Mpumelelo Mkhabela asks the following question about the controversy surrounding Jacob Zuma’s latest “Jesus” remarks:

The South African Council of Churches is very angry that the president has repeated his remarks that the ANC will rule until the Second Coming of Jesus. Casual talk in this context is normally used when a person vows that something will never happen - until Jesus comes back. A short hand for “over my dead body”.

But is Zuma demeaning of Jesus’ name specifically and the Christian religion, generally? He has been going to church lately, or was it only meant for electioneering? Remember the controversy that followed in the wake of his visit to the charismatic Rhema. Is the SACC’s anger justified?

The short answer is “no”. Zuma is not likening himself or the ANC to Jesus, at least not in this case (he has done that in the past, however). The “second coming of Christ”, in this context, is simply another way of saying “forever”. There is no specific reason why Christians should be offended by this statement.

On the other hand, this statement is pretty offensive if you believe in democracy. Indefinite single-party rule and democratic values are inherently incompatible: if we could know with absolute certainty that one party should rule forever, we wouldn’t bother holding elections in the first place. Furthermore, the idea that any party can hold power indefinitely in a democratic system does not stand up to empirical examination, even in countries with a strong tendency towards single-party dominance. In Zimbabwe, Zanu-PF ruled as a dominant party since 1987, but lost control of parliament in 2008 (and would have lost the presidency too if the election hadn’t been rigged). In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party ruled almost continuously after 1955, but managed to lose power briefly in 1993 and stands a fairly good chance of losing the upcoming election. Mexico is an extreme case: after its formation in 1929, the PRI won every single election for nearly three quarters of a century. But even the PRI was eventually defeated in 2000, when Vicente Fox became president.

So if we’re going to take Zuma’s remarks seriously (and I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t), I see only four possibilities:

1. Zuma is simply not aware of the history of democracy in other countries. This seems unlikely.

2. Zuma is aware of this history, but believes that South Africa has unique features which make it different from every other democracy in the world, which makes indefinite single-party domination a realistic possibility. This seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of his remarks, but it would be interesting to ask him what these unique features are, because they’re certainly not intuitively apparent.

3. Zuma is aware of this history, but was signalling the ANC’s intention to rule by undemocratic means in the event that it loses an election. This is the most extreme and (I hope) unlikely interpretation.

4. Zuma is aware of this history, but was saying something he doesn’t believe in order to please his supporters. Probably the second-most likely interpretation after #2.

Unfortunately, none of these interpretations show Zuma in a very good light.