An apt South African lens though which to view Trump is to compare him to Zuma

As South Africans ponder how to deal with another Trump Administration in Washington, President Cyril Ramaphosa has already taken the initiative.

At the conclusion of the G20 summit in Brazil he announced he has invited America’s president-elect to come here for a state visit, noting: “Trump is going to be part of the troika in the form of the USA, South Africa and Brazil… We are joined at the hip as we prepare for the South African G20 summit, and they prepare for the US in 2026.”

But is this realistic? Donald Trump’s record is that he refuses to be “joined at the hip” with anyone or anything. His first administration, as I recall, was chaotic, vindictive and corrupt. His interest in Africa was negligible, which allowed the professionals to carry on.

To call him an unreliable partner is, to this observer, an understatement. I wouldn’t even bet on his attendance at next year’s G20 summit.

A more apt South African lens through which to view Trump is to compare him to Jacob Zuma, as many in the media have done. More analytically, American scholar Rita Barnard summarises the works of scholars from both countries in her 2020 journal article Introduction: comparative thinking in an age of corruption.

I was reminded of the current relevance of the comparison, reading this week’s Sunday Times. After reading Sibongakonke Shoba’s article, “In Cloud Zumaland” and listening to his podcast, “I will take back ANC to honour my ancestors”, which included a recording of Shoba’s interview with Zuma, similarities to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” rhetoric, to my ears, are unmistakable.

Read more: Think Trump is the original? Nah, Zuma did it first

Zuma’s claim that he has “doubted democracy for decades” was the focus of a Tom Eaton column. This also smacks of Trump’s refusal to play by the rules of America’s democracy, refusing to accept the results in 2020.

Zuma’s allegation that the returns in 2024 were rigged could be seen as a reprisal of Trump’s tactics. Fair and transparent judicial reviews rejected all claims by both men.

Zuma, no less than Trump, mostly ignores charges of corruption against him, but counters with his own unsubstantiated charges against his political opponents.

Trump’s denigration of his rivals is more personal than Zuma’s criticisms, and even obscene. Both men rely on teams of lawyers, experts in delaying prosecutions – what South Africans now refer to as “lawfare” in which inconclusive court proceedings last for decades. Both also seek the protections that come with presidential powers.

A second common purpose of Zuma and Trump is self-enrichment.

Professor Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics at Princeton University and a regular columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote about Trump’s corruption. Although he didn’t mention Zuma, it was headlined “Crony capitalism is coming to America” and reminds me of the revelations of the Zondo Commission regarding State Capture.

A more accessible summary is the book by Daily Maverick journalist Ferial Haffajee, assisted by scholar-activist Ivor Chipman, Days of Zondo: The Fight for Freedom From Corruption.

Reading Krugman makes clear that there are differences in the techniques of self-enrichment between Trump and Zuma, with the former poised to extract rents from presidentially granted exemptions of tariffs imposed on goods from abroad, including conceivably from South Africa.

State Capture during Zuma’s second administration was more in the form of “kickbacks” from tenders by state-owned enterprises and other government contracts.

Fortunately, for now, both South Africa and America have constitutions that protect the right of free speech, which extends to media freedom and academic research.

But in our new age of social media, the Trump and Zuma campaigns and presidencies pose great challenges to serious journalism and scholarship committed to coming up with the best available version of the truth on issues that matter to voters.

Journalist and academic Anton Harber told me that the fault lies in Section 230 of the 1996 US Communications Act. It allows platform owners, now mega corporations, enormous latitude to forego monitoring of posts designed to influence not only consumers, but also voters. In the name of free speech, it frees them of the need to set reasonable standards regarding postings that distort facts and exacerbate prejudices.

This need for basic standards that are fair and open to due process was a topic that was analysed and debated during the 12th Global Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy held in Freedom Park, Tshwane, and the Sandton Convention Centre from 20–22 November 2024.

Approximately 600 democracy activists, journalists and academics from 100 nations participated. In a preconference lecture at Wits University, the chair of the Assembly’s council, Maria Ressa from the Philippines, herself a Nobel Peace Laureate and courageous journalist and author, warned of disinformation and big tech’s influence on democracy, everywhere, but especially SA and the US.

And on the final day of the Assembly, a plenary session “Making technology work for democracy” featured journalism professor Julie Posetti and Daily Maverick founding editor Branko Brkic.

The latter echoed Ressa’s warnings that the traditional guardrails of fact-based journalism that voters could rely on in evaluating their choice of candidates were breaking down.

Attempts at State Capture for personal enrichment and to stay out of prison, exemplified by social media – both domestic and foreign – trying to appeal to our emotional responses to Zuma and Trump, are examples that we should keep in mind.

Whether South Africa’s current democratically elected leader, Cyril Ramaphosa, can find ways and means to deal with President-elect Donald Trump in the latter’s second term, remains to be tested.

But similarities in the chaos, vindictiveness and corruption surrounding Jacob Zuma’s second term, and similarities in the leadership style and priorities of Trump, should give pro-democracy activists in both nations fresh resolve to seek new ways to ensure our precious freedoms can be sustained. DM