South Africa's quandry

That South Africa’s former Deputy President Jacob Zuma, on trial for rape and still facing corruption charges, has let down his country’s high hopes became evident during last weeks hearings.
But more than just his country, Zuma has let down those campaigners everywhere, who would and did fight for indigenous self determination in former colonial countries.
To be sure, there will always be seemingly insurmountable difficulties for subjugated cultures that must make a massive leap to conform to the demands of global capital pressure.
But they are economic pressures and can be ameliorated, to some degree at least, other cultural and social aspects all being well.
Zimbabwe’s Mugabi has been a prime example of what not to do, no doubt putting even more pressure on the transitional economy in South Africa. Accommodation between the former white rulers and the indigenous population was always going to be difficult, but the like of Zuma turning on his own is not a helpful sign for the country.

It has been widely reported that Zuma, speaking at his rape trial, resorted to what politicians around the world practice as the main tactic against prosecution; they find the lowest common denominator and play it mercilessly.
As one repor puts it: Zuma's testimony, delivered as if from a deep, dark moral vortex into which the last decade of gender and social transformation had been sucked, did everything it could to give credence to all the major prejudices that attach to his name and image.
In the first instance, Zuma chose to hide behind, what he claims is; ‘Zulu culture’. That is, the woman was wearing a skirt which exposed leg, so it was his duty, as a Zulu male, to respond to the invitation.
Mondli Makhanya, Johannesburg Sunday Times editor Zuma, he says, is exploiting the idea of Zulu tribal sentiment. "Zuma has played along with this surge of Zulu nationalism, apparently buoyed by it. He has increasingly resorted to Zulu symbolism and appeals to cultural sensitivities".
That was among the most notorious of his positions, but on a continent swamped by aids infection:
“Zuma said he took a shower straight after sex with his HIV-positive rape accuser as a way of reducing his chances of contracting the virus and that he had unprotected sex with the woman because he believed the risk of transmission was minimal. Zuma also disclosed that he has multiple sex partners.”
This, I might add, from the man who was responsible for programs to address the problem of Aids in South Africa. The fallout from that statement has driven a rash of publicity attempting to put the record straight on transmission of the disease.

The other worrying aspect of this very political trial is the complicity of the media in open attacks on the alleged victim. Previous rape claims by the accuser would hardly seem odd in a country where rape is still seen as some kind of male prerogative.
That it comes in defence of a high profile, and still popular political leader, suggest deep social problems in the country.
Zuma may well be innocent or even be a victim of conspiracy, but his behaviour does not inspire confidence in his ability as a leader. Leaders like Zuma are no better than their hated ‘white’ predecessors.