Nwabisa Makunga: Can Ramaphosa save ANC?

It was exactly four years ago this week. My colleagues and I stood in long queues with scores of other journalists under the blistering Bloemfontein sun at the University of the Free State.

While we waited to go through elaborate security checks, along came Cyril Ramaphosa in a trademark ANC golf shirt with a backpack over his shoulder. For him, the moment was significant.

As he slowly moved up the queue, towards the gigantic marquee on the other side of the metal detectors, Ramaphosa was also edging closer to the golden seat reserved for him at the front line of the ANC’s command centre.

It was the ANC’s 53rd elective conference and the unionist-turned-billionaire was hours away from being elected as the party’s deputy president.

And so, I asked him if he was ready for what lay ahead.

“I beg your pardon?” he asked.

I repeated the question for a second and then a third time.

He smiled and murmured something about getting old and not being able to hear so well nowadays. And off into the marquee he went.

The question was the kind of mundane, almost mandatory one a journalist will ask a politician while loitering around waiting for an event to start. No meaningful response was expected really.

Especially not from a man like Ramaphosa when asked to speak of his political ambitions.

Besides it being regarded as taboo in the ANC to publicly put one’s hand up, Ramaphosa himself is an evasive character. Some say he is non-committal and always has been.

Critics in the ANC who have known him since the founding days of the National Union of Mineworkers more than three decades ago often speak of a man whose modus operandi is to play it safe.

While they acknowledge his astute mind, they also describe him as a leader who is unlikely to stick his neck out or ruffle feathers even, when the need arises.

Whether you believe such criticism is fair or not, it forms part of the reason why the next year will be a fascinating one in our political discourse.

Let me first state that I am aware that unlike the first two decades of our democracy, the outcome of the 2019 general election is no longer a foregone conclusion.

It would be naive for anyone to assume that, similarly to years gone by, the ANC will surely retain power, especially if you-know-who continues on his destructive path.

But in this column let us work on a scenario where the ANC does in fact return to the Union Buildings in 2019.

For me it is only in this context that the current succession debate in the ANC becomes relevant.

It is common cause that Ramaphosa and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma are so far front runners for the ANC presidency come December next year. Dlamini-Zuma enjoys the support of the incumbent, as well as a group thought to be influential premiers, the party’s leagues and u-Mkhonto Wesizwe Military Veterans Association.

To be polite, I will only refer to this group as men and women of questionable integrity who are some of President Jacob Zuma’s myopic defenders.

Being supported by this bunch suggests to many South Africans that Dlamini-Zuma is herself tainted.

It suggests that should she ascend to the throne the status quo would prevail, that the Guptas would be given the keys to the vault and state institutions would be unleashed to save Zuma from ever wearing an orange jumpsuit.

To be fair, it is worth noting that much of the apprehension about Dlamini-Zuma is based largely on her association with the president, more so than her own record as a politician.

The anxiety over her potential presidency is based on the belief – fair or not – that she has no moral backbone, nor a mind of her own.

It suggests that she is completely beholden to Zuma and cannot possibly – like for example Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng – emerge as faithful to the republic rather than to the people who endorsed her.

It may well be true that if elected, Dlamini-Zuma would be a conduit of the Zuma empire.

Is Ramaphosa the better option then? Cosatu and other affiliates as well as some members of the ANC in different provinces believe that he is. I am not convinced. Here’s the thing. It is often said that a man’s character can be measured by the choices he makes under pressure. For Ramaphosa, that revealing choice was made in August 2012.

Rustenburg’s Lonmin mine was experiencing one of its most violent labour disputes.

Tensions were high, share prices were tumbling and shareholders were at his back.

Ramaphosa, a Lonmin non-executive director cum political fixer, had to act. He did and the rest is history.

While I respect the decision of the Marikana commission to absolve Ramaphosa and others of any legal culpability for the massacre, I do not believe this also exonerates him from the ethical liability of his conduct.

I struggle to understand why Ramaphosa could not have raised the possibility of negotiating with the striking miners, a move which arguably could have been a plausible solution under such extraordinary circumstances.

Instead, Ramaphosa chose “concomitant action” – a tough stance which, coupled with fraught politics and rogue policing, was simply a recipe for disaster.

I am not suggesting that Ramaphosa alone should shoulder the blame for the Marikana massacre. It is quite obvious that the finger equally points to many other dubious characters.

However, I am questioning how those who believe he should ultimately run our country overlook the side of him exposed by Marikana.

I am wondering how they overlook that when it came to the crunch, when his back was against the wall, Ramaphosa chose to serve an elite few, rather than to listen to the masses he once identified with.

It is simply unlikely that he is the man to save the ANC from the suicidal beast it has become.