To your first paragraph, my response is: "Vates" And behold, falsification is possible!
Yes, there was a second GM. But that second GM did not constitute a separate faction, power struggle, or change in leadership. The Zuma themselves have, so far as I am aware, always been a continuous institution.
The feel I'm getting is that the only final criticism people have of it is that it isn't how the Zuma have been done in the past.
What "the Zuma have done in the past" constitutes their body of RP, concept, and characterization. Asking them to change their leadership structure for some kind of rotating leadership role requires them to break with their standing RP and concept.
Poll