Story here. This doesn’t mean he’s resigned yet, he’s digging his heels in, but a parliamentary motion of no confidence is probably the next step and his imminent ouster is inevitable.
This is great news, even if several years too late. I think the result will be positive for the country overall.
Could you explain to me whats happened?
Is he like Trump, that even if the Republicans kick him out of their party, he is still the President and remains so unless successfully removed following a conviction post-impeachment.
Or like May, that if she lose the support of her party in Parliament, she is out?
He doesn’t have to be convicted, a vote of no confidence in Parliament would do it automatically. But it’s not like impeachment, there doesn’t have to be any criminality, just incompetence.
It’s a little like the US in that he was voted in separately from the MPs, so he could theoretically go on being pres until his term was up. But practically, the ANC has a majority, so if they want him gone, they could remove him without a say by the rest of parliament. Assuming party unity, that is, which is a big assumption.
What’s going to change when he goes? Is it going to be “same policies, less corruption” or something more sweeping?
For clarity: the SA president is elected by the members of Parliament from amongst themselves, and depends on the confidence of Parliament to stay in office; he can be removed by a simple majority on a motion of no confidence. (In that sense he is somewhat like a Prime Minister.) The president can also be impeached for misconduct by a two-thirds majority vote - in addition to removing him from office, impeachment also removes the benefits (pension etc.) and bans him from any public office in the future.
This situation is unprecedented for SA because the ANC has had majorities in every parliament since 1994, and has never before had this level of internal disunity. The big question is, if Zuma refuses to leave voluntarily, will the ANC actually go through with voting him out? Their hand is being forced because the EFF, an opposition party, has put down a motion of no confidence for 22 February. The ANC MPs will have the unpleasant choice of voting for an opposition motion against their own ex-leader, or voting to protect him even though the ANC itself has said he must go.
If he’s elected by Parliament, how can the party remove him without giving Parliament a say ? 
The *rest *of parliament. They have a majority.
In Canada, the Prime Minister is just the leader of the majority party. If South Africa’s parliamentary system operates like ours then…
[ul]
[li]…when a party leader loses the confidence of his party members, (mostly due to age of administration and changing political winds) party opportunists form an ousting faction ahead of the next convention,[/li][li]if the ousters are successful, the party gets a new leader[/li][li]If the party (that gets a new leader) is the one that holds power, the country gets a new Prime Minister[/li][/ul]
I’m assuming that if Zuma doesn’t step down, at the request of his party, he will not be able to hold the confidence of the Parliament. IOW some member of Parliament will table a no-confidence bill (a bill that needs to pass for the government to continue to function) and it will not get the required number of votes to pass. Thus triggering general elections.
In Canada, the triggering of general elections immediately terminates the current Parliamentary’s session, all member’s of Parliament lose their jobs (including the sitting Prime Minister).
I’m reading that Zuma is already ousted from his position as leader of the ANC. This means that, yes, he’s officially a lame duck. How can Zuma expect to hold South Africa’s Parliament when he has no position of power over the ANC members of Parliament?
Zuma is done and anyone who doesn’t follow the new ANC leader will probably be drummed out of the party too, I’m certain of this. However, the real question is if the ANC can afford this divisive infighting? Split parties suffer election loses, that’s a fact.
Can other South African parties capitalize on the ANC disunity? I guess we will see.
I’m going to spend a lot of my time learning the South African political system now. As of yet, I really know nothing about it. Current events always give me a really good chance to expand my general knowledge.
Zuma was replaced as ANC leader at the party conference at the end of last year. It wasn’t an ouster, strictly speaking, since he wasn’t a candidate in the leadership election. But “his” candidate, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (also his ex-wife) lost the election to Ramaphosa, so it was effectively an ouster of the Zuma faction.
The constitution makes specific provision (section 102) for a motion of no confidence in the President which, if passed, forces him to resign. We don’t really have the convention that certain bills (e.g. the budget) are confidence matters - or at least, that question hasn’t arisen since 1994. Although it seems from today’s events that Zuma has practically lost the confidence of Parliament, the ANC members may well want to avoid having to actually vote against him. (As noted, though, they can’t avoid it because an opposition motion is already on the order paper for next week.)
A successful motion of no confidence doesn’t necessarily trigger general elections, unless Parliament also votes to dissolve itself, or fails to elect a new president within 30 days. The opposition parties are pushing for early elections but there’s no reason to think the ANC would go along with that.
(As an aside, where I’m saying Parliament I really mean the lower house, the National Assembly; the upper house has no involvement in selecting or removing the president.)
Interesting. Since an opposition member has forced the Zuma issue with a no confidence vote, one that doesn’t even trigger an immediate election, I can’t see any consequence for ANC members to voting Zuma out. Is it loyalty to Zuma, or a general sense of party unity which make this route distasteful to ANC members?
Politicians in Canada are extremely whipped; if a politician doesn’t vote as directed, by the party leader, they can be kicked from their party and made to serve as an independent. Independent politicians are very powerless and they rarely survive (even with huge grassroots support) general elections in this country.
Some of them are personally loyal to Zuma, and for others (and the ANC generally) it may be embarrassing to vote against Zuma when they were vocally supporting him right up to the conference at the end of last year. If it is an EFF motion which finally removes Zuma that will be a PR victory for the EFF, which the ANC won’t like.
Legislators in South Africa are also extremely whipped; the electoral system is pure party-list proportional representation so MPs depend entirely on their party for their position. They have no constituency to depend on so it is impossible to be an independent MP. (There have been proposals to move to a mixed-member proportional system like Germany or New Zealand, but nothing has come of them yet.)
However, the vote on a motion of no confidence can be conducted as a secret ballot, in which case the whips have little power. The question of secret vs. open vote for motions of no confidence has itself been a big political and constitutional question over the last year.
Zuma is (probably) going to address the nation at 10am (SA time, which is GMT+2).
Well, that didn’t happen. ANC MPs are in caucus now.
Impeachment doesn’t require criminality. It looks like it does, but since the only possible punishment is removal from office and, potentially, a bar on seeking future political office, it’s a purely political process.
I was told last night that the reason why Zuma is refusing to go is that once out of office he will be prosecuted for criminal activities - corruption etc. Is there any truth in that?
Well, you can ignore quite a bit of what I said earlier. The motion of no confidence has been brought forward to tomorrow, and the ANC chief whip says they will vote for the motion if Zuma does not resign tonight. They also want to elect Ramaphosa to the presidency tomorrow.
Impeachment doesn’t require criminality, but it does require “a serious violation of the Constitution or the law; serious misconduct; or inability to perform the functions of office.” It’s not clear what level of proof (if any) is required to demonstrate this, because the situation has never arisen; indeed a committee of Parliament is still busy writing the rules for impeachment.
That’s part of it. The President doesn’t actually have legal immunity from prosecution, but certainly the position gives him a lot of power to interfere. There’s a case before the Constitutional Court at the moment regarding the appointment of the head of the National Prosecuting Authority by President Zuma - that appointment was definitely seen as part of his attempts to protect himself.
The notorious Gupta family, who are implicated in numerous, prolonged and extensive corrupt dealings with the State and Zuma in particular, and were previously untouchable, were raided by police earlier today. Eldest brother Atul has been detained for questioning.
There are reports, that the arrest of Duduzane, one of Zuma’s sons, is also imminent.
The net is closing and Zuma may well be prosecuted.
Zuma seems to be obstinately clinging to his, now powerless, title and praying for an 11th hour miracle. Political opportunists (and enemies alike) know he’s out of moves and are acting for a quick removal (possible prosecution even).
Politics is a fickle game; today president, tomorrow lunch.