President Jacob Zuma has issued two statements on his sexual indiscretion with Sonono Khoza which led to the birth of a child.
If you take a look at the two statements you clearly see the two faces of Jacob Zuma. The first is that of an angry man who believes that were it not for “the media” looking into his affairs, he would be leading the charmed life of a paternal politician. This is Zuma’s true face, the RAW file, as it were.
Here’s an extract from the first statement issued on 3 February, 2010:
“I have done the necessary cultural imperatives in a situation of this nature, for example the formal acknowledgement of paternity and responsibility, including the payment of inhlawulo to the family. The matter is now between the two of us, and culturally, between the Zuma and Khoza families.”
Then comes Zuma’s exposition of how “the media” is the real villian!
“It is unfortunate that the individuals concerned have been unfairly subjected to harsh media exposure merely because of the position that I occupy. … Both the Child Care Act and the new Children’s Act also provides for the protection of children from exploitation. The naming of the child’s parents has essentially exposed her to the public, which has serious implications in the long-term for her, and amounts to the exploitation referred to in the Act, because the media is making money out of the matter.”
This really gives us deep insight into the fact that Zuma has no appreciation of the role of the media or an understanding of legislation related to the media. More than that, it reveals that Zuma is actually ashamed of the birth of the child. Why else would he believe that public knowledge of the event would be harmful to the child?
If the first statement revealed Zuma’s less than satisfactory value system, the second statement showed that he remains, ultimately, the servant of the political forces that placed him in power. Unlike Mandela and Mbeki (with less satisfactory consequences), Zuma is at the end of the day forced to do what the party mandarins instruct him to do.
In this statement, a contrite Zuma who has clearly been given the whip by the party, does not mention the main subject of his first statement, “the media”, once.
“The matter, though private, has been a subject of much public discussion and debate. It has put a lot of pressure on my family and my organisation, the African National Congress. I also acknowledge and understand the reaction of many South Africans.
“I deeply regret the pain that I have caused to my family, the ANC, the Alliance and South Africans in general.”
This statement is totally at odds with the first statement which suggested that no wrong had been committed except by “the media”.
With almost ritualistic incantation, Zuma bows before the party and recites the words he has been instructed to say:
“I reaffirm my commitment and that of my movement to the importance of the family as an institution. I also reaffirm my commitment and that of my movement to the values of personal responsibility, respect and dignity. I recognise the responsibility of leaders to uphold and promote these values at all times.”