These are not South African President Jacob Zuma’s best days. To make an American analogy, Zuma right now comes across to much of the public like a mix between Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Bill Clinton survived his sexual peccadilloes, though they wounded his presidency and legacy substantially and may well have helped cost Al Gore the presidency (inasmuch as Clinton, who should have been a campaign powerhouse for Gore in 2000, was relegated largely to the sidelines in states Gore lost by the slimmest of margins). John Edwards almost certainly has seen the end of his political career, at least for the foreseeable future. Zuma’s problems are, of course, unique in their context, but the analogy still resonates.
Zuma, whose polygamy already was the source of some controversy, was accused of fathering his 20th child (no motility issues for the President!) with a woman who is not one of his three wives. This understandably stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest. The ANC naturally came to Zuma’s defense. The opposition took a different view, though calls for apologies seem relatively tame — Clinton, as you might recall, faced impeachment as the result of his attempts to keep his own dalliances private.
Zuma has confirmed that the child is his. His family apparently “understands,” and the ANC believes that we all should leave Zuma alone to allow him to reflect on things. None of this has mitigated either the growing outrage or the increased mockery.
In the end, this cannot be good for the country’s governance. And it definitely is not good for Zuma. All of South Africa’s leaders will long operate under Nelson Mandela’s insurmountable shadow. Even if he emerges from this crisis, Zuma has almost assured that his biography will always lead off with his pre-presidential controversies (a rape acusation, corruption allegations) and with this sordid affair.