eye” than the rights-based criminal justice system our Constitution upholds.
He has complained that criminals are given more respect than they deserve and that the laws need to ”bite”. Ironically, he has spent many months and millions of rands of taxpayers’ money trying to ensure that the law does not bite him. He told the Financial Mail that South Africa should consider a dual labour system and then promptly somersaulted when he met the Congress of South African Trade Unions’s leaders, saying he would lay down his life for the workers.
”Uninspiring”, ”vague” and ”not very clever” were some of the phrases used to describe his performance at a forum on South Africa’s future hosted by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein last week. In a typical diversionary tactic, the ANC has accused the media of a concerted attempt to misrepresent its president. Perhaps the party’s other leaders should go and listen to him and gauge the audience reactions for themselves.
To top it all, the Financial Times strongly suggested this week that Zuma may have raised his case with Mauritian Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam in a bid to ensure that he gets a smooth ride through that country’s courts. His aim, as in South Africa, is to prevent crucial evidence from being presented at his upcoming fraud trial.
Ramgoolam now claims that Zuma did not ask for his intervention to block evidence being handed over to the National Prosecuting Authority, but that he merely explained the Mauritian legal system to the ANC president. Why would he do such a thing if the request was not at least hinted at? And what does this say about Zuma’s approach to the rule of law? Of course, the ANC can elect any leader it likes. But it should be thinking hard about whether Zuma is the kind of president South Africa wants. Like the archbishop, we do not want to bow our heads in shame after next year’s election.