Ramaphosa was always destined to become President, and had he succeeded Nelson Mandela in 1999 he would have been one of our great presidents. However, 19 years later South Africa was a very different place, and many wondered if he was perhaps the wrong man to meet the new demands.

Over the past few years, it was something of a national pastime to criticise Cyril Ramaphosa. There was usually a sigh at the mention of his name, followed by "he is such a disappointment" or "why isn't he doing more?".

To my question "Like what?", the criticisers usually mumbled a list of actions, many which are beyond the President's powers (like throwing criminals in jail). Many journalists and commentators have also been on an anti-Cyril buzz, pointing to his lack of decisive action and the lack of progress on many fronts.

I believe that some of this is because of Ramaphosa's personality and management style, which is not the traditional bull-in-a-china-shop - generally regarded as a sign of strength. He consults widely and includes others in his thinking before making decisions. And, yes, contrary to popular belief, he does make decisions - even unpopular ones - just not necessarily in the way or time frame we want or expect him to.

This has not only helped him to survive for decades - especially during the Zuma years - in a divided ANC, but was also a strength during...