President Nelson Mandela confronted his former wife and troublesome deputy minister Winnie Mandela this week. But what a strange way he chose to do it.
It wasn’t over her fraternisation with dealers in illegal diamonds.
It wasn’t over her role in seizing the furniture and equipment last month of the Congress of Traditional Leaders, a body in which she has only a dubious claim to membership.
It wasn’t over the divisive role she has been playing in the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, where she has been at loggerheads with her minister, the Inkatha Freedom Party’s Ben Ngubane, and where she stands accused of using her position to promote her daughter’s company.
Nor was it over the fact that since she assumed the presidency of the ANC Women’s League it seems to have shown more interest in working with Omar Sharif to attract people to the country’s casinos than in dealing with women’s issues.
What Mandela seized on was her public criticism of the government of national unity at an emotional funeral in Soweto last weekend.
Such criticism may be a breach of protocol, but it is hardly a crime. It is not nearly as divisive as the role Winnie Mandela has played in other forums, nor as destructive to the ANC as her loose-cannon politics, nor as damaging as her criminal record for kidnapping. But the president chose this as the issue with which to confront his most pressing political problem.
Let’s hope it does not signal that Mandela considers loyalty more important than honesty.
Mandela faces a tough test of his political and moral leadership. His and his government’s reputation is being tarnished daily with reports of the antics — present and past — of three people in particular: Winnie Mandela, Peter Mokaba and Bantu Holomisa (who left a legacy of massive corruption in his onetime fiefdom, the Transkei).
Yet these three were placed among the top four positions in the ANC national executive elections in December. So Mandela has a problem with the three holding their current positions; but he has another headache if they are driven out of the ANC.
The reality he has to face up to is that it is no longer a question of whether he has to clip their wings, but when. He can either do it now and face the political consequences, or he can allow them to continue to erode his and his party’s moral and political authority.
The situation has already been compounded with the sense that the resolution of Allan Boesak’s position — a foregone conclusion at least two months ago — dragged on for weeks. And when Eastern Transvaal Premier Popo Molefe acted firmly to curtail the dubious activities of Rocky Malebane-Metsing, the national ANC leadership stepped in — to stop the premier. How wrong this cautious approach was became clear when the problem reared its head again in weeks.
Now it emerges that the ANC’s code of conduct governing the behaviour of elected representatives — so loudly trumpeted two years ago as a sign of the organisation’s commitment to ending corruption — has not yet been implemented.
What Mandela needs is a solution that keeps miscreant leaders in line, but attempts to avoid driving them out of the party into an even more mischievous role.
That will require deft footwork and tough leadership — things Mandela has been more than capable of in the past.
This is not a test of his ability, but a test of his will and his commitment to the establishment of better norms of behaviour for cabinet members.
The previous government had a free-for-all: a dishonest minister only ceased to serve on the cabinet if he was actually locked in a prison cell and his colleagues couldn’t get him bail in time for the meetings.
Now, while Mandela’s authority is strong and the rules are still being written, is when he can create and implement new codes of conduct for cabinet members.
With his lawyer’s caution, he seemed to be signalling this week that he would act firmly against leaders only once allegations are proven. This is too hesitant an approach, as illustrated by the Boesak affair.
Retrospectively, Mandela would have done better not to sit back and await the verdict of foreign funders. He should have instituted his own inquiry and taken action as soon as it became clear that the allegations were not without substance.
When key political leaders face a flood of allegations and widespread suspicion, when a leader’s reputation is so tarnished that it harms his or her ability to operate effectively — that is the time to act, and not when a judge rules that the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt.