So South African President Thabo Mbeki resigned this weekend after his party, the African National Congress, asked him to do so before the end of his term next year. By the time you read this, Baleka Mbete, the Speaker of Parliament, probably will have been named interim President.
The decision by the ANC to push Mbeki to resign was in large part a product of Mbeki’s feud with Jacob Zuma, the current leader of the ANC and formerly Mbeki’s Deputy President until Mbeki forced him to resign in 2005 as a result of allegations of corruption. Recently, a judge threw out those charges, in the process suggesting that senior government officials had interfered with the case. Zuma, who is backed by the more lefty elements in the ANC (even though his own track record is far more moderate), is now likely to win election to the Presidency next year (he cannot be named interim President because he is not currently in any official position).
Needless to say, I have mixed feelings about this. I am no fan of Mbeki. His views on HIV/AIDS were utterly bizarre, probably helping to further ravage a South African population already struggling with the impact of widespread infection. His handling of the anti-immigrant riots earlier this year was, at best, inept. His efforts to secure a power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, although ultimately successful (at least on paper), happened only after he refused to intervene to prevent President Robert Mugabe’s thugs from stealing the election.
That said, I have a hard time liking the notion that a party can force a President to leave office basically as a result of a fit of pique masquerading ad a caucus vote. I recognize that such an action is not unprecedented in parliamentary democracies, but usually there is a better reason than intra-party politics.
Mbeki might have pushed for Zuma to be prosecuted, but there is no hard evidence that he did so in a manner that would constitute an abuse of power. There’s also no evidence that Mbeki’s rule had in some way endangered the ANC’s ability to remain the majority party. In fact, it looks like two factions within the largest (and dominant) party in South Africa got in a slap fight, and one faction used a minor political event to force Mbeki’s resignation.
Further complicating things is the fact that Zuma is not exactly a poster child for stability. Of particular concern is the fact that when, in 2006 he was charged with rape (the case ultimately was dismissed by the court after it concluded that the sex was consensual), Zuma admitted that he knew that the alleged victim was HIV-positive but still had unprotected sex with her. Zuma also said that the only step he needed to take to prevent himself from being infected was to take a shower afterwards. That doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of wisdom and judgment you want in a President.
It’s also not clear what impact Mbeki’s fall may have on the situation in Zimbabwe. Unlike Mbeki, Zuma has criticized Mugabe and has even called for him to step down — even though Zuma’s support within the ANC comes from those elements most sympathetic to Mugabe’s revolutionary bona fides. Mbeki’s fall could embolden Mugabe to scrap the power-sharing agreement — probably before Zuma is elected President — leaving South Africa with little or no ability to stop him from doing so.
Finally, there is no evidence that Zuma will necessarily move the ANC in the direction that his supporters want — greater state intervention in the economy, more focus on helping the poor and less attention on promoting a free market approach to growth. The trade unions and the Communist Party of South Africa may find that their leader is not necessarily their champion.
Another day, another mess. Stay tuned.
Photos: Wikipedia, using a GNU Free Documentation License.
Related posts
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5cce80e3-2be1-462e-9d9a-c3e9dc9d1738)
I bet that if Thabo Mbeki were to have a 
Loading ...