A fitting title for South Africa’s billion rand man
What title should South Africa bestow upon President Jacob Zuma? Are we to sing his praises by affixing terms such as caring, honourable and benevolent to his presidency? Or should we go the extra mile and hail him as “brother leader”, a title once reserv
Yes, he has transcended Parliamentary oversight and reined in the national prosecuting authority, but he still has to answer to the Constitution. Zuma does not yet satisfy the colloquial definition of a “despot” either. Website Wikipedia.org says the word is used pejoratively to describe a head of state or government who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects or subordinates. So unless we count Zuma’s voracious appetite for taxpayers’ money as an act of oppression, we must drop the despot label.
The visible cost of an ANC presidency
What is Zuma then? Is he a tyrant or a dictator? We can rule out tyrant for lack of evidence of oppression too. And a dictator – someone with absolute power in a government without hereditary succession – has no place in South Africa’s constitutional democracy. So a dictator he is not...
After reading media reports about the cost of the Zuma presidency the best tagline we can think of for our President is opportunist – one who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often without regard for principles or consequences. It can be argued that Zuma is using his term as president to extract as much from government coffers as possible, ensuring a life of luxury for him and his extended (sic) family. The word is perfect to describes a leader who will cost ordinary South Africans in excess of R500 million over his five year term.
This “claim” was made by Gareth van Onselen based on his interpretation of South Africa’s guide to ministerial extravagance, the so-called ministerial handbook. Van Onselen’s article first appeared on http://www.inside-politics.org/ and has since gone viral on South Africa’s online news portals. I am surprised it has taken so long for someone to delve deeper into the cost of South Africa’s top elected official, but am not surprised by the figures they are coming up with.
For those of you who cannot believe that one man can cost R500 million over five years, consider the highlights from Van Onselen’s blog (we have rounded up to the nearest million in most cases). The list begins with R22 million in salary, medical aid and pension payments over the period. Add to this the staggering R78 million allowance for Zuma’s spouses (R15 million in 2009/10 alone) and the first R100 million is gobbled up in the blink of an eye! With R235 million burned up by VIP Squadron flights, R60 million wasted on VIP Protection services and some R33 million for both official and unofficial residences we get to R428 million without breaking a sweat. I do not have the heart to continue...
A legacy that will haunt taxpayers for decades
The President’s operational budget is inexcusable in a country with one of the worst Gini coefficients (a measure of the income gap between rich and poor) and unemployment rates in the world. But it gets worse… It seems that deployed cadres loyal to the ruling party want to make sure that each successive leader receives larger “gifts” than his predecessor! There was the usual fuss when state funds were diverted from public works to upgrade private homes belonging to ex-Presidents Mandela and Mbeki. Mbeki’s “moderate” Houghton retirement home was estimated to cost taxpayers just R8 million (iol.co.za), though public works refuted this claim, saying they only contributed towards certain security installations.
But the amounts spent on Mbeki pale into insignificance when compared to reports of Zuma’s Nkandla Homestead project. The Mail & Guardian reports that his private compound include underground bunkers, helicopter landing areas, military medical facilities and water purification plant to name a few. Government is keeping mum as to who is funding the project, estimated at between R65 million and R400 million, though public works has admitted to footing R36 million for “security” arrangements... Rumour has it that Robert Mugabe – who incidentally fits the dictator tag – spent R187 million on his retirement palace. So it seems fitting that South Africa’s President has secured multiples of this amount for his residential needs.
It beggars belief that a public servant – because that is what the President is – can even think to build an estate of this magnitude. Who will fund this compound during Zuma’s retirement? It is not possible for someone earning a meagre R2.5 million a year to maintain an estate of this size. And that means you and I will be paying for it till the end of time. What a fantastic legacy for the leader of one of the poorer countries in the world!
The point of this rant...
What is the point of this rant? The President’s contempt for taxpayers and ordinary citizens must be exposed. By ignoring these excesses our President is exposed as an opportunist and a hypocrite… Any claim that he is not in direct control of these expenditures – and therefore not responsible for them – should be dismissed out of hand as easily as South Africa’s new rich dismiss the poor.
Who will take Zuma seriously when he next chides a chief executive for taking home (a mere) R5 million in a year? And who will believe this man when he says he sheds tears for the poor? To South Africa’s poor: I beg you to think twice before casting your next vote. And to the miners at Marikana and the country’s struggling working classes I declare: You are picketing outside the wrong gates.
Editor’s thoughts: I do not believe that someone in public service should be able to fund a Hollywood lifestyle. It is time for Parliament to burn their so-called ministerial handbook and ensure all appointed politicians at local, provincial and national level take a serious expenditure “haircut”. How do you feel when you read the South African Revenue Services’ plea for taxpayer honesty alongside revelations of our President’s profligate spending? Please add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]
Comments