The politically right-wing, but informative, Economist magazine, for long supporters of South Africa’s incumbent President Thabo Mbeki (particularly for his macroeconomic conservatism) is now finally tired of him:
‘Mr Mbeki has shown by his own autocratic ways and weird views on AIDS—which he seems to think is not caused by HIV—that he too should no longer be leading the ANC‘.
But the magazine’ editors are even more scathing of his rival and possible successor Jacob Zuma:
‘Mr Zuma should have been ruled out on several counts. His dreadful views on sex were revealed during his trial for rape last year. He was acquitted, but claimed that he could tell by the way a woman sat whether she wanted to have sex with him and that his Zulu culture demanded he should oblige her; also that he could avoid contracting HIV by taking a shower. He may soon be charged again with corruption.’
In fact, the editors offer the conventional wisdom that both men should not run at all. (They don’t offer a ‘third candidate’ and can only come up with some reference to Helen Zille in a story that accompanies the editorial).
Full editorial here.
While I am far from a conservative, the “Economist” makes accurate and valid points. Regarding Zuma, the ANC would be badly served by bending to the character and weakness of this greatly flawed man. And Mbeki..ug!!!
AND why, oh why, should you suggest that the “Economist” suggest an alternative candidate????? (Can you just imagine who they would suggest!!!) I am quite curious about that comment.
MKM