In the often hyperbolic world of politics, leaders are frequently reduced to simplistic labels that collapse under even the lightest scrutiny.
One of the most persistent and misleading narratives about President Cyril Ramaphosa is that he is indecisive, weak or a puppet of white monopoly capital and Western imperialism.
This caricature fails not only the test of logic but also the test of fact and historical record.
A closer examination of his leadership from confronting state capture and stabilising the energy sector, to decisive leadership during Covid-19, advancing transformation within the Government of National Unity and asserting South Africa’s independence globally, the record shows that what critics deride as indecision is, in fact, disciplined, strategic and courageous leadership.
It reveals a leader who calculates carefully, consults broadly and ultimately acts firmly and decisively. His critics often mistake his deliberate, consensus-building approach for weakness or cowardice.
In reality, it reflects the wisdom of a shrewd statesman who understands that in deeply divided societies, durable decisions are those that are anchored in constitutionalism and broad popular support.
Lest we forget: President Ramaphosa confronted state capture head-on and empowered law-enforcement institutions to do their work without political interference.
He restored the integrity and independence of key institutions that had been hollowed out. He took bold and decisive action to fix SARS, including the difficult decision to dismiss Tom Moyane. Today, SARS’s reputation, credibility and performance have been restored and enhanced.
When Covid-19 reached South Africa in early 2020, Ramaphosa acted swiftly and decisively. This early intervention bought critical time for the health system to prepare and was credited with limiting infections and deaths compared to many advanced economies.
His leadership prevented the healthcare system from collapsing while at the same time managing the profound socio-economic fallout.
Regarding the energy crisis, Ramaphosa implemented decisive actions that stabilised energy supply and reshaped the electricity sector.
When Ramaphosa appointed a Minister of Electricity, the move was ridiculed by some as irrational and laughable. Today, the results are visible for all to see. Those who mocked the decision are now looking for a place to hide.
Within the context of GNU, the President continued to act firmly and decisively. Last year, Ramaphosa dismissed a deputy minister for violating Cabinet protocol. Ramaphosa’s action was met with tantrums and empty threats.
The president stood firm, asserted his authority and proceeded with the decision. The heavens did not fall.
Even within the constraints of the GNU, Ramaphosa continues to push the envelope to advance transformation. He signed the Bela Act, the NHI Act and the Expropriation Act, despite fierce opposition. Some critics expected him to be held hostage by coalition politics or to pander to opposition interests.
Some accuse the president of governing through commissions and moving too slowly on corruption.
They demand instant arrests and jail sentences, conveniently ignoring the constitutional separation of powers. President Ramaphosa is neither a police officer, a prosecutor nor a judge. Ordering arrests or prosecutions would constitute a gross violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold.
The only option available to him is to allow law-enforcement institutions to operate independently, without fear or favour. This is precisely what he has done.
Yet even in the face of this record, President Ramaphosa’s critics persist in deploying arguments that suffer from self-contradiction and internal inconsistency because it is hard to sustain the “indecisive and weak leader” narrative.
Depending on political convenience, he is accused of being indecisive, slow, overly cautious and consulting too much, yet he is also condemned for acting swiftly and without adequate consultation, as was alleged in the recent appointment of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
A leader cannot simultaneously be guilty of indecision and acting swiftly without the criticism itself being conceptually flawed.
This intellectual incoherence is again evident in the attempt to pin the Marikana tragedy on Ramaphosa, despite the uncontested fact that he had no authority over the security forces at the time and therefore no power to influence what transpired on that fateful day.
It is the political equivalent of a schoolchild finding their name on the list of noise-makers despite not being present in class that day.
The inconvenient fact that is conveniently overlooked is that the commander-in-chief at that time was one Gedleyihlekisa from KwaDakwadunuse.
Perhaps at this point we must debunk another myth: that the Zondo Commission and commissions of inquiry generally are a waste of taxpayer money.
Evidence shows that the Zondo Commission has made a huge impact on the rule of law. Among other things, it has referred hundreds of cases to law-enforcement agencies, providing detailed evidence of corruption, fraud, money laundering and racketeering.
Without the commission’s evidentiary record, many of these cases would not have seen the light of day.
As of March 2025, nearly R11 billion in assets and funds linked to state capture have been recovered and returned to the state following actions driven by the commission’s findings.
In addition to funds recovered, approximately R10.6 billion in assets are currently under restraint or preservation orders, indicating further recoveries are likely as legal processes unfold.
Some often label Ramaphosa a lackey of Western imperialism and white monopoly capital, a claim utterly devoid of evidence.
No South African president in recent memory has confronted Western powers as directly as Ramaphosa has: calling out vaccine hoarding during Covid-19, mediating between Russia and Ukraine, taking Israel to court, standing firm against Donald Trump and declaring unequivocally, “We will not be bullied.” I struggle to find traces of a weak or indecisive leader here or a puppet of Western imperialism.
From Russia–Ukraine to Israel–Palestine, Sudan and the DRC, South Africa’s voice carries weight precisely because it is independent.
Ramaphosa spearheaded an African peace mission to Ukraine and Russia, engaging both presidents in talks and advocating for negotiations without preconditions.
Both Moscow and Kyiv received African leaders because they were not perceived as extensions of Nato or Moscow. This initiative was possible because of South Africa’s independence, not despite it.
Taking Israel to the International Court of Justice, despite diplomatic pressure and backlash, reflects resolve, ethical leadership and commitment to international law.
Sticking to international law and the principles of non-alignment often means being on the opposite side of great powers. Ramaphosa has shown the resolve to do so. The caricature of a weak and indecisive leader collapses under factual scrutiny.
We must remain vigilant against falsehoods deliberately peddled to distort and redefine our leaders in order to suit particular narratives.
Some cling to this flawed narrative because it serves their party messaging. Once they are free from the dictates of “party discipline,” they are often able to offer a more independent and refreshing analysis. A case in point is Dr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, once a long-time and vocal critic of President Ramaphosa during his tenure as EFF leader and Member of Parliament.
Following his resignation earlier in 2025, Ndlozi has made some positive public statements on X about the president, observations he could only dare articulate after freeing himself from the suffocating constraints of party discipline.
He praised Ramaphosa as the most committed South African head of state to genuine transformation, stating: “This man is not what we have been told he is. He is truly up to something… No puppet of white monopoly capitalism speaks and acts like he does!” He went further: “The man is acting!”
It appears the president’s detractors proceed from a flawed assumption that decisiveness is measured by the volume of populist noise a leader makes, rather than the courage to make difficult and often unpopular decisions.
Cornelius Monama is a public servant. He writes in his personal capacity
Bold and assertive Cyril debunks the myth of a weak and indecisive leader
