Meanwhile in South Africa…

• Sense of responsibility

There is a reason why parliamentary system of democratic governance, despite failing in fulfilling the needs and rights of the governed, is still backed as an acceptable replacement to monarchical forms of government by politicians in third-world countries. There is a reason why presidential system, despite all its fallouts as seen in the form of Trump’s election and rule, is given preference over former by political pundits and analysts. There is a reason why Thrasymachus drew the conclusion that “In all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government”. There is a reason why Plato, in M. Judd Harmon’s words, held democracy as “the corruption of oligarchy” which by its very nature “cannot long remain moderate”. There is a reason why tears filled in Cyril Ramaphosa’s eyes on being announced as African National Congress’ new president.

The reason in all the aforementioned notions is the same – the people. It is the people whose questionable morality and ethics make the entire electoral process and criteria of representation in parliament dubious. It is the people whose keen interest in gaining cognition about the candidates and their policies on national security, education, health, etc, have made the presidential system a pursuable model. It is the people who share the common instinct of using power for their own benefit and who, if given the opportunity, will serve their own interest at the expense of others. It is the people whose capability of governing themselves is repeatedly questioned and abhorred by Plato. It is, however, the people, or the power vested in them of discriminating between truth and falsehood and making decisions, that brought Ramaphosa, Nelson Mandela’s choice for future president and the one who played a crucial role during negotiations that brought about a peaceful end to apartheid, into tears on his win.

The significance of Ramaphosa’s victory is three-fold and all its dimensions revolve around Jacob Zuma, the serving president of the Republic of South Africa. a) In defiance of never being formally indicted for illegal activities and his much publicised role as a proponent of peaceful transition of the country from racial segregation to democracy, he has been widely castigated for the conduct of his business interests, his alleged involvement in several extramarital affairs and bribing the individuals, and, most importantly, serving as President Zuma’s right-hand man for the past five years (its implications will be discussed later); b) He has grappled and snatched the win from former cabinet minister and Zuma’s ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, after a close match with a margin of not more than 179 votes; c) His campaign emerged as anti-Zuma and entirely revolved around the promise of targeting corruption, hence the uncertainty that has encapsulated Zuma’s future owing to high probability of Ramaphosa seeking his “recalling”.

Pakistan’s former premier and Mr Zuma share an uncanny semblance owing to a common hatchet which could not be buried – the Supreme Court

Now, what makes Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma such a pivotal character is not unprecedented to the denizens of the Indian subcontinent, in general, and Pakistan, in particular. In fact, Pakistan’s former premier and Mr Zuma share an uncanny semblance owing to a common hatchet which could not be buried – the Supreme Court. In another historical ‘Friday’ ruling given by the Republic of South Africa’s highest court of appeal on 13 October 2017 has paved the path for carrying out “the prosecution of Mr Zuma on serious criminal charges, including charges of racketeering, corruption, money laundering and fraud”. Sounds familiar?

Nonetheless, the only fine line that differentiates South African politics from ours is that of the end result. There, a candidate who was being backed by her ex-husband and serving president and who had campaigned all along against the enduring power of white-owned businesses with a pledge to tackle continued racial inequality was turned down by her own deeply rifted party and was able to bag 2,261 votes as compared to the figure of 2,440 that made Ramaphosa the successor of President Zuma. Here, not only did the ruling party re-elect its disqualified ‘owner’ as its president in an unopposed contest, but people also made the ousted premier’s wife victorious in NA-120 by-polls. There, people discriminated between truth and falsehood. Here, people, when given the opportunity, used their right to vote for their own short-term benefits at the expense of others. In the given scenario, Plato surely does not seem wrong in regarding the masses as unfit both to govern themselves and to select efficient governors.

What the entire world witnessed in Zimbabwe in the second-half of this year was yet another manifestation of power struggle wherein tensions between Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa and First Lady Grace Mugabe led to a coup d’état. Senior member of the ruling party ZANU-PF Paul Mugabe stated: “The main charge [against President Mugabe] is that he has allowed his wife to usurp unconstitutional power when she has no right to run government, but she is insulting civil servants, the vice president, at public rallies. […] He is a stubborn man, he can hear the voices of the people, but is refusing to listen.” Here, the beloved princess has never missed a single chance to make derogatory remarks against state institutions in the wake of her daddy’s disqualification. “Not only have NA-120 voters rejected the Supreme Court’s decision, but also rejected the court’s spokesmen,” are her own words.

In Zimbabwe, as opined by director of the Centre for African Renaissance Studies at the University of South Africa, Grace Mugabe was responsible for triggering the crisis as she wanted to grab power by making Mugabe remove several people. “She overreacted herself. The military decided that enough is enough.” In South Africa, the ruling party exhibited the presence of sense of responsibility towards the nation by choosing the better. In Pakistan, we are yet to bring the see-saw of bipolarity to rest, for if we do not then some other factor surely will.