Transcript: FT interview with Jacob Zuma

It is 10 months since Jacob Zuma was elected president of South Africa and just a few months before the global spotlight shines down as South Africa hosts the football World Cup.

The country is looking ready to host the games, but not everything is going to plan. The South African leader is facing deepening divisions within his governing alliance and fresh controversy over his personal life.

Resurgent tensions within the political elite are raising fresh questions over whether the government can rise to South Africa’s many social and economic challenges, and whether Mr Zuma can deliver on promises to provide jobs and improve the efficiency of the public service.

But Mr Zuma is in ebullient form. Next week he visits London on a state visit during which he will stay with Queen Elizabeth in Buckingham palace.

William Wallis, FT Africa editor, and Richard Lapper, FT Southern Africa correspondent spoke to Mr Zuma in the presidential residence in Pretoria.

FT: What are you hoping to get out of your state visit to the UK?

JZ: I’m sure we are hoping to strengthen our relations with the UK. As you know we have long historical traditional relations. We are members of the Commonwealth. There are some issues that I have been feeling are relevant to member states. I feel the Commonwealth is a very unique association of countries. But one has a feeling it has been dealing with issues only very softly. You could have a very well organised voice on global issues and use that structure to impact on global issues.

FT: You mean things like?

JZ: Including climate change. In the last summit of the Commonwealth we issued a very strong statement on climate change but also on the issue as it relates to member states. There are other issues for example, the transformation of the institutions of the world. What is the view of the Commonwealth on those kinds of matters? The majority of its member states are disadvantaged. We must hear their views. And, shouldn’t we be thinking how this important organisation however well represented how it could impact on the global issues.

FT: Will you be addressing this with the Queen?

JZ: Absolutely. She is the head of the Commonwealth.

FT: More broadly, over the last decade, Britain was positioning itself as an important player for African states in the development debate and the government under Tony Blair played a significant role for example over debt relief. Do you think that Britain’s role has now been somewhat diminished and its importance for South Africa eclipsed by other emerging nations and other relationships?

JZ: I’m not sure it has been eclipsed but I think that developments today globally have highlighted many other issues. Issues have become too many and very frequent. You couldn’t stay on one issue for any time. The period of what you talking about was an important period for how the developed world was looking at Africa in particular.

FT: Looking primarily at Africa for example as a continent that needed help?

JZ: We definitely welcomed that. It needs a lot of effort with regard to Africa’s plight. I think Britain has continued to play a role. I think on climate change and other issues Britain has been very active. We have been together in G8 and G20 and I think the UK is still playing an important role.

FT: If you look at South Africa’s trading relations, China is assuming growing importance. On the diplomatic stage South Africa is consolidating relations with Brazil and India and other emerging nations. Is Britain really at the forefront of your priorities still?

JZ: I think Britain has always been there. Trade is very strong. But there are developments (taking place) in the world and this is what all countries should be realizing. If you are to remain relevant the question is how you relate to these developments. Certainly, the IBSA countries, the BASIC 4 these are among the emerging economies and some of them are big economies. I think the old traditional relations and how they are carried forward in the light of these developments, that is the challenge that faces Britain and many other countries. I will be dealing with that reality, of the changing configuration of economic relations.

FT: You say the challenge for old traditional partners is how to remain relevant. How would you advise them?

JZ: I wouldn’t assume the position of adviser because countries have their own priorities. The only thing I would say is that any country in the globalising world should be saying: how do I maintain my relationship? If there are changing situations, how do you enhance those old relationships, so they are in keeping with time?

FT: Do you think the Chinese have an advantage over Africa’s traditional partners?

JZ: If we are talking about old relations, there were built on a kind of relationship of a colony or a former colony etc. And if we are dealing with China, China is coming as an equal partner saying let us do business without saying look we need to help you here. That’s what the old countries need to realise – in fact, that people from Europe are saying: why do you allow China to come to Africa, it actually borders on telling these old colonies how to behave. I think instead they should be thinking, here is a powerful country emerging. How do we adjust our relationships with Africa so that they are mutually beneficial – instead of saying don’t you see that the Chinese are coming to swamp you? Some people on the continent say if we don’t have very clear relations with China where must we go? We have been with these guys for centuries, nothing has come right. I mean I don’t forget, one head of state in a small country in West Africa, who said his country had been under the French and under the French we suffered. We fought for our freedom, we liberated ourselves, we still suffer, because everything here was geared to deal with France. And he said enough: can South African companies come here and do business?

FT: Your predecessor suggested at one point there was a danger that China in Africa would repeat some of the mistakes colonial powers past?

JZ: Well it depends. As I am saying it depends which country they are dealing and how individual countries relate to China. All I am saying is if the old countries did not develop the countries in Africa, but China comes to Africa and it is ready to build roads, bridges, everything. What must they (Africans) do?

FT: You look at this whole period as an opportunity for Africa then?

JZ: Absolutely, there is no doubt about it, if Africa plays this right this is a window of opportunity for Africa. That is why if you look a few years back, Nepad was an important programme for Africa to engage with the outside world, it was very unique, because here Africa was talking with one voice, and it was going to go to countries as an organised continent. It is a window of opportunity.

FT: But Nepad is barely alive is it?

JZ: Nepad is very much alive. At the last African Union summit we voted some funds for it. It has a new CEO. It is very much alive. We realise it is a vehicle which is very important for Africa.

FT: Zimbabwe will come up in the UK for sure. Many people will say that Robert Mugabe is not keeping to the terms of the power sharing agreement and that now is an opportunity for South Africa as the regional player to exercise more influence. People will criticise you I am sure for not doing enough. How will you answer these criticisms? Are you becoming impatient with Robert Mugabe?

JZ: You know Britain, the UK has enormous influence historically – but is it able to influence the situation in Zimbabwe? That tells you the situation in Zimbabwe is not easy. Certainly we will be able to engage – I will be surprised if I am in the UK and this issue is not raised. We all know Zimbabwe was at the brink of almost the biggest disaster after the election. And South Africa, that has been criticised, has been one of the major players that actually pulled Zimbabwe back from getting into a disaster. And we have been consistent on that one.

Together with SADC we have finally managed to negotiate the GPA (Global Political Agreement). Now if the GPA was then reached we should all realise that was the only option available in Zimbabwe. There was no other option. I think that option was arrived at because of the pressure, very enormous pressure that was put on Zimbabwe by SADC. Now, the question is how do you implement it. I think they have discussed, they have moved, they are governing together. But there are outstanding issues – they are pretty serious issues, but they are not as serious as Zimbabwe as a country. That is the mistake many people are making.

FT: Zimbabwe as a country was at risk 18 months ago that is what you are saying?

JZ: That is what I am saying. Now you have parties that are not able to finalise the implementation of the agreements. My problem is that we use these issues, we so promote these issues, that they stand between Zimbabwe resolving problems and us. There are basically three issues remaining. There is the governor of the central bank, the attorney general, the third one is Bennett. These are the three issues. Should we allow because there is deadlock on these three issues to stand between Zimbabwean people and us? And accept that without these three issues, nothing happens?

FT: But these three issues holding up the political process?

JZ: That’s what I’m saying. Should we allow those three issues to hold up the political process? We are moving towards a situation where the election will come. Supposing somebody in Zimbabwe is using these issues to maintain tension until elections. You are playing into the hands of such a person.

FT: Are you saying that these issues should be put aside. That the MDC should live with Gono and the Attorney general? Let Bennett go to jail.

JZ: No, I am saying you couldn’t have three issues that make the country fall. It is clear it is now one year since the global agreement. We have been discussing this issue. I am saying if there is somebody who believes I don’t have the support if these issues are not there, I am in trouble, so let’s keep these issues on the table. Need we all hold on to these issues and make them so huge that we can’t go?

FT: But behind these issues there is the problem of the security forces …

JZ: Let us deal with things when they come. At the moment, the security forces are not the issue.

FT: But an election under these circumstances it would be difficult to call them fair.

JZ: Precisely.

FT: So isn’t it time for you to get a bit tough?

JZ: No I can’t. There is no president that gives instructions to another president. The point I am making we have three issues – you see for example, if you are saying we cannot lift sanctions if these issues are there, right, and we have some parties, we cannot move without sanctions being lifted. So we are at a standstill. Who suffers in the meantime? The people of Zimbabwe.

FT: Are you saying sanctions should be lifted?

JZ: We have said so. And at SADC we took a resolution.

FT: Some people would say that SADC is failing as the guarantor of the GPA and its time South Africa took a more unilateral approach.

JZ: No, the problem is that people are very subjective on this matter. They like to criticise others. What have sanctions done to help the situation? SADC that they are criticising has produced an agreement. If I were in the shoes of the big countries I would have said here is an agreement and supported that fully and said let us give SADC the chance. Let is remove all the excuses of many people.

FT: So you think it is the west that hasn’t fulfilled its end of the bargain?

JZ: I don’t want to accuse any one. All I am saying is that here is what SADC managed to come with but I am saying there was no support. People continued as if there was no agreement, continued with the sanctions. And people said we are working together but we are still being sanctioned because we are hated. If we are in the shoes of the big countries I would have said here is an agreement we are in support of this agreement and lifting sanctions, even conditionally, even for six months to a year, to give a chance for this agreement. That would have been support for the agreement.

FT: Are you finding these issues are rather more difficult now you are in the hot seat?

JZ: Not at all. I had this view before and I still have this view now. What we have done – we have said SADC as the organisation that must deal with the issues. SADC is dealing with the issues. It gave itself six months to deal with the implementation. And it has done so, and it has put South Africa – and we have got a facilitation team that is working there. There have been negotiations with a lot of the agreements that were made. That is why we are aware that there are only three issues remaining. Of course, one of the Zimbabweans I am told has made a statement to say we are deadlocked. No, we are facilitating. We are still optimistic that we will be able to deal the matter. As I am saying it is not as a simple matter. It is a difficult matter. Let the countries support SADC. Instead they use the old thing that they used in the past, the sanctions. ZANU PF says we are in a cabinet of this unity government –but part of the cabinet members can go anywhere in the world for their work. Part can’t move out of the country. This unity government is being suffocated. It is not being allowed to fully do its job by the big countries.

FT: More broadly, are you finding it was worth all the political battles you fought to get into the position you are in now?

JZ: The ANC as an organization battled, said this is the person we would want to lead us, and they went to battle for that democratically.

FT: You were pretty tenacious yourself though?

JZ: Well once my organisation said this is what we want, I have always done what the ANC wants me to do.

FT: What do you think the main achievements have been of your 10 months in government?

JZ: Firstly it is the reconfiguration of the departments so that we can be effective. And, the separation for example of the department of education so that we focus on education ruthlessly particularly at the first portion of it: the basic training at the formative stage of our citizens. I think this has crystallized the challenges we are dealing with. For me, for the country to agree to that and begin to work, we have a ten point programme, is very important. I think we have also turned around health because at the beginning in 1994 health was very fine, we were doing everything but at some point I think it did not perform very well. We now have a ten point plan to deal with health. Those two I think are very important and I think there is agreement, there is clarity about what we need to do. They are part of the priorities we have put in place. I think we have established rural development, which is crucial. Because at first we were talking about the needs in rural areas, but now we have a department, very specific, that has started work in the rural areas.

We have also established the planning commission, so that we have an overarching plan, so that everything we do as departments, provinces and as municipalities, whatever we do talks to the overarching plan. There is clarity, there is agreement on that.

But one of the critical things we have done is to establish the performance monitoring and evaluation department, which is in keeping with us saying we need to do things differently. We now have an outcomes approach to measure what we do, to monitor the successes. In other words we have made government to move.

FT: But are you holding public officials to account? We have just paid a visit to your presidential hotline, and talked to the operators there. They were talking for example about a huge number of complaint calls about problems with low cost housing and corruption involving local councillors. Is this new system going to bring people to account?

JZ: Absolutely clear. What we have tried to do is to expose everything and create a way that ordinary citizens can reach government and say what is happening. And therefore work out a method to deal with those matters. We have just established a ministerial committee to deal with corruption. We now have a very clear idea of the problems. If the hotline was not there it would be much more vague. People are talking. We are gearing the machinery and we are working on shortening the distance between the discovery of corrupt people and actions taken.

This way we will do away with a situation where a person is discovered, then suspended with pay, for a year or even more than a year. We are saying let us have a quicker way of dealing with the issue and therefore those that are rotten apples are got out of the way. And we are with the country on this, the country is supporting us fully. We are even supported by the opposition in terms of fighting corruption and the manner in which we have managed to do it.

FT: Isn’t one of the problems though that these changes don’t sometimes seem to be quick enough for the expectations of the population. You were in Balfour last year following the service delivery protests and gave the mayor a surprise visit, when he wasn’t in his office. Now apparently back in Balfour in the past two or three weeks there has been a recurrence of those protests. It seems that some of these expectations have still not been met. You said in your state of union address that 2010 is the year of action, but is the action quick enough given the scale of social needs, the scale of unemployment. Is there a danger you will keep disappointing people.

JZ: I don’t think it is easy. In government things do not move too quick that is why I am trying to introduce a new culture so that things move more quickly. But we are just nine months in government and we are acting including in Balfour. After Balfour I put together a group of about nine ministers to work on it. And it is not as if nothing has been done. It is not everything that has been done either.

But what provoked Balfour to come back is an issue that raised of the employment of people from outside Balfour by the mines. That then provoked them. The ministers have gone back and we are dealing with it.

When we said we are establishing new kinds of instruments, it is very critical you have everybody on board, everybody understanding this.

Because once we move, people are going to lose jobs. You must therefore have everybody, the entire country behind you. As you said I went to Balfour, the mayor was not at work, the mayor is still there (in his job). We did not take action then. I left things, but of course, it meant the province, the municipality must know what to do. (Now) if I said tomorrow now I am going to act on the spot nobody is going to say, what is Zuma doing? Because there will be evidence. I said act, they didn’t act. But I am gearing the machinery.

That is why I said this is the year of action. And I am sure down the line this year you will realize we mean business.

FT: So it was a warning shot when you went to Balfour.

JZ: It was a warning shot. But I didn’t go to Balfour only. I also went to Tembisa. I found the whole station commander not in his post. He had to be fetched from somewhere. In short, it is not going to end with the mayors, but everyone. There is no reason that ministers should sit in their jobs if they don’t perform.

FT: Some people looking at the nature of politics in the last few months say that the fractious nature of the governing alliance, and the attention you have to pay to the different constituencies that brought you to power are a huge distraction, preventing you from being decisive in your leadership.

JZ: I don’t think they prevent me from being decisive. I think we have been very decisive. People misread things because they want me to stand up like an old man in the yard shouting to the kids: What are you doing, yeah? What are you doing? I can’t do that. I am dealing with the organisation I understand. If one is not stopping this one from talking, and they are saying you are indecisive, you are not doing anything, it is a wrong judgment.

By its nature, historically, the alliance is dynamic in debating things. The youth of the ANC, ever since 1944 when it was established, has been very vocal. It has made suggestions on things so that at times old people said what are you doing? That is its nature. Alliance partners they have always raised issues. In fact that is what brings vibrancy in the alliance. People misread that as huge fights. You know since 1994 people have been prophesying that this alliance is dying.

Its purpose has been served. It is the end of it. But it is here, we are in the sixteenth year, we are going towards two decades.

But you have got workers who must raise the issues of the workers.

They can’t say because we are in an alliance we are not going to raise the issue of the workers. It is a question of how you handle these. I think since the last national conference of the ANC we have been working very well.

Because they have got issues to pick up from the state of the nation address, certainly there is a fight. They are raising issues on a statement not because the statement has shifted from the policies which we have all agreed. It is actually that there was not sufficient emphasis on one issue or another. Why should that be termed as a fight.

FT: But to listen to some of the talk from Cosatu, they are raising the stakes.

JZ: They have always raised the stakes, and it is their duty to do so. They must raise the stakes.

FT: What about the mixed message that some of these debates send out to investors, for example to have an influential leader like Julius Malema talking about nationalizing the mines?

JZ: I don’t know what causes problems with investors. We have a policy that is very clear within the government and the ANC. One member raises the issue and everybody takes that as if it is policy. Everybody should be worried, why?

FT: But you have said in the past that you saw Julius Malema as a future leader of South Africa.

JZ: I didn’t say I see him as a future leader of South Africa. That was misinterpretation. I said that in this young man there is a leader. I didn’t say a future leader of South Africa. And I said this on a very specific occasion. I was in his area. I opened up a house he had helped to build for a poor person and the same day I went to open up a church where his mother used to do washing, which he had helped to build. And I said there is a leader in this young man. Because many old people in that area had not done what he had done. I was specifically talking about this. Very advisedly, I didn’t say here is a leader we have produced. I said there is a leader in this young man, which means that with time, given his feelings about poor people, poor people going to a small church, there is something important in him.

FT: Instinctively on issues that are hotly debated in South Africa, such as the nationalisation of mines, the inflation targeting, are you more with the cautious approach that has delivered sustained economic growth over the past decade but hasn’t perhaps lifted as many people out of poverty as might have been hoped? Or are you leaning towards the side of the alliance that would like to see more radical action?

JZ: You know the ANC policy. I can’t be aligned to anything. I lead the ANC. I lead the government, I lead its policy. I can’t then align to anything. There is policy I am leading, I am implementing. Even the issue of the hot debate, this issue has been raised by Malema and probably his colleagues in the youth league. And this issue is then taken in the media. But it is not debated in the ANC. ANC has a way of dealing with issues to determine policy. There’s a process.

FT: But there is a legitimate concern on the left that policy in its current form has not delivered enough people from poverty?

JZ: Not at all. Any policy that the ANC has come up with, the members of the alliance have been party to from the processes up to the conferences when they are made policy. The issue that people have been dealing with is at the level of implementation. Are we implementing? Are we emphasising rightly? There are no fundamental differences in terms of policy because we are together. When the ANC debates these issues in the run up to the national policy conference, the alliance partners are there. They are part of the kitchen when we cook.

FT: But Cosatu and the Communist party both put out press releases after Pravin Gordhan, the finance minister’s budget speech on Wednesday saying that macro economic policy had not shifted by one inch, and that this was regrettable and needed to change. They obviously don’t support fundamentally some of the policies …

JZ: That debate is not new.

FT: But local investors, foreign investors are thinking inflation targeting may be around now, its part of a government policy but a substantial part of the alliance wants to change it and perhaps prefer looser policy.

JZ: You know Pravin Gordhan, the new minister, actually in some of the engagement he read a letter he wrote to the reserve bank governor and I think he has addressed these issues because there are people that are raising them. We should be able to look at them. In the past people were saying this is done. This is policy, non-negotiable.

He has said that people are raising the issues, let us debate them. And you see from the government point of view we are dealing with a situation where we have been able to cushion ourselves from the global financial crisis, because of the very same policies. Of course when you do the budget there are many expectations from all directions. I think Cosatu is perfectly correct to say they are not happy if there has been no shift. But I think for the first time there has been an indication of willingness to debate the issues.

FT: Do you envisage a time when you might have to take a tougher approach as leader, to the unions. For example I am thinking of the teachers unions. You have obviously prioritized education as one of the most important issues for South Africa’s development, but part of the problem has been that non-performing teachers are protected to a great an extent and may need to be removed.

JZ: No. I don’t think I need to take tougher action. We are saying as government that education is a priority, and this is what we need to do. We need teachers in class on time, and I have said for people who are not doing their job there will be consequences. It does not need me to say I am going to take tougher action. I am saying here is the system and this system must be adhered to. And of course all three major unions in relation to the teachers have agreed that the programme the government have come up with, they are in support of it.

FT: Mr President, regarding the recent controversy about your personal life has this reduced your political capital and limited your ability to deal with some of these issues and undermined your standing both in South Africa and abroad?

JZ: No firstly I don’t think I would really love to discuss this matter. I have said, I think, enough on this matter. Leaving aside that I don’t think any person could judge the political standing alone, and just stand up there and say I think the political standing is as follows. Having said that I think I have said sufficient on that matter.

FT: Could we just finally move on to the World Cup? It is obviously a hugely important year for South Africa because of the global attention that will focus here during the cup. What are you hoping to get out of the experience?

JZ: Well firstly the experience really will have a huge economic impact. We have developed infrastructure that would otherwise not have been developed. So economically it is going to leave very important activities. But I think it is also going to expose South Africa to the world, what South Africa is and what it is capable of as a country. I think the fact that we have finished almost all the stadiums four months before the scheduled time which at first people were doubting, goes a long way to show the capability of South Africa. Some big countries were still doing something two weeks before the games and when people arrived the cement and the paint were still wet. Here we have finished on time. It must indicate the capacity of South Africa.

But also I think it has left a lot of workers with skills, who have been doing the infrastructure etc. So I think there are a lot of benefits it will leave. We have taken a decision to take it from there to roll out the infrastructure, firstly rehabilitation and then new infrastructure. We have put aside a lot of money, 800 plus billion rand to deal with the infrastructure taking the momentum from where the 2010 leaves off. So you can see it has helped to lift us up.

FT: In other words the public works programme will continue after the World Cup?

JZ: Yes it will absolutely continue.

FT: Because there is a danger, isn’t there, that after the World Cup it will be an anti climax, and people will lose jobs?

JZ: That is why we have put a lot of money so it will move from there forward, so there is no decline.

FT: So you have confounded international expectations that South Africa wouldn’t be ready for this World Cup?

JZ: We have proved them wrong. We are ready in every respect. We just had another tournament, the Confederations Cup, which was played here. Perfect. Everything was fine. We are happy. Confident. Ready to receive the world.

FT: It just needs Bafana Bafana to perform now.

JZ: That is going to surprise. Bafana Bafana are going to be the big surprise of the tournament. I can guarantee. Financial Times