Zuma’s resignation was seen coming

Hopefully African leaders will a pluck a leaf or two from what has happened to Jacob Zuma who was forced to resign as South African President this week and before him Robert Mugabe, former Zimbabwean president.

This is that political parties are bigger than the presidents which lead them. And when the base (political support) has been taken away from you, you are on sinking sand.

While Zuma’s resignation has been triggered by his close links to the Gupta family—the controversial wealthy family which own a range of business interests in South Africa, including computing, mining, air travel, energy, technology and media—Mugabe resigned largely because the party—Zanu-PF—did not like Grace Mugabe’s plans to succeed her husband.

The only difference between the Gupta family and Grace Mugabe is that while the former is linked to many corruption issues, the latter was associated with the undue manner she was amassing power at the expense of other party cadres. She was fast amassing power through the back door. This was creating division and confusion within the rank and file of Zanu-PF and in essence wanning the party’s popularity.

Similarly, the African National Congress (ANC) was earning a bad name, because of Zuma’s alleged protection of a family which was seen as having amassed wealth corruptly. In the process, this was costly to the image of the ANC through collateral damage.

While Robert Mugabe’s sin was his failure to curtail his wife from wielding undue power and influence in the Zanu-PF, Zuma’s undoing was his close association with the Gupta family which seemed to have heavily benefited from Zuma’s presidency. The Gupta family was already under investigation into alleged corruption at the Estina Dairy in Vrede where some assets had been seized and prosecution prepared.

The Estina Dairy Farm in the Free State, was a project which was originally meant to help poor black farmers but from which the Gupta family are alleged to have pocketed millions of dollars, allegations they deny. The Gupta family—three brothers, Atul, Rajesh and Ajay—moved to the country in 1993 from India, just as white-minority rule was ending.

The brothers have been accused of wielding enormous political influence in South Africa, and critics allege that they have tried to capture the state to advance their own business interests. Zuma’s name got further dented by damning report by a South African government ombudsman that accused the Guptas and the President of colluding to win government contracts. Zuma and the Guptas deny all this.

While Deputy South African President Cyril Ramaphosa or other party members may have influenced Zuma’s ousting, the long and short is that ANC did not want to be seen as part and parcel of this.

For a very long time it was the support that Zanu-PF gave to Robert Mugabe that kept him in power. But when Zanu-PF felt injured by its unflinching support to Mugabe, it simply withdrew this base. At that point Mugabe stood on sinking sand. ANC has done exactly the same thing. Its support for a party loyalist—Zuma—could not continue further after it became detrimental to its popularity and growth. ANC told Zuma to resign and if he clung to power the party would impeach him.

One can only hope that more political parties in Africa will learn from events in Zimbabwe and South Africa and ensure that leaders can be dispensed with when they abuse their powers at the expense of the party’s popularity.