Politics is fundamentally the power to act and any exercise of power in society always requires or at minimum impacts on more than an individual.

“The people shall govern” reminds us that democracy is by its nature meant to ensure as many people as possible have legitimate power to contribute to governance.

It is disturbing that nearly 30 years into SA’s democracy the politics that dominates is the politics of elites and centres so much on individual personalities. In the wake of the release of the independent panel section 89 report to assess the possible impeachment of President Cyril Ramaphosa, instead of the national conversation being focused on what parliament, the institution who originated the report and has the power to act on it, South Africans fixate on internal political machinations within the ANC.

Instead of focusing on the substance of the allegations, the focus is on whether the resignation of one person, the president, would topple the fate of the country and more importantly shift the balances of power in the ANC.

“If not Ramaphosa then who?” has become the new Wenzen uZuma, a conversation that not only seeks to distract from accountability for the first citizen when facing serious allegations, but also signals the incumbent must be protected at all costs.

Why is the fate of an entire nation dependent on protecting individuals from accountability? Surely in a society of 40-million people eligible to be voted for, the country cannot rise or fall on the comings and goings of an individual. When we place so much of our political capital into an individual, we all lose.

If the potential resignation of one person causes us to be afraid of chaos and collapse then we have done ourselves, as a country, a huge disservice and we are not doing that individual any favours either. Ramaphosa is not wrong to consider resignation as a response to what will be a publicly bruising political and legal battle ahead.

I imagine that he dreads having to deal with the public ventilation of accusations while trying to remain focused in an already complex job. He may very well not want to put his party through the collective pressure of fighting his personal battle while trying to win an election.

The fears about Ramaphosa’s resignation is not a debate about market responses. It is not a meaningful discussion about what the consequences will be for protecting the integrity of institutions. It is a debate driven by the fear of who within the ANC may replace him. 

It’s baffling, because in SA we do not vote individuals into the presidency. We vote for parties. There has in fact been widespread resistance, led by the ANC itself, to even voting for independent candidates as members of parliament, never mind president.

Yet, it is the ANC with hundreds of leaders and over a million members who cannot imagine finding a person to replace Ramaphosa if he chose to resign.

One of the perceived strengths of the ANC is that is was birthed out of movement politics. The upside to that is the power of the collective and its ability to coalesce around a good idea, not simply a good person.

US politics has always been styled around the character, personal traits and promises of individuals, but some of the most impactful political changes in the country's history have been by political movements not reduced to one person. When they assassinated Martin Luther King Jnr. during the civil rights movement, the fight for justice of black people in America did not die with him.

SA has normalised “big man” politics. Since Nelson Mandela’s rise to prominence, we have become overly reliant on the popularity of individuals; always looking for the next messianic figure to lead us. Instead of leaderful political parties, we have parties that rise and fall on the reputation of one person, a pursuit that has left us leaderless.

We have a country believing that if we just got rid of this one or just make sure that one stays, all will be well. A reliance on personalities has stifled our collective power and imagination as a country.