Some sections of our media appear to believe in the dictum that if you have nothing to report it’s okay to indulge in idle speculation. And what better topic to indulge than whom will succeed President Mbeki in the distant year of 2009. Of course you could say that four years in presidential succession terms is not too far off – the path to the top is a long and drawn-out political process – but the manner in which the media is permanently in speculative mode on this topic might give the impression that the formal processes in the ANC have already started. They haven’t.
Nonetheless, acres of newsprint have been dedicated to the speculation. A 24-hour talk radio channel could be sustained for days on end by the issue. Not one week has passed in the last year without a story on it. And in the absence of a direct headline it is often embedded in other stories, in particular the Schabir Shaik trial.
Although it is Shaik who is on trial – the judge took the trouble to say as much at the beginning – the media have taken the angle that the whole thing is really trial by proxy for Deputy President Jacob Zuma. For those who might remember that the Scorpions declined to charge Zuma, there is often a statement to the following effect: if Shaik is found guilty then, as day follows night, Zuma will ”finally” be charged. But what if Shaik is found guilty of something that amounts to insufficient grounds for charging Zuma? Or often there is a statement that Zuma is guilty of bad judgement, which – you guessed right – makes him unfit to be president. It appears that in these stories reasons need to be found that make Zuma unfit for high office. Yet another interesting element to the Zuma angle is that most stories, often somewhat begrudgingly, concede that the Shaik trial appears to boost Zuma’s chances as it is perceived to be some form of political assassination by certain factions in the ANC.
The direct stories on succession are interesting because, as is typical of speculation (something that is not too far off from fabrication), the sources are nameless. The reason for using these nameless ”high ranking officials in the ANC”, journalists will argue, is that named sources could face censure or ruin the chances of the candidate of their faction. Of course another reason could be that while these sources do not exist, it is not implausible that someone in the ANC could give such a quote. The lack of sources also adds to a sense of intrigue, conspiracy, high drama, skullduggery, dirty tricks, political machinations and fierce contests in which the stakes are high for individuals, the ANC and South Africa.
Related to lack of sources is that the potential successors are never interviewed. Amazingly though, it is often mentioned that the person has in the past expressed disinterest in the position. Facts must, as the saying goes, not get in the way of a good story. Picture this: a person is not asked whether they would like to be president, but it is speculated that they are one of the contenders, notwithstanding the fact that they are known to have said to ”friends” or ”associates” that they are not interested. Publish anywhere!
Recently the Sunday Times broke the mould. They convened a panel to debate the issue and included some of the ANC constituencies, like Cosatu and the Youth League. At least there were no anonymous sources in that particular article. We could do with more of this type, which goes beyond guessing games on the usual suspects. But the exclusive story still needs to be written, where ”high ranking” sources and the so-called contenders go on the record.
Professor Tawana Kupe is Head of the School of Literature, Languages and Media Studies at Wits University.
