Soon to come, the ultimate Covid-19 blame game: The Leader or the Collective?

The arrival of Covid-19 and the subsequent lockdown has provided fodder to some to attack the government – and individuals – at every turn for the way in which the crisis is being handled.

The politics of the ANC could well be dominated by this new coronavirus and it looks likely that the pandemic will be a political card to be played for many years to come.

Key to whether this inevitable blame game leads to leadership changes is the tension between the concepts of individual and collective responsibility. How they will be used will play a role in whether any leaders will lose their positions as a result of their conduct during this crucial time. And it could well explain why President Cyril Ramaphosa allowed himself to be overruled on the issue of the sale of cigarettes.

Central to the political fall-out over Covid-19 could be this series of questions: is government as a whole responsible for what happens, or only its most potent symbol, in President Ramaphosa? Or would it be the ANC as a whole, being the ruling party?

This is a complex question, but there are already signs that the people involved in decision-making are very much aware of how important it could be. The next ANC gathering could well be focused on this issue, especially if Ramaphosa’s opponents believe his government’s conduct can be used to weaken him. The local elections that are scheduled for next year are also bound to see this confrontation playing out between political parties.

This gets to the crux of the decisions around moving to Level Three ahead of our projected peak number of infections, while other countries have moved out of lockdown after their projected peak.

There is plenty of evidence that the decisions taken so far have largely been collective.

First, Ramaphosa himself started off the lockdown announcements by saying that the “National Coronavirus Command Council” had made certain decisions to implement Levels Five and Four. But, on Sunday night, he did not use that phrase. While this may have been on legal advice due to possible challenges to the legality of that ‘Command’ council, some might see this as an indication that something has changed, as subtle as it may be.

At the same time, the fact that Ramaphosa first announced cigarettes could be sold under Level Four and was then reversed, is surely evidence that he is not individually in control, or responsible for all decisions. And the repeated postponements of press conferences scheduled to give the full regulations around Level Three is another indication that behind the scenes arguments are underway in a collective body.

That is not nearly the end of the question, however.

While a collective may make a decision, some people can still be held individually responsible for it, and others may use the collective nature of decision-making to hide their own mistakes or misdeeds. Sometimes the public perception of leaders can overshadow their own parties.

In 2016 the ANC lost control of Nelson Mandela Bay, Tshwane and Johannesburg, mainly because then-president Jacob Zuma overshadowed the party. This was backed up by the ANC’s own research.

So bad was Zuma’s press that the ANC as a whole was punished. But his Cabinet was not just himself, it included a large number of people, many of whom are still in office now.

It might make sense to blame all of that Cabinet for the state capture era. But how then would people judge, say, Pravin Gordhan (who Zuma spent so much time moving against) or Derek Hanekom or Joe Paahla? All of them campaigned actively against Zuma.

What about Ramaphosa himself, who was Zuma’s deputy, but who beat his preferred candidate at Nasrec? Or Gwede Mantashe, who defended Zuma time and time again as ANC secretary-general, but then designed the voting system that saw Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma lose in 2017?

If, for example, Ramaphosa is seen as responsible, this will be used by his enemies in the ANC in the future. But if it is seen as more of a “collective responsibility” then it cannot be used against him. It may well be that he has seen this, and that is why he is acting in this way. It could also explain why he allowed himself to be so publicly overruled on the smoking issue.