MK Party sustainability question grows as Zuma is hospitalised

Jacob Zuma’s hospitalisation raises concerns that go beyond the health of a former state president. It shows the unsettling relationship between political power, media scrutiny and the basic human right to privacy.

Zuma is a public figure whose politics are open to criticism, but does that mean his vulnerability must become a public spectacle?

News coverage has a tendency to treat public figures as though they surrender their humanity the moment they enter public office. Zuma’s political history, controversies and leadership record are legitimate subjects of public debate.

His hospital bed, however, should not become an extension of the political battlefield. The media has a responsibility to inform the public, but that responsibility must be balanced against dignity, sensitivity and the distinction between genuine public interest and public curiosity.

As a former president, Zuma occupies a unique position in South African politics. His health may have legitimate public significance, particularly when it affects his political responsibilities.

South Africans are entitled to reliable information about his condition, but this does not justify speculation.

The question is not whether Zuma deserves special treatment because he was once a president. It is whether he deserves the same basic consideration that should be afforded to any human being facing a health challenge.

Political disagreements should not erase compassion and criticism of a public figure should not become an excuse to disregard personal dignity. The same standards should apply regardless of whether the person in hospital is admired, disliked or politically controversial.

There is also a political consequence that uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party cannot ignore. Zuma is more than its founder and leading figure: his personality and political history are central to the party’s identity and public appeal.

His ability to campaign, address supporters and mobilise voters may therefore affect the party’s activities ahead of next month’s local government elections. However, the extent of that impact will depend on the circumstances, the duration of his absence and the party’s ability to organise beyond its founder.

This presents the MK party with a difficult, but necessary, question. Can it function as a sustainable political organisation without relying so heavily on one individual?

A party built around a dominant personality can mobilise supporters quickly, but it also risks becoming vulnerable whenever that individual is unavailable. If its political message, public visibility and organisational energy depend almost entirely on Zuma, his absence exposes a structural weakness, rather than merely a temporary campaigning problem.

The answer is not to rush Zuma out of hospital or demand that he prove his political relevance through public appearances. His health must come first.

Instead, the party needs credible leadership beyond its founder, stronger internal structures, clear policy positions and spokespersons capable of communicating its programme consistently. It must demonstrate that its political identity rests on more than Zuma’s personal presence.

Zuma’s hospitalisation should prompt discussions on the media’s ethical responsibility when reporting on illness and another on the institutional maturity of a party built around a powerful personality.

South Africa can scrutinise its political leaders without abandoning basic decency. And MK can honour its founder’s political legacy while preparing for a future in which he cannot always be at the centre of its activities.

A former president does not forfeit his privacy by entering politics and a political party does not become sustainable simply because its founder commands attention.