In the emotion-filled days that followed former South African president Nelson Mandela's death a year ago today, the African National Congress party vowed to uphold his legacy in the months and years ahead.
A press statement issued by the ruling party on December 5th, 2013, pledged that the ANC’s next generation would strive to achieve its former leader’s vision of bringing about an equal and just society for all.
"The ANC continues in this task as set forth by him and those of his generation, living and deceased. Indeed, men and women such as Nelson Mandela. when they pass they leave a vision of a new and better life and the tools with which to win and build it," it read.
But to what degree has the ANC's leadership stayed true to their word since Mandela was buried on December 15th in Qunu, his home village in the Eastern Cape province?
Political analyst Judith February of South Africa's Institute for Security Studies says one of the central tools created to ensure equality for all in South Africa was the country's constitution, which took effect in early February 1997.
Progressive Constitution
The charter, which Mandela oversaw the introduction and implementation of as ANC leader and South Africa’s first democratically elected president, is widely regarded as the most progressive constitution in the world.
February cited Mandela's willingness during his tenure as president to appear as a witness in a constitutional court case in 1998 that dealt with alleged racism in the South African Rugby Football Union as proof of his commitment to the country's supreme law.
Mandela appointed a commission to investigate these allegations, but the rugby body went to court to block its work. Mandela was subpoenaed to give evidence as to why he ordered the inquiry, which sparked debate about whether the president needed to defend such decisions in court.
“His actions were an example to the nation that no one is above the law,” said February. “It was important, as it showed Mandela’s commitment to the rule of law. ‘I’m happy for my actions to be scrutinised,’ he appeared to be saying. The constitution was new at the time, and he was trying to give it roots.”
Current president Jacob Zuma, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths over the past year to avoid adhering to the findings contained in a report by public protector Thuli Madonsela on the multi-million security upgrades made to his rural home in Nklandla.
Madonsela directed that Zuma should pay a reasonable percentage of the money spent on non-security upgrades on his residence and report to the National Assembly on his comments and actions in relation to the report.
Last week Economic Freedom Fighter leader Julius Malema wrote in the City Press newspaper that in refusing to abide by the public protector's findings Zuma was blatantly undermining the constitution and revealing himself as a hypocrite.
"Throughout his first term, Zuma did not see anything wrong with the public protector's remedial actions, particularly ones which he had to implement. He fired Bheki Cele as national police commissioner, and fired Dina Pule as communications minister on the basis of the remedial actions prescribed by the public protector," he pointed out.
Tarnished legacy
February believes Zuma’s stance in relation to the public protector’s Nklandla report is just one instance of the party’s leadership tarnishing Mandela’s constitutional and democratic legacy.
His refusal to appear before parliament to answer questions from opposition MPs – they have been calling on the president to pay back the money in relation to the Nklandla overspend – which he is constitutionally obliged to do, is another, she believes.
“President Zuma can speak well and pay lip service to the constitution and democracy, but he has done great damage to both over the past few years,” says February, adding that the ANC’s efforts in parliament to protect Zuma showed the rot had spread through the party.
A parliamentary ad hoc committee comprising only ANC MPs recently cleared its leader of any wrongdoing in relation to the Nklandla scandal, and it leaves it to Zuma’s cabinet to decide whether he should reimburse the taxpayer or not for the non-security upgrades made to his home.
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said on his recent Constitutionally Speaking blog that “the only surprising thing about the fact that the ANC MPs in the National Assembly ‘exonerated’ President Jacob Zuma of all wrongdoing for ‘accidentally’ being enriched through government funded renovations of his private home near Nkandla, is that anyone was surprised.”
February says the ANC MPs’ bid to protect their leader was unsurprising given the current leadership and “the change in nature of the party. There is more corruption and patronage within its ranks”.
She says preserving Mandela’s legacy is not a hopeless aspiration, but in the short term it may be up to civil society to take up the challenge.
