There is more and more evidence that President Jacob Zuma actually
sees himself as a king or paramount chief rather than the president of a modern
democracy.
(If only his role model was king Shaka, who never married and never
had children.)
No, Zuma wouldn’t see a tyrant king like Shaka or Mzilikazi as a
good example of leadership. Zuma would look at the benign, gentle kings of our
region, like Moshoeshoe of the Basotho, Sekhukhune of the Bapedi or Sobhuza of
the Swazi.
All three these three kings were great nation builders who brought
stability to their region at times of turmoil. Moshoeshoe (1786 – 1870) was the
first great leader of our region who preferred to consolidate and defend his
kingdom rather than wage war. Sekhukhune (1814 – 1882) was, like Moshoeshoe, a
listener, unifier and a just ruler. Sobhuza, who ruled the Swazi between 1921
and 1982 and led Swaziland to independence in 1968, unified the Swazi people and
established a culture of tolerance and peace.
These kings did not derive their authority from intimidation or a
show of force, but by living close to their subjects and knowing their needs and
dreams.
But they were not democrats. They did not believe in egalatarian
societies. The king would surround him with his most loyal confidentes who had
proved their commitment to him and he would consult the elders, but he didn’t
tolerate criticism. The rule was ‘do as the kind says, not as he does’.
Zuma, likewise, is a peacemaker, a listener and someone who lives
close to the people. Like most of our region’s kings of the last few centuries,
Zuma also has a ‘great place’ or a royal kraal – Nkandla.
But his primary instincts are also not democratic. He cares deeply
about his people, but he remains the ‘chief’. He sees it as his right to appoint
those who have proved their loyalty in positions of power regardless of public
opinion (Moe Shaik, Menzi Simelane, Jon Qwelane, Bheki Cele, Mkothedi Mpshe,
etc.) He cannot see anything wrong with one of his subjects helping him out with
a few material things in exchange for a favour or two – and if that loyal
subject then finds himself in a spot of bother, it is the king’s right to
intervene and help him out (like organising ‘medical parole’ for him). And he
believes he as chief or king is entitled to any woman he desires.
Moshoeshoe, Sekhuhune and Sobhuza also happened to have had many
wives and children – Sobhuza had seventy wives and 210 children. But this wasn’t
because they couldn’t control their urges or wanted to prove their manhood.
Apart from the one or two wives they married for love, they married others for
diplomatic or political reasons - to promote social cohesion, to strengthen the
centre of power, to secure the loyalty of different clans and families. Zuma has
no such excuse.
I think Zuma is misinterpreting South Africans’ view of traditional
culture. Apart from some older folk in the rural areas, most of us actually see
our country as a modern, progressive state even if we cherish the legacies of
the past.
We need a proper president, a CEO, to lead the management of our
crumbling, divided country, not a sweet old chief.