Three years of blunders

THREE years at the helm of our state, it should not be prohibited to raise critical questions about President Jacob Zuma and government. Under him, how far have we come?

Following this Sowetan debate, spin doctors and hired political agents have been working very hard trying to package and sell Zuma as someone who has brought about many positive changes in government.

Ours - those who respect the truth- ought to be the pen whose ink cannot be erased by blowers of hot air whenever there is an honest reflection on the country's leader.

Zuma must be analysed on the basis of the promises he made, his appointments as well as the general state of governance.

When Zuma became president in 2009, he appeared itching to cast himself - as most new leaders are wont to - as different from his predecessors. Nothing necessarily wrong in this.

Zuma advertised his uniqueness by renaming ministries, splitting old departments and creating new ones. Thus we became saddled with the burden of a bloated cabinet.

While some will argue that it was "important" for Zuma to balloon cabinet, the trouble is that it all took place right at the tiem when we were in the jaws of a global economic recession that saw 1 million South Africans lose their jobs.

To be fair to our President, the enlargement of cabinet created jobs for new ministers and deputy ministers who would otherwise remain unemployed. In a way, it can be justified as a job creation scheme.

Another tactic on the catwalk of uniqueness was the hype around performance agreements for ministers. We were made to believe that, finally, the era of performance in government was upon us.

Since the signing of the performance agreements, we are yet to know who of the ministers is the best or the worst performer. If this is a secret, we would be justified to conclude that the performance agreements had nothing to do with us.

Three years into office, Zuma's government was hit by instability. Only the naïve would think that a president who reshuffles his cabinet twice within three year is a sign of stability in government.

We all recall the time when the Presidency appeared like a boxing ring for catfights. When it really became ugly, Vusi Mavimbela was dispatched to join the growing army of failed politicians who currently represent our great nation abroad.

The catfights in the highest office became so intense that even such strong personalities as Jesse Duarte could no longer bear it. When she finally threw in her towel, Duarte wrote a bitter e-mail, vowing to deal with her enemies from a stronger political base: Luthuli House. Beyond squabbling in Zuma's office, something more worrying is worth highlighting: the collapse of governance in provinces.

In Limpopo, five out of ten departments collapsed. The Department of Monitoring and Evaluation in Zuma's office could not foresee it. Our president was as shocked as all of us to learn of the mess in that province.

In the Eastern Cape, the future of the children of the poor is imperilled by local political entrepreneurs who have been playing games with the department of education.

Indeed, Zuma's attempts to intervene produced nothing. Some progress was registered after Zwelizima Vavi's visit to that unfortunate part of our country. Only God knows the sins committed by the poor children of the Eastern Cape.

In the Free State, the national government also had to intervene in the following departments: treasury a police, roads and transport. Again, all this could not be foreseen by the Presidency - armed as it is with a new monitoring and evaluation department.

Under Zuma, the province of gold - Gauteng - also got its share of chaos. Nobody knows how long it will take to restore good order in the hospitals of the rich province.

Not unrelated is the question of corruption. Not long ago, the image of government was fast becoming synonymous with corruption. Thanks to our saviour, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, Zuma was forced finally to suspend Beki Cele and fire the Minister of Public Works.

Indeed, Zuma's appointments in the state have not been without controversy. The worst was National Director of Public Prosecutions Menzi Simelane, a decision declared "irrational" by the supreme court of appeals.

Under Zuma, our courts found themselves in a difficult situation. They have had to deliver numerous judgments against a sitting president. Former Chief Justice Ngcobo's retirement is currently disturbed by the memory of the embarrassing circumstances created by Zuma, when our president tried illegally to reappoint Ngcobo.

We should also remember that Zuma was the first president after 1994 to be found guilty of not declaring his assets to Parliament. This were the first signs that South Africans should trust Madonsela more that Zuma.

Indeed, Zuma's problems with the law are numerous. Nobody can confirm that he will not end up like Selebi or Shaik. Poor Jeff Radebe, the minister of justice, who now has to run around trying to convince South Africans that the decision to review the work of the judiciary is not an attempt by Zuma to intimidate our courts.

While Radebe tries his best - under the circumstances - Zuma continues to express concern about minority judgments. This has left educated South Africans wondering: does our president understand the workings of courts all over the world? Maybe he does.

When we think of more questionable appointments, we ought not to forget Willem Heath, that exuberant former judge who did not last a month as head of the Special Investigations Unit.

The current Chief Justice is perhaps another example of what happens when a country's political leadership is in deep crisis.

Quixotic optimists in our midst would obviously want us to forget all the things mentioned above. They will remind us of the work of the National Planning Commission, and of the New Growth Path.

The trouble is that nobody can be sure of the implementation of the draft national plan. That the New Growth Path has not yet created jobs we all know. Maybe we should submit ourselves to be counselled by theologians so that we remain forever hopeful.

It should also be remembered that Zuma, in his early day as president of the country, caused confusion in economic policy making. He promised that the new Economic Development Department will take responsibility of macroeconomic policy from the Treasury. As some of us predicted, this did not happen. The president either did not know what he was talking about, or he wanted to please Ebrahim Patel, a trade union leader.

It is not untrue that Zuma's recent announcement of an infrastructure plan has generally been well-received in society; but praise singers still ought to tell us why we must celebrate before implementation.

Given the above, what else can we say about Zuma's promises, his appointments, and the general state of governance since 2009? This, perhaps, is a question for the public to answer.

lMashele is CEO of the Forum for Public Dialogue. He lectures politics at the University of Pretoria, and is a member of the Midrand Group. He is the author of The death of our society.