Political Bounce-back

Had Prakash Naidoo, deputy political editor of the Financial Mail on the blower, asking for my opinion on the likelihood of the South African former deputy President, Jacob Zuma, recovering from his rape and corruption court trials. Here's what appeared in this week's edition. Click on the image to read. Below the scan is the full transcript of what I said in answer to Prakash's questions, which may add even further perspective to this troubling debacle.

P.N. Hi Clive,

Nice to chat earlier and it is most kind of you to make the time over a weekend to respond to my questions.

CS: Welcome!

P.N. As mentioned earlier, my story seeks to answer a very basic and simple question: Can Jacob Zuma survive his latest travails (even if he is acquitted) and will he be able to bounce back as a contender in the presidential race?

CS: I have no doubt in my mind that Zuma is going to bounce back in some shape or form. His supporters exhibit, in the main, a lack of sensitivity, discernment and intellectual function. This is beyond 'Zuma right or wrong' - this is 'Zuma no matter what.' When you have women carrying placards referring to Zuma's accuser, reading 'The bitch must die' it's an indication that the lowest common denominator of social skill, sophistication and independent thought is behind the man. In quite what guise he'll bounce back is difficult to predict. If only because, as I understand it, a criminal conviction which does not offer the option of a fine rules out someone holding formal political office. I don't know what the ANC's constitution ruling is regarding party membership or office bearers on the same score. But Bantu Holomisa was expelled from the ANC was he not for a relatively minor 'disciplinary' infraction?

P.N. The rape trial has already thrown out some bone-achingly embarrassing personal details - extra- marital sex, sex without a condom with an HIV-positive person etc. Can any person really still be a contender for public office after this sort of stuff is aired publicly?

CS: Yes. Bill Clinton is a prime example. He may not hold formal office but he still has enormous clout and status.

P.N. Also keep in mind that Zuma is likely to take the stand himself on Monday and will in the course of the week be subjected to some pretty damaging cross-examination.

CS: He could be coached by (defense advocate) Kemp J Kemp to the point that most if not all bases and possible lines of questioning are well covered. People also have a sneaking suspicion when a rape charge is brought against a 'celebrity status' person, that it's a liaison that's gone awry rather than a real rape. And the complainant will (regretfully) still be regarded by much of SA society as a relatively 'low status' individual by comparison with Zuma, making his 'rehabilitation' even easier.

P.N. And most importantly, by the end of the rape trial, within months Zuma will go into the corruption trial. And if the Shabir Shaik trial is anything to go by, this could be even more revealing in terms of his personal finances and just how beholden he is to private benefactors.

CS: My personal opinion is that if the truth be known, Zuma is not the only (in his case former) government figure in this position. Lobbyists and those seeking influence have a habit of getting the benefactor over a barrel of some sort. If you look at British PM Tony Blair's recent 'loans to the party' debacle, people almost seem to expect politicians to be beyond the pale when dealing with financial matters in this 'anything goes' era. Sad, but true. The concept of good corporate governance somehow seems to have eluded politics and politicians. If we accept that 99% of politicians are in politics not to serve the people, but for the money, status and power that goes with office, we have to accept that they're inherently flawed characters before they even get out of the starting blocks. Add a monumental ego and it's an ugly personality package.

P.N. 1/ In terms of the international scenario, has anyone well-known (or in similar position) managed to survive such damaging (and tawdry) indictments and still bounce back?

CS: The late and erstwhile British MP John Profumo, Richard Nixon, Eva Peron, Imelda Marcos, Corazon Aquino, Bill Clinton. In South Africa, a number of high-profile financial advisors and dealers have also morphed from zero to hero again.

P.N. 2/ If your contention is that Zuma can come back from this, would his rehabilitation be dependent on him being found not guilty? ( in both trials)

CS: What we've seen internationally in politics and elsewhere is that what prevails in a court of law doesn't necessarily hold water in the court of public opinion.

P.N. 3/  Does the morality of our leaders in SA count for anything in politics?

CS: If one takes the ongoing incompetence, corruption and scandals to have emerged from Mpumalanga province alone over the last few years, it would appear not.

P.N. 4/  Is it possible that Zuma's popularity could be tied to the fact that the vast majority of his supporters believe that his troubles are part of a political conspiracy and can this even work in his favour?

CS: Emphatically. There has always been the perception of the Xhosa-Nostra tribal divide, if not quite the actuality. It's a great card to play and IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi has seldom missed an opportunity to play it with subtlety and finesse.

P.N. 5/ What would Zuma need to do between now and his next trial to still be a player in politics?

CS: That's dependent on so many variables that one can only begin to speculate as some of the balls in play, in the air, start to land. But he may well continue to play a powerful backstage role via 'Zulu politics' even if he's precluded from a formal position.

P.N. 6/ And finally:  If you were personally responsible for turning Zuma's image around in time for the ANC National Conference in December 2007 (when the next leader of the ANC is chosen), how exactly will you go about it?

CS: I'd leave for outer Mongolia immediately and throw away my mobile phone and Internet 3G card! More seriously, his image rehabilitation will only ever be among the unthinking masses. People with any moral and ethical fibre will continue to regard him as having committed the unpardonable sin - whether guilty or not of rape or corruption. His 'sin' in the view of the cognoscenti, will be to have allowed the issues to be laundered in public. Perhaps more important: Spiritually evolved people expect those in positions of leadership and influence to run according to a life and career script of self-control and discretion. His behaviour, regardless of legal culpability, hardly falls into that category.

Related Tags: Political scandals, Rape, Corruption, Jacob Zuma, South African politics, Gender equality, Reputation

Comments

[Roy Blumenthal]

Hi Clive...

[A technical note: Please transcribe the text in the story for those who use only text-based browsing, and to enable Google to index this story correctly.]

Holy mother of goodgosh! The story is a travesty, and I, in your position, would be calling for the head of Prakash Naidoo.

This is certainly a huge cautionary tale of how to talk to journalists!!!

Is Prakash thinking of running for office? It would seem so! The way your words have been twisted to meet the needs of his story is astonishing.

Dude, I feel for you.

Learnings?

1. If you're gonna speak to the press, ensure that you have the right of veto before it goes to print.

2. Know that if you're offering anything beyond a soundbite, you're in trouble, cos they'll find the sounbite, with no regard to context.

3. Speak only in context-free soundbites, so that it doesn't MATTER if they only grab the soundbite.

4. Ask the journalist what conclusion his or her article is trying to come to, so that you're forewarned as to how they're going to twist your words.

5. Flee to Outer Mongolia if a journalist phones you.

6. There is no such thing as an objective journalist. They are NOT intellectuals. They are sluts in service of their own needs and wants, and of selling advertising space in their publications. A journalist claiming to be objective has not read enough philosophy.

7. While it's flattering to be called up for a friendly weekend chat by a journo, these cranksuckers are ALWAYS looking for something more.

Eish. Take this further, Clive. This is ridiculous.

Blue skies
love
Roy

[Clive Simpkins]

Hi Roy! I interpreted it a little differently. Prakash doesn't have a say over the amount of space available. So he had to decide on the key issue or bone of contention. Which was 'can Zuma be rehabilitated?' Jeremy Sampson seemed to think not and in FMCG branding terms he could be right, but he's definitely wrong when it comes to people (not his area of expertise). I posted the rest of my comments purely because I felt they gave a broader perspective on what is a topical issue. Warmest, C

[Roy Blumenthal]

Yo Clive...

I don't know. Reading the article, I come away with a feeling that the Clive Simpkins presented there is arrogant, opinionated, axe-grindy, and somewhat shaky on argumentation.

The Clive I know, and who comes through in the transcript, is clever, witty, clear, soundly-argued, unbiased.

I've been pondering on this reply all morning, because I didn't want to be hasty, or appear to be defending my 'stance'.

I wanted to be sure I was coming from a point of, 'was my reading arguably plausible?' rather than, 'I felt Clive was attacked by that article'.

And, looking at it, I really feel that Clive Simpkins was not served by that article, and that the journalist is guilty of inappropriate soundbiting.

Blue skies
love
Roy

[Clive Simpkins]

OK Roy! You've persuaded me. I've Googled Lorena Bobbit and given her Prakash Naidoo's GPS location. ;-) Warmest, C