In healthier politics, an entire agenda would not depend on one person. And while the nuances might shift as leaders changed, a party would not divert dramatically from its chosen path.

The intense focus last week on the personage of President Cyril Ramaphosa and the anxiety displayed in some circles about his future reveals how dependent our politics appears to be on just one person.

It is always unhealthy for a country or a party to rely on one single personality. And yet, with some exceptions, this is becoming more the rule in democratic politics than in the past.

When the Constitutional Court ruled 10 days ago that Parliament must constitute an impeachment committee to consider the claims against Ramaphosa, some party leaders tried to claim this was a ruling against him.

It was not, obviously. It was a ruling against Parliament. But they attacked Ramaphosa personally and stridently.

There was also some concern in business circles that the reform projects that Ramaphosa has started would now be at risk. That if he left government the very direction of government, and thus of South Africa, would change.

At the same time there is a more generalised anxiety, particularly in the chattering classes (of which this journalist is a fully paid-up member), about what will happen "when Ramaphosa goes".

It is interesting how often our history can repeat itself. In the late...