Ramaphosa’s silence amid state capture ‘politically strategic’

Keeping his mouth shut amid state capture during the Jacob Zuma presidency might have clashed with his conscience, but it was a politically astute move by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who was then Zuma’s deputy.

This was the view expressed yesterday by University of the Witwatersrand School of Governance visiting professor Susan Booysen, who was commenting ahead of the start of Ramaphosa’s two-day appearance before the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.

Ramaphosa’s long-awaited testimony before Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo is expected to cover his role as the current president and former deputy president of the ANC.

In a period marked by the plunder of state assets and the siphoning off of billions in taxpayers’ money by the Gupta family, who had close ties to Zuma, Ramaphosa, who might have been privy to the goings-on, kept quiet.

This was a stance that Booysen described as “politically strategic”.

Booysen said: “One can easily say that he should have resigned as deputy president because he was compromised. But we have to take into account that had Ramaphosa left his position as deputy president, a Zuma lackey would have taken over.

“Had he spoken out, he would have been booted out of office and would not then have risen to become president – replacing Zuma.

“Keeping his mouth shut might have sounded ethically wrong, but that was being politically astute.”

South Africans, Booysen added, should follow with keen interest the reasoning behind the strategy Ramaphosa followed during the years of the Zuma presidency.

“It would be interesting to get to grips with what a deputy president of an ANCled government actually does. Deputy presidents in government are quite excluded from the mainstream issues, because they serve at the discretion of the
president.

“I look forward to Ramaphosa’s testimony in getting these roles explained and exposed in public. It will be incredibly important to understand ANC thinking on the powers and roles of a deputy president deployed to government.

“That will also shed light on why we have the silence of the deputy president.”

Independent political analyst Dr Ralph Mathekga said: “As far as his position in government is concerned, [Ramaphosa] will have to come forth in explaining the rationale behind some of the decisions that took place in government during the Zuma presidency.

“He should state what he knew and what he did about some wrongs he might have known about. The last time he took the stand he came across as very vague – trying not to entangle himself.”

University of Cape Town politics professor Zwelethu Jolobe said: “In terms of state capture issues, the president is genuinely trying to account before the commission – publicly coming out to appear different to his predecessor.

“Understandably, he may be hesitant in answering questions around the CR17 ANC campaign.

“As former deputy president, the difficulties he may have encountered were that he was part of that government as number two in the party and in government – meaning a lot of problems happened under his watch.

“That question is bound to reveal a lot about his role then, now and in the future. What did he do when he found wrongdoing? If you know things are wrong and you do not report, that says a lot about you.”