No, Jacob Zuma was not a good president. You just don’t remember how bad it actually was.
The romanticisation of Zuma’s leadership is driven by disinformation and nostalgia, not reality.
The recent surge of young South Africans flocking to support uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), Jacob Zuma’s political vehicle, is deeply concerning. Disinformation spreads across social media, presenting misleading comparisons between the cost of living under Zuma and today’s economic crisis. While South Africa is indeed in a dire financial position, the romanticisation of Zuma’s presidency is nothing more than a consequence of selective memory and political propaganda. Under Zuma’s leadership, South Africa suffered its worst governance failures since 1994, leaving economic devastation, institutional erosion, and a legacy of corruption that continues to haunt the nation.
The Economic Catastrophe Under Zuma
Zuma inherited an economy already strained by the 2008 global financial crisis, with a recession and an unemployment rate of 24.9%. But instead of steering the country towards recovery, his presidency accelerated the decline. By the time he left office, GDP growth had plummeted to 0.7%, unemployment had risen to 27.7%, and national debt had soared to its highest levels since the early 2000s. Investor confidence collapsed, triggering mass capital flight. The most catastrophic event was the infamous 2017 cabinet reshuffle, which wiped R500 billion off South Africa’s economy overnight. This, combined with rampant mismanagement of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), plunged the country into a technical recession and led to South Africa’s credit rating being downgraded to junk status by S&P and Fitch.
Jacob Zuma remains the only democratically elected president to have presided over two economic recessions in less than a decade. His administration was defined by corruption, institutional collapse, and economic regression. Even in his post-presidency, he continues to sow division, positioning himself against democratic institutions in a bid to evade justice.
State Capture and Institutional Collapse
Zuma’s presidency is synonymous with state capture—the systemic looting of state resources for personal and political gain. His close relationship with the Gupta family facilitated unprecedented corruption, with government contracts, SOE leadership positions, and even ministerial appointments effectively up for sale.
Under his leadership:
Eskom was systematically looted, with billions siphoned off through corrupt contracts and inflated tenders linked to the Gupta family. The power utility’s financial mismanagement and deliberate neglect of maintenance led to chronic load-shedding—a crisis that persists today. By the time Zuma left office, Eskom was crippled with debt and operational failures, making it one of the most visible casualties of state capture.
The South African Revenue Service (SARS) was gutted, crippling the country’s ability to collect revenue. Tom Moyane, Zuma’s handpicked commissioner, dismantled SARS’ investigative units and drove out skilled professionals, leaving the institution unable to effectively enforce tax compliance. The result was a decline in revenue collection, worsening an already fragile fiscal situation.
South African Airways (SAA), once a world-class airline, became another casualty of corruption and mismanagement. State capture saw the airline used as a cash cow for politically connected individuals, leading to financial ruin. Repeated government bailouts failed to prevent its eventual collapse, forcing the state into drastic restructuring efforts.
The intelligence services were repurposed to serve Zuma’s political interests rather than national security. This was not an accident but a long-term strategy. In 2008, when Kgalema Motlanthe served as interim president, he disbanded the Scorpions—a specialised corruption-fighting unit—paving the way for Zuma to consolidate control over law enforcement once he assumed the presidency. This decision, widely seen as a political manoeuvre to secure his own power, ensured that corruption investigations into Zuma and his allies could be stifled.
Despite countless reports and investigations, Zuma and his allies have largely escaped justice, shielded by legal delays and political manoeuvring. While his defenders argue that he was unfairly targeted, the extent of institutional destruction under his leadership is undeniable. The damage done to key state institutions cannot be overstated.
A Presidency of Cronyism and Factionalism
Zuma’s rise to power was built on the back of ANC factionalism. He weaponised state resources to reward loyalists and punish dissenters, creating a deeply fractured party that remains unstable today. His presidency saw 12 cabinet reshuffles, often for reasons that had nothing to do with governance and everything to do with consolidating power. His most controversial appointments—including Des van Rooyen’s infamous four-day stint as finance minister—revealed the extent to which he was willing to sacrifice economic stability for personal gain. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Hawks, and other key institutions were systematically weakened to ensure Zuma and his inner circle could operate with impunity.
Social Policies
Zuma’s defenders often highlight social grant expansion and HIV/AIDS treatment programmes as his successes. However, these were largely the result of existing policies put in place by previous administrations.
The social grant system, which supports millions of South Africans, was already in place before Zuma took office. His administration’s contribution was marred by corruption scandals, including the irregular Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) contract.
The turnaround in HIV/AIDS policy, often attributed to Zuma, was in fact led by his health minister, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, who reversed the denialist policies of the Mbeki era. Zuma himself had previously made deeply irresponsible comments about HIV prevention, including his infamous “shower” remark during his rape trial.
The True Cost of Zuma’s Legacy
Zuma’s presidency was marked by devastating corruption, economic decline, and the deliberate erosion of state institutions. His supporters portray him as a victim of political machinations, but the evidence tells a different story. He was not a passive bystander; he was at the centre of the rot. Now, MK’s party rhetoric preys on the economic desperation of young South Africans, capitalising on disinformation and manufactured nostalgia for a presidency that left the country in ruin.
South Africa’s current economic struggles did not emerge overnight—they are the direct result of the looting, mismanagement, and short-sighted policies of the Zuma era. The glorification of his leadership by MK supporters is not just misleading; it is a dangerous rewriting of history that threatens to repeat the very failures that brought us here. The past should serve as a lesson, not a blueprint for the future.
Zuma’s failures were not accidental—they were calculated actions that benefited a network of political elites at the expense of the South African people. The damage inflicted during his tenure continues to haunt the country today, and the full cost of his presidency is still being paid. No, Jacob Zuma was not a victim. He was the president, and he failed the country.