The crucifixion and resurrection of South Africa’s Jacob Zuma…

Until last summer, Jacob Zuma (right) was the unchallenged heir apparent to South African President Thabo Mbeki (left). After all, as deputy president, Zuma’s rock-star appeal amongst the (predominantly poor and uneducated) South African electorate made Mbeki seem like an interloper and even rivaled the appeal Bill Clinton enjoyed as U.S. president. (For the record, I lamented Zuma’s appeal in this 30 Aug ’05 article entitled, SOUTH AFRICA: Support for (principled) president wanes as it surges for his compromised deputy).

Alas, the comparisons with Clinton did not end there. Because, just as Clinton’s financial dealings (Whitewater) and sexual indiscretions (Never mind Monica, Juanita Broderick accused him of rape) beset his presidency, so too did Zuma’s financial dealings and sexual indiscretions compromise his political viability. Likewise, however, just as Clinton survived an impeachment trial and has thrived ever since, Zuma seems destined to emulate him by surviving prosecution not only for rape but also for his shady financial affairs (relating to a multi-billion dollar arms deal).

Nonetheless, although not as publicized internationally as Clinton’s, Zuma’s political travails have been a far more embarrassing and sordid mess. And, no doubt, Mbeki hoped to preserve the integrity of his government by sacking him – after Zuma was implicated in a web of corruption during the fraud trial of his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik (right). Indeed, he probably felt vindicated when, in subsequent months, Zuma himself was indicted on charges of corruption and rape.

But that was then. Because, for a man who was presumed politically crucified just months ago, Zuma seems so thoroughly resurrected today that even Mbeki must be questioning the wisdom of sacking him in the first place. And, here’s why:

Last May, Zuma was tried for rape. And reports abounded about how he sat with unbridled confidence as his HIV-positive accuser gave graphic and damning testimony against him. For example, here’s how she described her relationship with Zuma and the shock of his predatory attack:

…I treated him as a father and he treated me as a daughter….When I was diagnosed with HIV in April 1999, I told him because as a father it was an important part of my life that he should know about….

I thought: ‘Oh, no! It can’t be, he is on top of me, he is naked, I’m in his house.’ I was just confused. I actually thought it can’t be happening. At that point I faced reality. He was just about to rape me….

I said: “eh eh (no) umalume [uncle]…then he began…pushing and thrusting…and said ‘I told you I’d take care of you…sweetheart. You are a real girl’.

Then, in his defense, Zuma took the stand and testified, without any hint of moral scruples, that – although he may have done “a stupid thing” (by having unprotected sex with his HIV-positive “daughter”) – the sex was entirely consensual.

But even more shocking than Zuma’s incredible defense was the judge’s incomprehensible verdict. Because, as South Africans and people all over the world listened with bated breath, he acquitted Zuma with the following paternalistic and gratuitous admonition:

…you should not have had sexual intercourse with a woman so much younger…who is HIV positive and the daughter of a friend.

(Which, of course, was as legally significant as Judge Lance Ito admonishing OJ that he should not have driven away from the scene of his wife’s murder like a madman – running traffic lights and leaving his bronco badly parked on the street outside his mansion….)

Thus acquitted, Zuma (seen here reacting joyfully to the judge’s verdict) reveled as his zealous supporters made Mbeki squirm with riotous demands to reinstate Zuma as deputy president, immediately. Unfortunately, for him and them, there was still that little matter of his indictment on corruption charges.

And, as anxious as his supporters were to see Zuma get off on this one as well, his critics (and there are a few in South Africa) were anxious to see him put away. In fact, like most impartial people familiar with the facts in his rape case, not least amongst them the prosecutors, I thought that, instead of being reinstated in office, Zuma deserved to be thrown in jail. Therefore, after he was acquitted, many of us hoped that justice would prevail twofold at his corruption trial: with a guilty verdict and a very harsh sentence indeed.

But all hopes were dashed last Wednesday when the judge assigned to Zuma’s corruption trial incited even more shock and dismay than the judge who acquitted Zuma of rape. Because the judge presiding over this trial summarily dismissed the charges when the prosecution requested a continuance (i.e., more time to prepare their case).

Of course, Zuma proclaimed this a just verdict and announced his plans to resume his official duties. And, as he did so, he fomented the pernicious and thoroughly unwarranted suspicion (though widely held amongst his supporters) that his rape and corruption trials were part of an elaborate political conspiracy – orchestrated by a cabal of Mbeki supporters – to thwart his destiny with the South African presidency.

Unfortunately, all indications are that, despite prosecutors vowing to reinstate the charges, chances are very good that – no matter what legal impediments he faces between now and presidential elections in 2009 – Zuma will be elected the next president of South Africa….

Amandla! Hosanna Zuma!

Jacob Zuma, South Africa