South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa, has approved a pardon for Jacob Zuma. The two have a deep history characterized by both political rivalry and unity. Notably, Ramaphosa’s decision has drawn mixed reactions from the public and political arena.
This decision should have been made much earlier. They argue unnecessary billions were wasted on costly commissions and court cases spanning a decade.
On the other hand, it attracts commendation from some quarters. These commend Ramaphosa’s character, calling him a ‘good man’ despite Zuma’s apparent dislike for him. They suggest the pardon fully encapsulates his moral fiber and leadership style.
On the critical side, accusations of nepotism have been thrown around. Critics liken the pardon to the pattern of family favoritism that heaps poverty in Africa compared to the rest of the world.
Unique voices have emerged suggesting that Zuma was a free man anyway. Thus, Ramaphosa had no other option but to impart the pardon. They assert Zuma had completed his term, so he deserved his freedom.
The ruling party’s decision demonstrates the iron-fisted hold on the country’s political hierarchy. However, it could also signify the party’s audacity to disregard public opinion and flout the law.
Lastly, it’s worth noting the executive’s check and balance prowess. The pardon reflects the division of power within the party’s ranks. It won’t make headlines in most “pro-democracy” tabloids, but it’s an empowering step forward for South Africa’s political landscape.
