Brand Ramaphosa is out of options

As should be expected because of the positions he occupies as the?de jure?CEO of South Africa Inc., and prominent politician, the evolution over time of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's reputational chart is of great interest because it is connected to and impacts the evolving image of South Africa at home and around the watching world.??

What he says and does informs political, social, and economic perceptions about South Africa. It can raise or lower the levels of apprehension over and hope for the country.

Were it to be charted on a graph, the evolution of his reputational journey would start rising as he gained prominence as a trade union leader in the mid-1980s. It would have been further boosted in the 1990s after he played a key role in the Mass Democratic Movement, as well as throughout the Constitution development and writing process, until the promulgation of the current Constitution in 1996.

In those early times, the rising brand Ramaphosa was well promoted and widely trusted by the African National Congress and its alliance partners. Its trust quotient was also quite elevated because he demonstrated an admirable, uncanny, ability to work across the political lines with Roelf Meyer, his counterpart from the erstwhile National Party, and other negotiating partners.

Many people even hoped, and trusted, that Ramaphosa would be Mandela's immediate successor, but we know now that the ANC had other ideas on this one. It has been what it has been.?

Fast-forward 25 May 2014, the very ethically and criminally suspected notorious man from Nkandla, President of the Republic, had Ramaphosa – who had become a dollar billionaire several times over thanks to his many successful business ventures while out of active politics – back him up as deputy. Remnants of the reputational halo hanging over Ramaphosa's head were still glowing in healthy amounts and many who remembered him from the early 1990s believed the glow would rub off. It's reasonable, also, to believe that it is for this reason that the former president seemed to value Ramaphosa. It was a tall order, of course.?

For almost the entire period he served as deputy, Ramaphosa laid low, even as a lot of "hard to deny" information made it into the public sphere that his political boss was another captured African politician remote-controlled by foreign interests to hand over the country, whose Constitution he had sworn to protect, on a platter to the said foreign interests, one institution at a time. It is inconceivable to believe that as deputy president, from 2014 to 2018, Ramaphosa would have heard or seen nothing that would have raised his suspicions.?

We know that he did, even though he has chosen not to tell the nation what he saw and heard. All he has said comes down to his decision to remain below the radar, avoid rocking the boat, seemingly on a drive to avoid endangering his chances of becoming president so that he could save the country unencumbered, without having to look over his shoulder.

Many believed him, agreed to give him the benefit of the doubt, and even fell for what became known as "Ramaphoria" - a strange, irrational phenomenon that saw many placing blind faith in a politician who continued to avoid providing direct answers to questions about near-treasonous criminal acts by his comrades, all shielded by his political party.

No one should forget that he later, once elected president, declared that he would rather be seen as a weak president (of South Africa) than one under whom his political party would split. He said this as the ideological fissures dividing his party were deepening, a process that has not stopped even as I write this.

So, in trying to have it both ways, with party's interests ahead of country's interests, Ramaphosa continues to preside over a seriously pained country. Social cohesion has been damaged, interracial distrust levels have grown, public institutions have been weakened and, in many cases, destroyed to the point of no longer being able to deliver on their mandates.

Crucial, world-class, public infrastructure inherited from apartheid, which constituted a vital "starter pack" that post-apartheid South Africa could have maintained and expanded further to parts of the country where it lacked, continues to be taken apart piece by piece by human ants, often in broad daylight.?

The destruction of South Africa did not start under Ramaphosa's watch, of course, but it continues while he dithers, often unsure how to balance what is good for South Africa with what is good for the African National Congress. But it is clear, what is good for South Africa has long ceased to be good for the African National Congress, and what is good for the African National Congress has long ceased to be good for South Africa.

The African National Congress has turned into an abusive partner who controls all the finances and refuses to leave the abused partner alone – the true owner of the finances – even after it has become clear that the two no longer have any common interests. But it is just a matter of time before the abused South Africa wakes up to assert herself again and take back what is truly hers. She has done it before, she will do it again.?

In all of this, the legacy of brand Ramaphosa seems unlikely to come out intact from his stints as deputy president and president. Allegations of wrongdoing, linked to suspicions of money-laundering (which he has denied) and attempts to conceal the truth from the public about a robbery that took place on his Phala Phala game farm in 2020, only serve to make any reputational recovery even steeper.

Often accused of being indecisive, particularly where it concerns criminally implicated politicians aligned to him, Ramaphosa also presides over a Cabinet with some individuals who have long lost the ethical wherewithal to be in the positions they occupy, backed by senior parliamentary officers and members of parliament some of whom, if not directly named in wrongdoing linked to state capture and other forms of corruption, have repeatedly demonstrated their inability, or unwillingness, to place the interests of South Africa and her people ahead of the narrow, often devastating, interests of their political party, the African National Congress.???????????????????????

It is known, of course, that some of the constraints inherited by Ramaphosa are structural and systemic, including the reality that as president of the republic – not directly elected by the people of South Africa – he is a mere political deployee of his party, to which he remains answerable, which retains the power to recall him if it so decides.

Apart from at scheduled election time, South Africans have no power over the conduct of politicians deployed by their parties to the National Assembly where, instead of acting as public representatives - which they're not, of course - remain only at the beck and call of instructions from their party bosses, even if such instructions are bad for South Africa, as they have been in countless occasions.

While this and many other things must change, resulting in a needed systemic overhaul to enable South Africa to realise its true potential, none of it provides brand Ramaphosa with any cover for its many failures.?