Full names: Kgantshi Jones Ramatlhale
Email: kgantshijones@gmail.com
Institution: University of Limpopo
Ethical leadership is put to the test in democracies during times of controversy, uncertainty, and waning public confidence rather than during times of political stability. A crucial national discussion has been rekindled by President Cyril Ramaphosa’s unwillingness to step down in the face of growing political pressure: should leaders be held to a higher standard of accountability due to ethical obligation, or should they only be assessed by the law?
There is more to the subject than just one president or one person. It clearly addresses the type of post-apartheid political culture that South Africa is normalising. Political survival seems to be more important than moral responsibility, institutional integrity, or ethical contemplation.
Ramaphosa’s supporters contend that a resignation without a conviction would compromise constitutional democracy and permit political pressure to take the place of due process. There is some validity to this statement. Public indignation is insufficient for democracies to function. Fairness, procedural justice, and the presumption of innocence are rights that leaders have. However, moral leadership has never been limited to legal innocence.
Legal survival is possible for a leader whom the people view as unethical. Beyond merely following the law, ethical leadership necessitates accountability, openness, moral consistency, and a readiness to uphold the public’s trust in democratic institutions. Perceptions of ethical compromise can be just as harmful as actual misconduct in countries already plagued by political mistrust.
The democratic issue in South Africa is increasingly a trust crisis. Citizens are witnessing rising unemployment, ongoing inequality, corruption scandals, and declining trust in public institutions. In light of this, leadership cannot simply inquire whether an activity is legally permissible. It must also consider whether its actions uphold democratic faith and public legitimacy.
The precedent being set is the more serious issue. Ethics run the risk of being subordinated to political calculation when political leaders avoid accountability by depending solely on legal technicalities. Resignation is then seen as a political setback rather than an act of integrity. The moral standards that the public has for public office have drastically changed as a result of this.
In the past, resignation has frequently been used as a democratic accountability tool. It shows that leaders are aware that moral legitimacy and constitutional authority are the foundations of public service. Leaders in many democracies resign because ethical leadership occasionally necessitates sacrifice to maintain institutional trust, not because they have been found guilty by the courts.
Therefore, the Ramaphosa argument highlights a concerning change in contemporary politics: the reduction of accountability to criminal liability alone. Democratic leadership runs the risk of completely losing its moral basis if moral criteria are lowered to simply “not being found guilty.”
This is a perilous moment, especially for young South Africans. Many already experience a sense of alienation from political institutions that seem to be cut off from the social and economic realities of daily life. Political scepticism increases when politicians seem more focused on holding onto power than honestly addressing moral issues. Democracy starts to resemble a struggle for survival rather than a system of public service.
Critics must, however, refrain from equating ethical leadership with symbolic resignation politics. Accountability demands shouldn’t be used as a tool for selective anger or factional conflicts. Consistency in ethics is important. South Africans cannot remain silent when moral failings occur inside their preferred political groups and only demand accountability when it is politically advantageous.
In the end, the Ramaphosa issue goes beyond whether a president ought to step down. It concerns whether South Africa still holds the view that moral duty should go beyond merely following the law. A democracy endures not just because its leaders follow the law, but also because its people believe that individuals in positions of authority are dedicated to upholding moral principles even when doing so is politically costly.
Whether Ramaphosa remains in office or not is not the true threat. The bigger threat is the slow normalisation of a political culture where moral responsibility is no longer required and where, holding onto power is equated with being a leader.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this opinion piece are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or views of South African Association of Public Administration and Management. The author bears full responsibility for the content, accuracy and any statements or claims made in this publication. SAAPAM accepts no liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from the use or interpretation of the information contained herein.