There are many ifs and buts. Not only about a secret ballot, or not, when National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete, who is also the ANC national chairperson, might make that announcement and, depending on this, possible legal action by opposition parties, or whether ANC MPs who privately express their dissatisfaction will vote with their conscience in support of the no confidence motion at the risk of the governing party’s disciplinary wrath.

But anyone hoping or thinking the no confidence motion would carry to trigger the resignation of Zuma – and as Section 102(2) of the Constitution also requires those of his deputy, the Cabinet and deputy ministers – is sorely mistaken. There is no objective basis for such wishful thinking.

Why? Nkandla. Two ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) meetings that closed ranks behind Zuma in face of what, by all accounts, were politely expressed requests to consider stepping down. The vicious verbal attacks, and the more subtle political put-downs, against the veterans and stalwarts who have spoken out alongside the fight-back against those like former president Kgalema Motlanthe who associated themselves with late stalwart Ahmed Kathrada’s 2016 letter urging the president to step down in the interest of the country. Gathering dust is the ANC integrity committee report highlighting how Zuma declined stepping down because that’s what Western imperialist forces wanted, according to City Press last month, the second time this was raised this year.

If the ANC family seniors, the NEC, cannot call to order the proverbial errant uncle in the privacy of its own home, how does anyone even begin to think the dressing down will come in public in full view of neighbours and onlookers?

Yes, opposition to how Zuma leads his ANC administration is widespread, not only among society, which has mobilised tens of thousands of people in various marches this year alone, but also ANC veterans and stalwarts, the governing party’s alliance partners and labour federation Cosatu and the South African Communist Party (SACP), both of whom publicly have called for him to step down and banned him from addressing their public meetings.

But the ANC seems determined to remain tone deaf, as it was during the three-year Nkandla debacle. This even as it acknowledges the negative impact of what its national policy conference’s diagnostic report called “perceptions of corruption” and the #GuptaLeaks linking ANC ministers, deployed cadres in government and others in dodgy dealings with the Gupta family.

Traditionally the ANC closes ranks when it sees itself under pressure. It did so over Nkandla despite the public outcry. Ministers and Parliament were roped in to explain away a swimming pool as a fire pool, an amphitheatre as a fire assembly point and that security considerations required the construction of a R1-million cattle kraal, chicken coop. In March 2016 the Constitutional Court found Zuma had failed to uphold his oath of office, and Parliament had acted “inconsistent with the Constitution” by replacing the Public Protector’s remedial action with one of its own – to absolve the president from any repayment for these non-security benefits.

It was only in the wake of that judgment that Zuma, in a national television address, apologised for the “frustration and confusion” caused. An extended ANC NEC accepted the apology. Although the governing party believed this closed the book on the Nkandla debacle, four months later the party was klapped when its support dropped to 54% in the local government elections that handed to the opposition South Africa’s economic powerhouse, Johannesburg, the administrative capital of Tshwane and the Eastern Cape’s economic heartland of Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. Several other municipalities like Ekurhuleni and Rustenburg were retained by the ANC by the skin of its teeth through coalition deals.

The vote of no confidence is another one of these times. The ANC is on public record that it will vote against the opposition motion of no confidence in Zuma. The argument is that the governing party would never let outsiders determine its business. And thus ANC MPs are expected to toe the party line. If not, there’ll be disciplinary action.

The stick of disciplinary proceedings is real: ANC MP Makhosi Khoza has received her charge sheet for bringing the party into disrepute. Speaking to Daily Maverick last month, she said such proceedings were an effort to “intimidate” MPs like her. The same prospect now hangs over fellow ANC parliamentarian Mondli Gungubele, who publicly spoke of voting with his conscience. “Against the facts at my disposal, I say it again, I don’t have confidence in the president. If the 8th [of August] finds me in this position I will vote consistently with my attitude,” Gungubele was quoted by News24 as saying.

On Monday ANC Secretary-General Gwede Mantashe put it bluntly during feedback on the governing party’s lekgotla that the party had decided to maintain its current course even as its policies in government are failing to stimulate economic growth, tackle stubbornly high unemployment and reverse flailing business and consumer confidence. “We don’t have an ANC of free agents,” said Mantashe in defence of the ANC’s stance that its MPs must toe the party line and vote against the motion of no confidence. “We are a political party system in Parliament and that’s it.”

Ironically, in taking this view the ANC propagates a view of the political party system that the Constitutional Court largely dismissed on June 22. “Central to the freedom ‘to follow the dictates of personal conscience’ is the oath of office. Members (of Parliament) are required to swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution and laws. Nowhere does the supreme law provide for them to swear allegiance to their political parties, important players though they are in our constitutional scheme. Meaning, in the event of conflict between upholding constitutional values and party loyalty, their irrevocable undertaking to in effect serve the people and do only what is in their best interests must prevail,” the court said.

Opposition parties claim they have the support of the 50-plus required ANC MPs for the motion to reach the 201 yeas required to carry. In a secret ballot, those ANC MPs could well stick out their necks. Not so in open vote, where every MP’s decision is recorded under her or his name, as is the usual practice.

Questions remain as to how the SACP members from ministers, deputy ministers, committee chairpersons to ordinary MPs will cast their vote, even if just to abstain. The SACP wants Zuma to go, but its members are in Parliament on an ANC ticket. It is understood the discussions remain unresolved.

And while some ANC MPs, Khoza and Gungubele among them, may well vote according to their conscience in support of that motion, for others it will be a queasy moment hitting the no button on their parliamentary bench. Verbal somersaults would be required of Ramaphosa to explain a vote against the motion in line with the party line after having spoken out against corruption, against State Capture and for a revival of the ANC on his party presidential campaign trail.

Even if the no confidence motion carries and Zuma and his executive resign as stipulated in the Constitution, those ex-ministers and deputy ministers, most of whom also serve on the ANC NEC, remain ANC MPs. And that throws up a whole other scenario of caucusing and politicking.

Right now too much is up in the air.

By Wednesday, with three working days to go before the scheduled motion, Mbete had yet to say whether it would be a secret or open ballot. The Constitutional Court ruled the decision was hers, to be made on rational reasons. And there’s no deadline for that announcement as Mbete previously pointed out in a parliamentary statement.

Mbete could decide to announce her decision as soon as this weekend. If that happens, and the decision is for an open vote, opposition parties are set to approach the courts to interdict on Tuesday’s no confidence vote in Zuma.

If Mbete makes the announcement in the House just before the no confidence motion debate, and it is for an open ballot, opposition parties will object and call for a postponement. There will, no doubt, be furious verbal sparring across the floor, but if it goes to a vote, the ANC will carry the day as it will pack its 246-strong parliamentary benches and the debate will go ahead.

However, one thing is certain: Mbete will be in the chair for what will be the eighth motion of no confidence brought against Zuma in terms of Section 102 of the Constitution. Two days ago the Speaker told United Democratic Movement (UDM) leader Bantu Holomisa, who brought the secret ballot Constitutional Court case and requested her recusal also on behalf of the DA, EFF and IFP, that she had been “duly elected” to preside over the House – and “only the House will determine when I should relinquish that responsibility”.

Mbete’s letter dated July 31, seen by Daily Maverick, went on to say: “I have a duty to act fairly and impartially and to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected. For this reason, I regard your assertion that I am ‘patently biased and therefore conflicted and compromised’ as baseless and irresponsible”.

So that’s sorted.

But for the ANC, the motion of no confidence will mark just another stop in the road of its fragmentation and diminishing – and it will hand opposition parties delectable rhetoric as to how the ANC puts party above country in the long game towards the 2019 elections. DM

Photo: Parliamentarians during a No Confidence Motion in President Zuma debated in parliament in November 2016. Photo: Nic Bothma (EPA)