The trial of Schabir Shaik underscores the fact that we are still a nation in transition between yesterday and tomorrow. Rich traditions from the liberation struggle will always form part of the South African body politic. But it is now time to leave many ways of the past behind.
What Shaik’s early testimony reveals is a view that old bonds of struggle loyalty and networks of power cannot be questioned in the new order.Â
He has claimed that the monetary and other gifts to Deputy President Jacob Zuma form part of those bonds — and are therefore beyond reproach and questioning by the courts in 2004. Even in response to attempts to establish how Zuma returned the favours, the subtext of his initial testimony was to ask: “So what?”
In effect, this argument thumbs its nose at the Constitution, which very specifically and deliberately seeks to avoid the conflicts that can arise when politicians become involved in business or have inappropriate relations with businesspeople. Zuma allegedly breached the Chinese wall between the two — but this is glossed over, and South Africans are expected to understand and excuse the lapse because it is how things were done in the good old days. This is one of the practices we must leave behind.
All old struggle relationships which present new conflicts of interests — and there are many more than just that of Zuma and Shaik — must be undone and made to fit into the framework of laws, regulations and codes South Africans forged together to make their democracy clean and transparent. Corrosive practices such as influence-peddling, patronage and rent-seeking have no place in the new order.
There are other ways we must also leave behind. A Markinor survey last week revealed that, in the eyes of a third of our citizens, Zuma’s reputation has been undented by the Shaik case. Far more alarmingly, before any evidence has been led in the trial, 38% of South Africans believed he is the victim of a conspiracy.
Over and above Zuma’s personal popularity, this indicates the extent of distrust in the institutions of democracy. The Scorpions, for example, face a constant barrage of antagonism, from both inside and outside the African National Congress. Their methods are sometimes questionable, but the agency has undeniably breathed new purpose and commitment into South Africa’s fight against crime.
The public reaction to other struggle heroes who went vrot — Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and Mzwakhe Mbuli come to mind — highlight the fact that the courts are not yet viewed as independent and trustworthy guardians of the law. In the court of public opinion they and other fallen icons are still viewed as victims of racial injustice.
Such a “rear-view mirror” view of the instruments and institutions of democracy must be discarded. Political education is needed to build their credibility, and to bridge the gulf between the formal courts of law and the court of South African public opinion or else we will live the ways of old.
Now we know
Now all is clear and out in the open — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan for “unilateral disengagement” from the occupied territories was a typical piece of Machiavellian doubletalk. Israel’s mainstream peace movement, Peace Now, and the Labour Party both bought into it. And Washington eagerly seized on it as evidence of Sharon’s bona fides. It has the blessing of United States President George W Bush and both houses of Congress, while US Secretary of State Colin Powell went as far as to describe the plan as “historic”.
Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s powerful legal adviser, bluntly told Haaretz newspaper last week that “the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process” … in a “legitimate manner”. There would be no Palestinian state and no discussion about the fate of Palestinian refugees, the dismantling of settlements, the future of Jerusalem or the borders of Israel. In other words, there will be no political progress on the Palestinian issue. Instead, there is the endless prospect of brutal repression by the Israeli security forces until Palestinians accept that — like the Jews of old — they are a people without a country.
Weisglass’s startling confession confirms the suspicion at the time of Sharon’s announcement that his Gaza “withdrawal” plan was a shrewd move to dupe the Israeli left and mislead global opinion, with the underlying aim of extending the Israeli land-grab on the West Bank. Sharon’s problem has been that that Israeli ultra-right has been too blinkered to understand this, viewing even the prime minister’s Indian giving as an unconscionable betrayal. Hence the indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate actions of the Israeli Defence Force in northern Gaza, including the large-scale destruction of infrastructure and housing.
This is a key reason the world has to pray that Bush is defeated in next month’s US election — with John Kerry in office, there is at least some possibility of US pressure on the Israelis to negotiate. As Weisglass has now ruled out a two-state solution, Palestinians and Islamic militants everywhere have no option but to struggle for a secular state in Israel/Palestine. That can only mean a less secure Middle East — and world.