Berkley Center

There is a man in South Africa who has a home just five minutes' walk from my dorm building. He has evaded more than 700 claims of fraud, corruption, and money laundering. He has fathered multiple children out of wedlock and raped his deceased friend’s daughter. He lives in a country wrought with the problems of and activism against HIV yet publicly claimed that he avoided contraction of the disease by showering after fornication with an HIV positive partner. This man is Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president since 2007 and the ANC (African National Congress) representative who has won yet another landslide election here in South Africa. He is the leader of Nelson Mandela’s party, a party that has traditionally empowered the poor, yet he has continually shown distinct disregard for them. And this year, he won approximately 63 percent of the vote.

While I will gladly admit to not knowing enough about South African politics to take a stand on any one side, I will also admit to finding it hard to understand the unwavering support such a man receives. Granted, the ANC itself has helped South Africa with some of its greatest recent achievements, such as ubiquitous access to water, electricity, education, and health services. But Zuma’s unhindered success in this month’s elections, despite his very public political failings, still poses a puzzle for me. That is until my dorm's resident assistant (RA), a University of Cape Town student from the Eastern Cape of South Africa, gave me a better grasp of at least one perspective of the public political opinion.

As I quizzed my RA, who voted for the ANC, about his personal views, he made two very clear distinctions regarding his support for the ANC: he voted ANC for historic reasons, living with an ANC family who all suffered under apartheid, and for cautionary reasons, believing he’d “rather have the devil I know.” I believe that understanding the very different nature of these two reasons to support the ANC is key to understanding a broader South African mentality towards their current national politics.

There is the first easily understandable reason for support: that the ANC is the party that won the struggle for freedom and thus failure to support it would seem to many like a betrayal to that struggle. In this case, a country that is striving to continue its democratic future is still being held back by its past. My RA admitted to voting for the ANC partially out of loyalty, even though he is part of the first generation of voters who did not experience apartheid first hand. This might help explain why a man like Zuma is still winning around 63 percent of the votes despite his tarnished public image.

My RA went on to explain, however, that this loyalty has not come unquestioned, again largely due to Zuma’s disparaging actions and reputation. Nonetheless, he believes that there is currently no valid alternative. That even though he “would never vote for Zuma alone,” the ANC’s challenger, the Democratic Alliance (a party I have often heard referred to as the “white” party), has not offered much more than continuous criticism of Zuma rather than offering the public significant plans for leadership and reform. While support for the ANC has dropped slightly since the last election in 2012, it would be fair to agree with my RA when he states that the ANC will be in power for a very, very long time, even with a leader like Zuma.

I am reminded once again of the freshness of South Africa’s freedom as I attend a concert held by the University of Cape Town celebrating 20 years of democracy. What I have learned through reflection during these elections is that the youthfulness of South Africa’s current political state places its future in precarious balance, a balance that is still incredibly influenced by the country’s past. For some, this would seem ironic, that the country is still restricted by the chains it shed twenty years ago. But for me, it is ominous. One can only sit and wait and hope that the balance tips in favor of the parties who will use their power in aid of their country’s future, and not in favor of the individuals who look to abuse that power.