“I, therefore, respectfully want to make it clear that I will not resign.
“To do so would be to preempt a process defined by the constitution.
“To do so would be to give credence to a panel report that unfortunately has grave flaws.”
President Cyril Ramaphosa was addressing the country after the Constitutional Court ruling on the Phala Phala matter.
True to form, the president is putting our constitutional architecture to the test.
Admittedly, it is his constitutionally enshrined right to have the parliamentary report reviewed.
“I do so not out of disrespect for parliament or its processes, but to affirm the need for such findings to be correct in law and in fact, especially where parliament’s work would be based on and informed by a report I believe is flawed,” Ramaphosa said.
It has since emerged that the president wants to interdict parliament and the whole process of his impeachment.
Politically, this might seem like a great move.
Its singular utility to delay the process of impeachment long enough to render it politically harmless seems clever.
It follows a long political tradition in SA, which has been used the most, and devastatingly, by former president Jacob Zuma.
He is being protected by the ANC, like his predecessor
While these tactics may work for Ramaphosa in the way they worked for Zuma, the important question of ethics is raised.
Ramaphosa’s presidency was expected to rise to a higher measure of leadership than that of Zuma.
It was this expectation that won him support both within and outside the ANC.
While he has every right to respond to the Constitutional Court ruling in this way, there is a sense of disappointment in his responses.
This lingering disappointment has followed Ramaphosa throughout his presidency.
Ramaphosa is being accused of misconduct, like his predecessor.
He is being protected by the ANC, like his predecessor.
He is facing impeachment, like his predecessor.
He is deploying a significant amount of legal delay tactics as part of his response to the legal and political repercussions of his activities.
The difference between Ramaphosa and Zuma in this sense is that Ramaphosa did not rise to the seat of presidency facing corruption allegations like Zuma did.
However, he did go into the office of the president with what can be summed up as higher regard for the ANC than for SA, like Zuma.
The opportunistic calls, especially from the EFF and MKP for Ramaphosa’s resignation, are not surprising.
Both parties are trying to sanitise themselves at the expense of the ANC.
Both of their presidents are nose deep in legal troubles of their own making.
It is unclear if these parties think South Africans are so ignorant that they would believe their hubris.
What is more likely is that the sum total of these political tactics will serve one purpose, to further erode public trust in SA’s entire political system.
As SA’s constitutional architecture undergoes these tests from the political class, the unavoidable concerns about our ethical pillars will continue to emerge.
The reason is that these ethical pillars underpin virtually all the components of our constitutional architecture.
However, they have not yet regained enough recognition as non-negotiable in our society.
The bare minimum which is provided by our legal architecture seems to bear the entire weight of our society, and this is unsustainable.
Certainly, it bears the brunt of the mischief of the political class.
If the ethical pillars are not adequately recognised and put firmly in place, the legal system and virtually all systems that make up our society will most likely collapse over time.
Unfortunately, the ethical pillars are unlikely to be championed by the political class.
For instance, Ramaphosa’s actions are as politically motivated as the actions of Zuma, albeit, with perhaps less damage.
This means political interests are dangerously powerful.
Unfortunately, that power can build or destroy and so far, it has done far more to damage than to build.
However, there is still hope.
While these crucial ethical pillars can be developed from a shared cultural background, our composite backgrounds are too disparate currently.
However, we can use the prominence of the political class, and their less than exemplary conduct in the past three decades.
If we as citizens punish them consistently not only for legal misconduct but also for poor ethical conduct, we will build a culture of accountability soon enough.
Their elevated status will ensure that the consequences of their actions can serve as valuable lessons.
This way they can still serve the society they swore to serve.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.