Electorate must vote out criminal MPs

This is an unedited article published by The Times of Swaziland under the "As I See It" column on Jyly 31, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

This morning Zimbabwe goes to what could be an historic election that might see the last of President Robert Gabriel Mugabe , one of Africa’s dwindling elite class of dictators, and for this and no other reason I had elected to focus this column on that country’s election until the Tinkhundla parliament last week did the unthinkable, unlawfully gave passage to the Elections Bill.

To students of old and contemporary history, interest in the subject of Zimbabwe and Mugabe need no emphasis. This is double so at this point in time when Africa, slated to be poised to become the world’s new economic development powerhouse, is doing everything possible to clean up its political and social image and as such does not need the dictatorial relics of the past that Mugabe and a few other surviving despots represent. But then again Mugabe somewhat illuminates the kaleidoscope of the political and socio-economic intercourse that existed and still exists between the continent and its former colonial masters extending to the rest of the world.

As I see it, that Mugabe survived the 2008 elections when he appeared to have lost to Morgan Tsvangirai and has still managed to bulldoze this election on his people when the conditions on the ground are hardly conducive, with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) that was overseeing the transition managed by a government of national unity, just shows the measure of the man. The African Union (AU) was the first to pronounce on the elections, saying it believed the conditions were in place for a free, fair and credible vote.

Apparently the AU statement of approval may have been premature because it has just emerged that the voters roll is still a secret of the electoral commission. Perhaps on that basis, the SADC observer mission has ruled out the possibility of a fair and credible election. The voters roll is probably the heart of any election simply because it brings the human face to the process and without it there can be no free, fair and credible elections. Similarly, the voters roll can be manipulated in numerous ways, including but not limited to resuscitating the dead to vote, to give leverage to one party of another in a multiparty democracy.

These contradictory positions from the AU and SADC tell the whole story about Mugabe and his Zimbabwe. Oh yes, he is fond of referring to “My Zimbabwe” whenever politically fencing with the British former colonial masters he blames for everything bad that ever befell Zimbabwe. As for the AU, it seems even under new leadership of the African Commission nothing changes, it remains the relic of the old Organisation of African Unity that nurtured despots and dictatorships across the continent.

As for SADC, it lost the plot when it allowed Mugabe free reign at the end of the term of the government of national unity. Now it is rather too late in the day to cry foul. Mugabe has once more prevailed as he did through an orgy of violence after he was defeated by Tsvangirai in the 2008 presidential elections.

As I see it, SADC’s failure to rein-in Mugabe can partially be attributable to inherent dictatorial tendencies among African leaders. While they may publicly vilify Mugabe, privately they envy him for the brutality he seasonally unleashes across his country in every election year to ensure his political longevity in office. Privately that is what a majority of SADC, indeed AU, leaders aspire for but is out of reach for a majority of them because the roots of democracy are far too stronger in their countries to do as they please like Mugabe does in his Zimbabwe.

Enough about Mugabe and his Zimbabwe and back to the home front; By now even the most devoted of the obtaining political hegemony, the Tinkhundla political system that is, must be disillusioned at the wake of the latest howler by parliament in being bullied to pass the Elections Bill last week without the requisite quorum to make the passage legal. This is a sure sign that Tinkhundla political system is progressively imploding.

A joint sitting of the Houses of Assembly and Senate was last week ordered by His Majesty King Mswati III ostensibly to deliberate on the Elections Bill after disagreements between the two Houses on some aspects of the contentious proposed law. But what transpired during the joint sitting was in many ways instructive on the grim reality of the obtaining political oligarchy. It is hardly anything to be proud of in a system that has tenaciously, but falsely, claimed grassroots democratic credentials. And presiding Senate president Gelane Zwane best captured the moment, indeed embodied the virtues of the Tinkhundla political hegemony, when she declared “I have the final say, I rule”.

As I see it, the question of whether or not the proposed law will finally be enacted into law by the King and Ingwenyama even when it was unlawfully passed by the joint sitting is but academic. After all I have lost country on the number of times laws had been broken in the furtherance of private agendas of those straddling the kingdom’s political centre of power. As such I should not focus on the leadership to do the right thing because it is incapable of doing so simply because the obtaining Swazi polity is incompatible with the rule of law.

As we are in the middle of an election season, it is the electorate that needs to refocus on the kind of individuals they would like to see representing themselves in the next parliament. With an exception of a few, the majority of the current lawmakers do not deserve a second chance because they have failed the people who entrusted them with whatever little power is enjoyed by parliament. The electorate must punish these no hopers by denying them the vote as we head to elections proper in the next month or so.

On the casualty list should be those MPs who use food and money to buy votes because they suffer from intellectual deficiency to be effective in parliament and invariably are the ones who are forced to break the law at the behest of the political establishment. That is why last year’s vote of no confidence resolution on Cabinet was illegally withdrawn. That is why last week they became criminal co-conspirators with the leadership by unlawfully passing the Elections Bill. As we are by now all aware, some of the raft of proposed election laws is aimed at derailing the political careers of certain individuals who are a thorn to the ruling elite.

Tinkhundla nurtures hypocrisy

This is an unedited version of an article published by The Times of Swaziland under the ''As I See It" column on July 24, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

The one thing constant about the forthcoming elections is that the nation will not get to elect the Prime Minister of its choice notwithstanding an overwhelming call at last year’s Sibaya for the head of government to be directly elected by the people while the complexion of the next parliament will be determined at the polling stations.

And with the election season upon us, the talk at every nook and cranny of the kingdom is about the possible make-up of the next parliament and, by progression, the next Cabinet and government. But can the same political experiment deliver radical political changes?

At last year’s Sibaya, the People’s Parliament, convened amidst a plethora of challenges facing the Kingdom of eSwatini, amongst which was the teachers “Waya Waya” strike over wages, the people were almost unanimous on the urgent need for political transformation. And if the call for the PM to be directly elected by the people had any bearing on the political inclination of the people, this essentially translated to mean that the nation wanted the devolution of political power – from the institution of the monarch where all authority is currently resident - to the people. 

As I see it, the call by the people for an elected PM was a blatant rejection of and also a vote of no confidence on the overly glorified and protected Tinkhundla political system. That the people went further to pass a vote of no confidence on the Cabinet itself by calling for its immediate dissolution, a move later supplemented by their elective representatives in parliament, the House of Assembly, in accordance with the dictates of the national constitution, is further proof of the people’s increasing disenchantment with the obtaining political hegemony. The question is how long the system can continue to be forced down the throats of the people before reaching the point of no return.

Indeed last year’s Sibaya was probably a precursor to the systemic changing face of Swazi polity ostensibly because Sibaya had previously served to grandstand and sing the praises of the obtaining political oligarchy and those of the leadership. Thus it must have come as a shock to the leadership when Ludzidzini National Cattle Byre reverberated from the echoes of previously unheard of criticism of the obtaining political status quo. After all the political establishment had driven the fear of God into the hearts and minds of the people and gagged them into the silence that the leadership misinterpreted as a sign of peace when defending and justifying the political status quo. But if last year’s Sibaya is representative of the critical mass of the nation, we can expect a radical transformation of parliament in which the conformist voices will be replaced by critical thinkers that should naturally lead to the second political and socio-economic emancipation of the people.

As I see it, this evolution is inevitable because it is anchored on high moral values as opposed to the hypocrisy that is manifestly the campus of the obtaining political hegemony in which the truth has been sacrificed on the altar of personal aggrandizement. And the good Reverend Absalom Dlamini is partially correct in his sermon, during a prayer breakfast last Saturday at Mavuso Exhibition and Trade Centre as part of the weekend’s Somhlolo Festival of Praise 2013, that some of those orbiting the centre of political authority were great pretenders who were looking out for themselves other than the King. Indeed not many of those gravitating the political centre of power in this country are what they appear to be and can be likened to foxes in sheep’s skins. 

The Rev. Dlamini’s call that all institutions and structures should be influenced by God in order to rid the country of corruption is unlikely to find homage anywhere because it is the obtaining Tinkhundla political system that is incapable of producing anything but hypocrites given to praising the king’s apparel even when he is naked just so to curry his favour. That is what this system of government is by design only capable of producing people who are not just hostile to but enemies of the truth.

That of late we have seen the enactment of legislation amongst the raft of six proposed election laws that is targeted at derailing certain individuals from being elected cannot be described anything otherwise except that it is evil. You have to ask yourself what kind of a government can stoop so low as to enact legislation to deal with individuals who pose no threat to the nation whatsoever because certainly this cannot be said to be in the public interests. Yet not a single of these proposed laws is derived from the recommendations of last year’s Sibaya, the voice of the Swazi nation that the leadership often boasts about in international fora when singing the so-called democratic credentials of the Tinkhundla political system.

As I see it, using arms to instill fear, or what the ruling elite refers to as peace, cannot be a permanent panacea and solution to the challenges that have been facing the country in the immediate past, such as the fiscus crisis, and those that will face the nation in the future. Peace cannot be achieved by instilling fear in the people by amassing military arsenal when this country is unlikely to fight any war now or in the future. This is unsustainable for the long term because it certainly is not what God designated for this nation and anyone who says otherwise is the archetypal hypocrite that the Tinkhundla political system was designed to produce.

The Rev. Dlamini has orbited the kingdom’s political centre of power long enough to know and be able to lance the boil because he has intimate knowledge of the operations and indeed the people entrusted the responsibility of driving the country’s political machinery. I am sure he also can name and shame those who have sacrificed the truth just so as to benefit their bellies, except that in SiSwati ligama lemuntfu yinkhomo (a person’s name is sacrosanct).

Was PM's hand in CPA fraud probe innocent?

This is an unedited version of an article published by The Times of Swaziland under the "As I See It" column on July 17, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini in explaining his role in the investigations by the Anti Corruption Commission of alleged mismanagement of funds of the local chapter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is attempting to clear his name of having politically manipulated the investigations by painting himself as an honest broker caught in the penultimate cross-fire.

The problem in believing this is that every one of us has a history, which history defines our actions. And similarly, the incumbent PM also has a history that defines how he has conducted himself in public office. Regrettably his record is one that no one, perhaps with the exception of himself, will be proud of. It portrays a scary picture of a man fixated with himself and would stop at nothing, by hook or crook, to have his way.

I should hasten that in no way am I trying to defend those incriminated by the investigations and hopefully they will have their day in court where they will prove their innocence or otherwise.

The PM’s stated position, and indeed participation if not facilitation, in the investigations might have gone exactly how he has explained it in his interview with the Times SUNDAY. But is the PM’s explanation enough to exculpate him from culpability and to remove the widely held perception of suspected political skullduggery on his part that is motivated by a desire to end the political life of one Marwick Khumalo, the long-serving Lobamba Lomdzala Member of Parliament. After all it is common knowledge that there is no love lost between the two political protagonists.

As I see it, the timing of the arrests of those suspected to have ransacked funds of the local branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), coming as it did in the middle of a general election, has naturally fueled the perception that the case was politically motivated to unseat MP Khumalo from parliament. As for the others, they are collateral victims caught in the cross-fire but still convenient for providing a false façade of the case to the public. MP Khumalo has been charged along with Senator Bhutana Dlamini, former Clerk to Parliament Sanele Nxumalo and Nompumelelo Zulu, an accountant in parliament, over the alleged misappropriation of E5.8 million from the local branch of the CPA.

Since the CPA case exploded into the public domain it triggered flashing images of some of the unsavoury cases that have a direct bearing on the incumbent PM, especially his discharge of the responsibilities and duties of his office. Needless to mention, some of his actions and indeed decisions did not augur well for the high office he occupied then and is occupying now.

The case of the forceful removal of the late Ben Zwane from the position of Clerk to Parliament at the instance of the PM has somewhat provided the unlikely backdrop to the current CPA case. That case was quite graphic in depicting the use or abuse of political power towards the achievement of certain goals and objectives. And it did not depict the incumbent PM as one who judicially exercised the political power at his disposal other than for settling personal scores with individuals he perceived to be his detractors and enemies. That, as the minister also responsible for the police, he unleashed the law enforcing agency to physically remove the late Zwane from the parliament precinct even though he was armed with and wielding a court order in the faces of police officers apparently unleashed to execute a political directive, showed that his ruthless streak knew no bounds. Not even the courts could stop him.

The Zwane case is one of many that were instructive in helping us to understand the man and his exercise of the political power of the office of the PM. These included the media, with this newspaper at one time being sanctioned with government advertisements while others were shut down for apparently refusing to conform under this very PM’s watch. Yet now, we are expected to understand and appreciate his actions in the alleged CPA fraud investigations as not having been purely apolitical but merely administrative towards enabling the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) to do its work.

Just recently the PM somewhat acknowledged his typical disposition to using state power to deal with his detractors and critics when he informed lawmakers that government was keeping a record of all those who speak ill of and criticize government and the leadership. The intention of this was to punish those involved by, among others, marginalizing them from appointment to key public positions. God knows what other forms of punishment await those who make his list. That is why today we even see some pieces of legislation, such as the Elections Expenses Bill, that are manifestly targeted at certain individuals and political organisations to malign them from the elections.

As I see it, while the PM has explained how he came to write the letter to CPA headquarters requesting assistance to be extended to the ACC in order to complete its investigations, there is still that matter of the reshuffle of the parliamentary administration that saw then Clerk to Parliament Sanele Nxumalo being replaced by Ndvuna Dlamini. Could it be that decision was also at the instance of the ACC to enable investigations into the management of the funds of the local branch of the CPA? The answer to that question is, of course, a big no because the truth of the matter is that it was to allow the Auditor General to do an investigation.  In other words this action was pre-emptive to the subsequent investigation by the ACC that led to the arrest of the four suspects.

As I see it, the matter could have been investigated normally without creating wrong perceptions that it was targeted at someone, specifically MP Khumalo. Had this been the case, a normal investigation would have been carried out as soon as there was suspicion of wrong doing or criminality instead of invoking political authority that culminated with a reshuffle in the parliament administration.

And although some of us have long lost confidence in the judiciary of this country, hopefully the accused will have their day in court to prove their innocence.

Throwing elections into a tailspin...

This is an unedited version of “As I See It” column article published by the Times of Swaziland on Wednesday, July 10,2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

The Elections Expenses Bill is ill-suited for the obtaining political dispensation and Members of Parliament in the House of Assembly were correct in throwing it out the window only to be coerced into reversing their initial position on this proposed law.

As rightly initially pointed out by Members of Parliament, the Elections Expenses Bill was and is a misnomer in the lexicon of the obtaining Tinkhundla political system. Whereas this contentious law may be suited and even essential in a multiparty democracy, that too is dependent on whether or not political parties contesting an election get financial support from government, in which case such funding has to be accounted for ostensibly because it is bankrolled from the public purse.

In a multiparty democracy it would be the political parties that would be compelled to disclose their sources of funding, etc., an environment that would be easy to manage as opposed to requiring individual candidates, who may number thousands, to make such disclosures to God knows towards what end.

As I see it, it would almost be impossible for the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to ensure adherence to this law just as it has failed or neglected to curtail premature campaigning by candidates nurturing hopes of getting into parliament. That much has become crystal at the wake of aspirant lawmakers coming with all sorts of excurses to host public parties and other public events in order to garner as much support as possible from the electorate. Thus far the EBC have been impotent in enforcing the law barring aspirant parliamentarians from freely campaigning during this phase of the election process hence to date no one has been brought to book or disqualified from standing for the elections.

That while the election process was already underway a raft of proposed elections-related laws was being tabled in the legislature also did not augur well for the process. Indeed this factor alone fractured the essence of legislating laws because by the time these laws are promulgated the first phase of the elections process, voter registration, would have long been concluded. In an environment where the rule of law is respected, that would not be acceptable since everything was already in motion yet the enabling pieces of legislation were still not in place. But then again this is the Kingdom of eSwatini where anything goes for as long as it pleases those controlling the levers of political power.

That the Elections Expenses Bill was returned to the House of Assembly after MPs had deemed it unsuitable under the Tinkhundla political hegemony is instructive about the political limitations of elected representatives of the people, and perhaps even those of the obtaining political status quo. In addition, that the MPs finally succumbed to the master’s voice by debating and indeed passing the proposed law they had rejected earlier on is indicative of the fractured and distorted political processes and hierarchy of this country.

As the guardians of the Tinkhundla political system often remind anyone who cares to listen, the system is supposedly based on grassroots democracy. That is, people elect their lawmakers from among themselves as individuals. Therefore, one assumes that the voice of parliament is the voice of the people. In a practical sense this means if parliament has spoken it means the people have spoken ostensibly because lawmakers enforce the people’s mandate. But in reality we all know that this is a fallacy because that is not necessarily how the system works and operates. The system is akin to a Muppet show, which is controlled by the Muppet master who determines the actions and activities of the Muppets.

As I see it, the turn-around by MPs to pass what they had earlier on deemed an unnecessary piece of legislation is reminiscent of their mystifying actions last year when they reversed a no confidence resolution they had earlier passed on the Cabinet. And if the lawmakers then were acting on the wishes of the electorate, the people as echoed by Sibaya, then who can stand against the people if the Tinkhundla political system is anchored on grassroots democracy, is the question begging for an answer. And the simple answer to that question is that if MPs can be coerced and forced into reversing their own decisions that is sufficient proof that political power does not reside with the people but is resident elsewhere.

That the Elections Expenses Bill is not only a bad law but is invasive into the private lives of citizens does not require rocket science. The fear is that this proposed law that now is awaiting royal assent from the king may just be the beginning in the state’s all-consuming desire to control citizens as objects it can manipulate anyhow it feels like just like the Muppet master controls and manipulates Muppets. It would not be presumptuous that in the near future we may be confronted by another piece of legislation that requires that we submit our grocery lists for approval by the state before we can spend our hard earned money.

And that is a grim possibility in our Swazi polity in which those holding political sway are fond of confronting the person other than issues. If anyone does not know what motivated the Elections Expenses Bill, it is the absent citizen because it is common currency that this law is being promulgated to deal with the Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA), if not its leader Jan Sithole, after it made it known that it was receiving financial support from Denmark’s Social Democratic Party. And SWADEPA has also made it known that its members are participating in the on-going elections under the auspices of the Tinkhundla political dispensation to accomplish its stated objective of using the legislature to achieve the much desired political reforms and transformation.

Can the Tinkhundla political system continue to claim any democratic credentials when it has become clear that it is a Frankenstein Monster that will sooner rather than later gobble up anything in its path.

  

Does PM’s choice of words promote peace?

This is an unedited version of “As I See It” column article published by the Times of Swaziland on July 3, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

Bizarre seems to be a fitting description of some of the public pronouncements by none other than Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini - all simply because they do not befit the status of the high office he is occupying.

The latest of such shocking public utterances coming from the mouth of the PM being that government was keeping a record of individuals who speak ill of the country and its leaders. He reportedly informed Senators that government was keeping files on all citizens who speak negatively about the country and its leaders which would in turn be used in future to censor them from public office.

This is the same man who brought fear-inducing terminology such as “makhundu” and “sintjempeza” into the lexicon of Swazi politics. As it turns out “makhundu” or knobkerrie is a fearsome and horrendously huge traditional Swazi weapon whose well aimed blow can easily disintegrate the brain’s refuge, the skull. “Sintjempeza” is a cross between a machete or “panga” and a long-handle axe and quite a deadly weapon in the hands of whoever is wielding it. In a modern society like ours, these are weapons of choice by the criminal underworld and should be taboo to anyone, such as the PM, given to boasting about his Christian upbringing and law abiding.

As can be expected, the PM wields these weapons whenever faced with detractors, which the political leadership has conveniently labeled as enemies of the state, of the obtaining Tinkhundla political system. And it was on his singular ability to wield “makhundu” against these so-called enemies of the state that the PM was recycled back to the premiership position after a five-year sabbatical occasioned by his now infamous November 28, 2002 statement wherein he announced that government would not respect certain judgments of the highest court in the land that in turn mothered the rule of law crisis that has haunted this nation since then. As it turned out, it also became his Achilles’ heel that prematurely cut short his tour of duty and put him out to pasture until he was recycled back in 2008.

As I see it, the PM’s fondness for war-talk runs contrary to the leadership’s overstated belief that this country is founded on and a haven of peaceful coexistence. The question has to be asked just how sustainable can that peace be if it is enforced through arms, this being the conclusion derived from his war-mongering posture. In turn this brings us to the question of who really are the custodians of peace between the leadership and the citizens.

As I see it, both parties have a responsibility to ensure real, and not imagined, peace. On one hand the leadership can ensure peace through good governance whose tenets are transparency, accountability, predictability and above all tolerance for divergent political views. Unfortunately these are all anathema to the obtaining political status quo that is not only intolerant but brooks no opposition or dissent. This position is enforced by the PM’s latest utterances to the effect that government is spying on and keeping files on everyone who speaks ill of the country and the leadership.

As I see it, the Premier’s posture is contradictory to the leadership’s stated belief in dialogue in the resolution of disputes and rule by consensus. Consequently, his position is either to drive the fear of God into people so that they do not question anything but to conform in silence or to whip them into the politics of conformity and never to question authority. The sum total of the leadership position, therefore, being that it believes in using force to inculcate a culture of silence that it often boasts about to the international community as peace and tranquility.

That government is spying on and keeping dossiers of those aggrieved by the obtaining political hegemony further promotes the sub-cultures of blind loyalty, bootlicking and sycophancy among individuals, which form the basis upon which they are politically rewarded with public positions. These are all nemesis of an open democracy that the Tinkhundla system is erroneously and falsely made out to be. This explains why there is absence of critical thinkers from Swazi polity because individuals are rewarded on the wrong premises instead of their skills, expertise and intellectual capacity to take this country forward.

On the other hand, the singular responsibility of the citizen, from the perspective of the leadership, is to remain silent and conform to anything that is demanded of him or her. Doing anything to the contrary would get them into problems, including being politically, socially and economically marginalized, if the PM’s threats are anything to go by. In a way the people have been forced to abdicate active citizenship for fear of the unknown just so to maintain the artificial façade of a peaceful nation.

As is often the case, the PM seems to have also taken leave of the fact that we are now in a constitutional era and not governed by the law of the jungle. Had he done so he would have been the first to know that trying to control what people say or think is contrary to the supreme law of the land given its warm embrace to a Bill of Rights that, amongst others, guarantees freedom of expression. But then again the constitution is just another document that is often forgotten by the authorities whenever they want to appease their whims. That is why the PM and his Cabinet are still in office when initially they were rejected by Sibaya, yes that supreme advisory and policy making body as articulated by that very constitution, then by the elected representatives of the people in the House of Assembly who passed a no confidence resolution on them.

Perhaps buoyed by the failure in both instances to send them home prematurely, not to speak of the vote of confidence for a job well done when they were bestowed with royal honours during the king’s birthday celebrations in April this year, the PM is now realistically looking at a possible further term in office. After all, the people at Sibaya also tried but obviously failed in their resolution to directly elect the next PM during the on-going election process. So, he seems well suited for the job for as long as his political principals - not necessarily the people - are happy.

As I see it, the self-appointed lightning arrester may be in office for a very long time notwithstanding his affinity to wielding weapons of choice to anyone who disagrees with the obtaining political oligarchy.

Is Sibaya necessary for dissolution of Parly?

This is an unedited version of “As I See It” column article published by the Times of Swaziland on June 26, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

The announcement last week of the convergence of Sibaya sometime next month by the acting traditional Prime Minister Timothy Velabo Mtetwa, otherwise popularly known as TV, has started a feeding frenzy on the rumour machine given the unpredictable nature of Swazi politics.

Yet with the constitution now in tow nothing of Swazi politics should remain unpredictable, especially since an unpredictable environment is not conducive to achieving national crucial national imperatives such as economic development and social cohesion but a nemesis of capital. And without capital, particularly foreign direct investment, little or nothing of national developmental initiatives would see the light of day.

Personally I was not surprised by the announcement coming as it did in the middle of the election season primarily since it is expected that His Majesty King Mswati III will dissolve the current government to give way for the election of a new one. Understandably the new constitutional order has not taken root given the fact that this is the second national elections to take place under the new national charter hence rumours are bound to fly all over since the people are not yet in sync with their constitution.

But with or without the constitution, Swazi politics are always mired in mystery and secrecy. And eight years after the adoption of the national charter nothing seems to have changed. Over the years prior to the introduction of a constitutional regime the convening of Sibaya became synonymous with the changing of the guard at Hospital Hill, when the incumbent prime minister would be replaced by another Dlamini man. That was the nearest Swazi politics came closest to predictability.

Although the constitution dictates that Sibaya, or the People’s Parliament, which it describes as the highest advisory and policy making body, should meet at least once a year, this has not been the case since the national charter was adopted as the supreme law of the land on July 26, 2005. Contrary to the constitution, the nation has only been summoned on two occasions, first when parliament was dissolved in 2008 to give way to elections and second when the new prime minister was appointed after the elections.

Significantly Sibaya was convened last year when the Kingdom of eSwatini was battered by a multitude of problems especially on the labour front headlined by the teachers’ so-called “Waya Waya” (indefinite) strike over salary increment demands that at one stage threatened to spill over to parents and students. It turned out that that was one Sibaya never to be forgotten in the annals of modern day history of this the Kingdom of eSwatini. The occasion was a milestone and charted new ground with its radical tones on the governance and political future of the Kingdom, a far departure from the well choreographed praise singing of past events during which only blind loyalists strategically placed across the cattle byre would be picked to make contributions.

Besides the people calling on the dissolution of the Cabinet over its failure to deliver as expected coupled to a number of disastrous decisions, such as Cabinet Ministers, including Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini, granting themselves prime crown land in Mbabane at highly discounted prices to the infamous Circular No. 1 of 2010, which guaranteed lucrative but substantively unsustainable exit packages for politicians at the end of their term this year, they also wanted to directly elect the next prime minister. Never before had the authority of BaKaNgwane been challenged in such fashion - and from within their stronghold of the Ludzidzini Royal Cattle Byre to boot.

 Additionally, the people also wanted the unpopular Circular No. 1 to be reviewed or set aside and the teachers’ grievances to be addressed and the summary dismissal of striking teachers to be reversed. It is almost a year later since that historic Sibaya yet the people’s recommendations, with the exception of the reversal of the summary dismissal of teachers who had participated in the “Waya Waya” strike, and have still not been implemented.

Paradoxically, instead of Cabinet Ministers being showed the door they were rewarded with medals for a job well done during this year’s King’s birthday celebrations commemorated in Siteki, a move that was tantamount to cocking a snook at the people’s voices at Sibaya. Given that it is already late in the day there is also no likelihood that the controversial Circular No. 1 will be reviewed before the dissolution of parliament, for which Sibaya will be exclusively convened. With elections already in progress there are no indications that the people will also get to elect their prime minister, at least not this time around, because this may impact on the constitution requiring an amendment thereof.

So, in all earnest last year’s Sibaya may not have happened at all because just about everything the people prayed for pretty much remains unchanged.

As I see it, BaKaNgwane must have agonized over the decision to convene Sibaya when they know that they have not lived up to the expectations of the last Sibaya but have been forced by circumstances. Indeed it is an embarrassment to a political system that has prided itself on being unitary in which the voice of the nation is the fundamental principle upon which the country is governed that now BaKaNgwane are forced to face the same nation and try to hoodwink it on their failure to live up to the letter and spirit of the constitution – govern by and through consensus. After all what good is it that the constitution touts Sibaya as the supreme advisory and policy making organ of state yet the leadership refuses to listen to the voices of the people. 

As I see it, had an enabling legislation to breathe life into Sibaya been created that would address its processes, etc., that I alluded to previously on this column, there probably would be no need to summon the nation for the specific purpose of dissolving parliament. This objective can be achieved through a legal instrument probably derived from this or any other legislation. Had this been achieved the one Sibaya that matters in an election year would be for the appointment of the incoming prime minister. That would save the country a lot of inconveniences some of which directly impact on the economy in lost man hours in both the public and private sectors.

Perhaps one may be downgrading the value of the slated Sibaya where probably the dissolution of parliament will not be the only issue but the other would be for the tabling and adoption of last year’s Sibaya report and resolutions. Could be, but not necessarily important now that that report has largely been overtaken by events. But again in the realm of Swazi politics nothing is impossible even if it against the grain of the national constitution.

Is First World status a realistic vision?

This is an unedited version of the article published by the Times of Swaziland under the “As I See It” column on June 19, 2013

By Vusi Sibisi

Ever since His Majesty King Mswati III pronounced his dream of transforming the Kingdom of eSwatini into a First World nation everybody, from high ranking politicians to government apparatchiks and the typical sing-along blind loyalists of the obtaining political order, have been tripping over themselves trying to out-shout everyone else in amplifying their efforts and contributions towards appeasing the appointing authority.

In my simplistic view I had thought that the First World dream envisioned by the King was a directive to government to come up with a concrete policy framework  that would not only explain what this was all about but also how this would be attained and as well as ensuring that the entire nation was brought aboard. In that way we would all have a common understanding of the sort of First World we want to achieve as well as how we can collectively go about to attain this stated objective.

After all the vision can only be achieved through the full participation of the nation. And the only way the nation can participate is through being educated about the elements whose sum total is the achievement of the stated goal as well as articulating the road-map leading to the realization of the First World dream.

But while everyone has been parroting the virtues of the Kingdom of eSwatini transforming into a First World nation, no one has paused to consider first, the practicality of this happening and second, the modalities of how this can be achieved in the event it was feasible. Although some years have gone by since the King piloted this enviable evolution of the Kingdom from a Third to a First World country, no one among the phalanx of those competing for his favours has paused long enough to consider the need to get the entire nation aboard the transformation train.

As I see it, the king’s well-meaning intentions are always frustrated by individuals who are self-serving to the extent that their only priorities lie in currying the monarch’s favours. I can recall vividly some years ago when during a graduation ceremony at the University of Swaziland the King charged government to compile a data of unemployed graduates. Of course this created expectations across the nation that this data would be useful in either government identifying areas of development that would absorb unemployed graduates or piloting a social responsibility programme through insurance or other means in order to support unemployed graduates. It is anybody’s guess if the king’s instruction was carried out since the following year, at a similar event, the unemployed were told that they were on their own and should look outside this country for job opportunities.

Perhaps had someone within the echelons of power considered the enormity of the King’s First World dream and its possible impact on the people, they would have stumbled on the realities of the multi-faceted challenges facing the majority of the people. For if truth be told, there is no magical quantum leap over the many daunting challenges facing the people - especially the disenfranchised majority at foot of the economic ladder - that they can simply evaporate into thin air by the mere mention of the First World dream. To realize a dream takes much practical effort than fantastical theories.

The stark reality is that the majority of the people are still starved of the basic amenities of life to even start dreaming of transiting to another and better world. Many people, especially in rural areas, still have to compete with livestock for water. Many people still lack the means to make a decent living owing to widespread unemployment such that they cannot guarantee themselves a single decent meal on any given day. Poverty remains foremost in the minds of the majority of our people to even imagine the bolts and nuts of a First World country. Access to health facilities is still a nightmare to many and even where health facilities are accessible there is no guarantee that they are adequately equipped with requisite professionals let alone drugs and equipment.

But before I lose myself in the melee of the many daily challenges facing the majority of the people in their daily struggle to keep body and soul together, let me get to the point. The point is has anyone among the high ranking politicians and government apparatchiks responsible for crystallizing the King’s vision into reality taken leave of their high backed leather chairs and gone to the people to either explain how the state hoped to transform their lives or to solicit their buy-in into the First World vision. Or are they busy tripping over each other with incoherent sound-bites that would be sweet music to the king just so that they can curry his favours.  

As I see it, the expectations are that once the head of state has pronounced a vision it becomes incumbent upon those charged with steering the political ship of state to come out with clear policies, at times including legislation, that would crystallize that vision. Also equally important is that the vision, once demystified and simplified for the ordinary folk, should be taken and sold to the people although consultation is always the most favoured option since it recognizes the value of the people not just as spectators but as strategic to national developmental initiatives. Unfortunately the obtaining political system still subscribes to the long discredited top-down approach in which the leadership barks orders to the people without expecting any resistance but only conformity.

The fact cannot be overlooked that given the huge social and economic disparities in which a significantly small section of the population is already enjoying a First World lifestyle while the majority of the people’s lives is a daily grind and unpredictable. In the circumstances, it is crucial that policies, including legislation, are developed that would address these imbalances. Specifically, the path to First World status should be defined by progressive programmes that are deliberately skewed to address the economic imbalances so that the challenges facing the majority of the people are speedily addressed to ensure that the nation can move forward in unison.

Otherwise the haphazard pronunciations by those currying favour with the king on the First World vision can only divide the nation ostensibly since citizen X who currently has to share water with animals; is living below the international poverty datum line without any guarantee to a decent meal on any given day; is ravaged by disease without any hope of the balm provided by a strong health delivery system, etc., will always wonder how on earth he/she could be transposed into what to him/her is a mythical vision of a First World.

The long and short of it is; is the First World vision realistic considering that owing to the social and economic imbalances the majority of our compatriots are still struggling to emerge from the trials and tribulations of a Fourth World while an insignificant small elite is already reaping the fruits of a First World country?  

  

Parly largely remains a circus for the PM

This is an unedited version of the article published by the Times of Swaziland under the As I See It column on June 12, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

Has anyone wondered what lawmakers expected to happen once they had reported Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini to the king for his commission apropos his hand in the local branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association debacle taking into account that dissolution of parliament, indeed government, in preparations for the elections is now a matter of weeks away?

Over the past five years we have witnessed parliament often being turned into a circus for God knows towards what objectives. May be this is the last of such circuses to bring down the curtain before the nation goes to the Hastings to elect another parliament.

Coming to terms with the latest resolution to report the PM to the king, could it be that legislators expect the king to relieve the PM of his duties even at this late hour? Of course that would be foolhardy for a number of reasons. First and foremost, given what remains of the tenure of this government, it would be preposterous to even imagine the rationality of dissolving government with just a matter of weeks left before the elections get under way in earnest. That is even considering that the King would for once take seriously the protestations against the PM.

Secondly, by deciding to report the PM to the Sovereign, lawmakers have exposed their incapacity to deal with issues to their proper conclusion without invoking the name of the King. As they say, you can run but cannot hide. And this is the case with parliamentarians. Passing the buck elsewhere will not necessarily absolve them from blameworthiness for having tacitly diminished the stature of the legislature into a useless talk-shop incapable of resolving issues independently on its own. Alternatively the incumbent PM is just too much for the legislature combine to put him in his place hence the need for the king’s intervention. This raises the question, once again, if parliament is indeed subordinate to the PM as he once claimed. The sum total of the lawmakers’ resolution seems to prove this point and that is the PM was correct to say he was in charge of parliament one way or the other.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of last year’s ill-conceived no confidence motion by the House of Assembly should have been instructive to lawmakers about the futility of the exercise of reporting the PM to the King over his so-called interference into the affairs of the local branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA). One cannot even begin to wonder what crime the so-called interference, or even the alleged manipulation of state institutions, constitutes that is mostly likely to sway the King into turning his back on the PM, whom empirical evidence on the suggests is his most trusted servant.

As I see it, last year’s abortive no confidence resolution coupled to earlier calls at Sibaya, the People’s Parliament, for the dissolution of Cabinet as well as for the direct election of the PM by the people in this year’s elections – apparently all exercises in futility – were clear indicators even to the village idiot that the incumbent PM enjoyed full confidence of the appointing authority. If that was not tacit enough, that the PM and his Cabinet went on to be honoured with royal awards during the king’s birthday celebrations in Siteki in April this year, also underscored the confidence they enjoy from bakaNgwane. Simply put, the PM and his Cabinet performed well beyond the mandate they were given when they were appointed into office hence the royal awards of excellence that were bestowed on them by the appointing authority. That conclusion, again, does not require rocket science to deduce. 

As it were, last year’s failed vote of no confidence resolution on Cabinet coupled to Sibaya’s similar position culminating with the PM and his Cabinet being rewarded with royal awards, should have been a learning curve for all of us about the workings of the Swazi polity under the obtaining political dispensation. Now we know, for instance, that Sibaya is nothing but a talk-shop similar to the successive and expensive Smart Partnership Dialogues that have been hosted routinely in recent years without producing any tangible outcomes hence the country was plunged into a cash-flow crisis because of the poor management of the fiscus.

As for Sibaya, its only usefulness seems to be when deflecting international criticism of the authoritarian Tinkhundla political system, making the world believe that it provides a platform through which the nation discourses and reach consensus on political, socio-economic and other issues of national importance. But after last year’s Sibaya, this has been proven to be far from the truth since almost a year later none of the most important resolutions taken there have been implemented. In fact a lot of those resolutions have become redundant now that the term of office of this government is about to end.

As I see it, the failure to operationalise Sibaya is in no way an accidental omission on the part of the powers that be but deliberate. If Sibaya was an important national institution, the supreme advisory body as spelled out by the constitution, efforts would have been made to create enabling legislation to operationalise it. Such legislation would spell out how the process is managed whenever the nation is gathered at Ludzidzini Royal Cattle Byre to ensure, among others, that it is all-embracing instead of being biased in favour of those supporting and living off the obtaining political oligarchy. The enabling law would also spell out how and by whom the report is compiled and how the nation authenticates same before implementation. Implementation too, would be predictable instead of the nation being left in suspense about what exactly happens once the people have spoken at Sibaya.

The absence of such an enabling legislation almost eight years after the national constitution came into force is proof enough that Sibaya is nothing but a façade created to defend the apparently indefensible oppressive Tinkhundla political system. This is further bellied by the fact that whereas the constitution dictates that Sibaya should be convened at least once a year, this has hardly been the case in the almost eight years since the constitution became the supreme law of the land. In reality the constitution itself is nothing but a subterfuge from which the ruling elite can spin a web of deceit to the international community in order to sustain the undemocratic political status quo.

But all said and done, it would be wise for parliament not to waste the little time left before legislators are sent home by pursuing the PM because that is an exercise in futility. If they must know, the PM is simply indispensable hence he continues to enjoy the confidence and protection of the appointing authority. Perhaps unknown to the lawmakers when deciding to report the PM to the king they might just have pre-empted his political longevity by being reappointed to the position in the next government. After all he has delivered beyond the expectations of his political principal even if the nation remains disgruntled to the point that the people resolved that they should elect the PM instead of the incumbent being appointed.

A fractured foundation for peace

This is an unedited version of an article published by The Times of Swaziland on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 under ''As I See It''.

By Vusi Sibisi

The one area in which successive governments of the Tinkhundla political system have perfected is that of creating crises out of nowhere yet paradoxically they have not mastered the art of either managing or resolving these once they have allowed the elephant into the living room.

As can be expected of a political system that has an over concentration of political power in one centre, there is a catalogue of crises that were a creation of successive governments under the obtaining political hegemony, the latest conundrum facing the leadership being what to do with the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA). After much arm twisting and agonizing, government eventually went to the Industrial Court to formalize its extra-judicial de-registration of TUCOSWA, which it had initially registered under no duress from any quarter whatsoever but merely conformed with the Industrial Relations Act of 2000 as amended.

Perhaps manufacturing crises is deliberate stock-in-trade of the Tinkhundla political philosophy so as to divert attention from the inherent weaknesses and failings of the system. 

As I See it, the problem did not begin with the registration of TUCOSWA but only started when government arbitrarily and extra-judicially nullified this act by de-registering the organization. This was accomplished on the flimsy grounds that it had been wrongly registered since the law, the Industrial Relations Act of 2000 as amended to be precise, had not anticipated the creation of and registration of such organizations. In the event, government concluded that TUCOSWA’s registration was a “non act”. Paradoxically, government’s arbitrary action in this regard was also not in conformity with the same law, which laid out the process of resolving dispute, should any arise since the registration of TUCOSWA had become a dispute from the perspective of the government.

The requisite law does not give unfair advantages to any of the tripartite partners under any circumstances to the extent that an aggrieved party could seek resolution through extra-judicial processes or even outside that law. In this case government was an aggrieved party, this arising from the registration of TUCOSWA by Commissioner of Labour Khabo Dlamini. But instead of pursuing its grievance through the legal processes, as spelt out in the Industrial Relations Act, government resorted to aggression by unleashing its political might to have its way and see to it that TUCOSWA was de-registered and, by so doing, created an unnecessary crisis.

All along government had been ducking and diving over its underlying reasons for attempting to dismantle TUCOSWA. It certainly had nothing to do with the improper registration of the workers federation because the requirements of the law were sufficiently met so as not to make its registration a ‘’non act’’. It had been initially suspected that government’s motives were political more than anything else. It stands to reason that if the de-registration of TUCOSWA was not political, government could have sought other avenues within the tripartite arrangement, or the Industrial Relations Act itself, to resolve the issue without necessarily escalating it into a national crisis as it apparently did.

Consequently, the belated court case at the instance of government challenging the existence of TUCOSWA could have happened earlier before the organization was arbitrarily de-registered extra-judicially was nothing but a farce calculated to legitimize government’s unilateral, if not illegal, actions in preparations for the annual meetings of the International Labour Organisation. But now we know better, that government’s actions were political, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Labour at the wake of government’s futile attempts to convince the International Labour Organisation that it acted in good faith and in accordance with the law.

The Labour Commissioner alluded to the fact that government’s actions were informed by TUCOSWA’s political stance articulated during its launch for regime change or change of government and boycott of this year’s national elections. “They (TUCOSWA) can discuss politics but there are limits,” the Labour Commissioner was quoted by Times SUNDAY as having said.

“They cannot speak pure politics such as regime change. They cannot go that far. Issues of the stomach or labour are political in nature but then they went beyond when they questioned the country’s system of government.’’ 

As I see it, government saw TUCOSWA as a political party in disguise and felt threatened by this collectivism of workers, which was diametrically in contradiction to its divide-and-rule individualism espoused by the Tinkhundla political system. That is the reason why political parties remain outlawed in this country. Yet the absence of multiparty collectivism gave organised labour a broader role to play in the political life of this country especially since at times the lines between politics and business has been blurred owing to the business interests of the political establishment. There can never be a better example of this than the matter between the Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications (SPTC), a government parastatal, and MTN Swaziland in which the latter was subsequently allowed to usurp the position of the former ostensibly because this financially benefited the political elite invested in the private company.

Additionally, one of the primary roles of government in a country is to create an enabling environment for business to flourish as well as for the economy to attract foreign direct investments. That the Kingdom of eSwatini’s economic performance is trailing the rest of Africa is a direct indictment of the obtaining political hegemony and its failure to create the kind of environment that should be a magnet to investments in order to spur economic growth and development. In such circumstances, the interests of workers cannot be overstated because a poorly performing economy cannot create jobs invariably leading to wide scale unemployment and in the process workers being disenfranchised.

Yet ironic as it may be, a political system that frowns on collectivism as personified by organised labour and political parties, does strive on crises. Much as crises create uncertainty and political instability, the prime nemesis of foreign direct investments, these nonetheless provides the political establishment with the opportunity to unleash its military might to brutalize the people into submission to inculcate a culture of fear to force people into silent conformity. Regrettably, this is what the ruling elite calls peace, the fragile foundation upon which this country is built.   

 

OAU nurtured dictators across Africa

This is an unedited version of an article that was published on Wednesday, May 29, 2013, by the Times of Swaziland under the ''As I See It'' column.

By Vusi Sibisi

Last weekend African leaders descended on Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, to celebrate 50 years of the founding of the Organisation of African Unity, which played a significant role in the continent’s struggle for liberation from colonialism.

 

The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was replaced by the African Union (AU) at the dawn of the 21^st century, a significant milestone that also should have heralded a new era of renewal and, by progression, an era of hope and actualization. But ultimately, was the OAU as successful as it is made out to be and was therefore befitting to be celebrated in the manner and scale it was in Addis Ababa over the weekend? Better still, has liberation from colonialism transformed into real political freedom for the rank and file of the people of Africa?

 

Paradoxically Africa, under the watch of the OAU, became synonymous with coups d’état, tyrants and tyranny, dictators and dictatorships, poverty and disease.

 

As I see it, yes, the OAU did deliver uhuru on the continent but that is as far as liberating the continent from colonialism is concerned. But for millions of Africans political independence remained, and still remains, a mirage. Liberation from colonialism merely signaled the changing of the guard wherein the departing colonial masters were replaced by indigenous regimes that were by far oppressive relative to the former colonizers. Attesting to this fact is that many of the institutions - including oppressive laws - that were exclusively created by the colonial masters to keep the natives in their place largely remained intact in post-colonial Africa and were routinely used and abused by the new indigenous leaderships to oppress their people.

 

To this day this continent is punctuated by pockets of countries where a host of colonial laws exclusively created to oppress the indigenous peoples remain in force. A typical example of these is, of course, the Kingdom of eSwatini, which still has remnants of offensive colonial laws in its statutes such as the notorious Public Order Act of 1963 that was recently unleashed during workers May Day celebrations. The import of this law was and is to deny civil liberties to the indigenous population and, as can be expected, it is still used exactly for that purpose to this day notwithstanding that this country now has a constitution that contains a comprehensive Bill of Rights guaranteeing all civil liberties.

 

For many millions of Africans across the continent liberation from colonialism has meant very little because they remain under bondage of a new kind from their own leaderships. The promise of a new dawn in which everyone would be equal before the law and to pursue a life of happiness and fulfillment has remained just that, a promise that has never been fulfilled. The shortcoming of the OAU was its inadequacy in correcting or vilifying errant post-colonial African leaders who became worse dictators than their departed colonial predecessors.

 

Civil wars and mass butchering of people perceived to be opposed to the leadership of the day became the order of the day. Post colonial African leaders controlled their economies as their exclusive private domains such that they, and their cronies, became wealthier while their nations were ravaged by a vicious cycle of poverty and disease. Unfortunately this remains the case to date in some of those countries that have become islands of dictatorship in a sea of democracy.

 

Seemingly the OAU was impotent to do anything about the rot visited by degenerate leaders. But then again who was the OAU but the very leaders who so much cherished political power to the extent of making themselves indispensable on the grounds that their nations owed them a debt for having led them to liberation from colonial power. Sovereignty was the simple defence they would use to defend their excesses, abuse of political power and persecution of their own in the event anyone enquired of their actions.

 

Is it not ironic that the seat of the OAU remained in Ethiopia even under one of Africa’s worst dictatorships under Emperor Haile Selassie and long after his deposition by yet another tin-pot dictator in Mengistu Haile Mirriam, last known to be holed in Zimbabwe under the protection of that country’s president Robert Gabriel Mugabe? Significantly, while leaders of dictatorial regimes amassed and shipped untold wealth abroad, the continent transformed into the world’s worst basket case irrespective of its massive resources, surviving on handouts from erstwhile colonial masters and the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, not much has changed even under the new order of the AU. The culture of democracy has remained rather elusive to this day with no cogent turn-about on the part of the renewed continental body to isolate and bring to order errant leaders that are cancerous to Africa’s collective conscience.

While sovereignty remains a licence for errant leaders to rule their countries as their private fiefdoms, these leaders often defend themselves and their legacies by pointing fingers elsewhere, particularly on former colonial powers, for their failures. Talk is always about the need to develop strong intra-African trade, including the processing of the continent’s vast raw and natural resources, especially minerals, to add value. However, there is little happening practically on the ground to suggest any seriousness and commitment on the part of our leaders. In the meantime they are in the forefront in facilitating ship-loads of natural resources being exported elsewhere often for their own benefit while the majority of their people are left to scavenge.

As I see it, the economic development of the continent can only materialize through real political independence of the people from the common enemy, which is dictatorship. This is the challenge facing the AU in the next 50 years, liberating Africa from African dictatorships instead of playing the blame game on former colonial powers. The power is within Africa to make it happen for Africans but this would require a resolute and selfless leadership and active participation of the people who have largely remained voiceless and insignificant stowaways in their own affairs. 

 

 

Food-for-votes: A TRADEMARK OF TINKHUNDLA

This is an unedited version of the article on “As I See It” column published by the Times of Swaziland on Wednesday, May 22, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

The election season is upon us and, like it or not, it is almost unavoidable talking about it especially with the usual shenanigans that have somewhat become a permanent feature whenever this season is upon us with the Elections and Boundaries Commission seemingly always outwitted and watching from the sidelines.

As can be expected with the prevailing uneven political playing field, some of those espousing multiparty democracy have elected to remain out in the cold by boycotting the elections with some sections within this kraal selecting to fight it out in the polling stations in the belief that they can influence political transformation from within by participating. The reasoning by those who have elected to boycott the elections is that their participation would equate to tacit endorsement of the abhorrent obtaining status quo of the Tinkhundla political oligarchy.

Until 2005 when the nation embraced the national charter, the constitution, I too subscribed without any scruples and reservations to the kraal of boycotters. The reason for my position was simple; prior to a tangible political tool occasioned by the adoption of the constitution, it was impossible to influence political transformation within the void that existed before 2005 that essentially was informed and dictated to by the infamous King’s Proclamation to the Nation of April 12, 1973 that needs no introduction.

But did I think or believe that boycotting elections prior to the enactment of the national charter would deliver the sort of political transformation I and the like-minded yearned for? Given the peculiarity of the kingdom that we are, there always was the belief, misplaced as it has been proven over time, that the institution of the monarchy was the glue that held the nation together even in its political diversity. It never occurred that this hallowed institution would allow, and in fact promote, national division wherein those who differed politically with the obtaining polity would be ostracized as outcasts and enemies of the state. That was never my understanding and appreciation of the primary and significant role of the institution of the monarchy.

As I see it now, I was all wrong to believe that the primary responsibility of the institution of the monarchy was maintaining a cohesive nation notwithstanding its political diversity. Perhaps it is for this reason that one blindly believed the politics of boycotts would send a strong signal to the powers that be that some sections of the population were unhappy with the way they were governed and that their concerns would be taken seriously so that these were addressed timeously so that the nation can move forward in unity of purpose. That, however, proved to be too simplistic a hope in the realm of political chicanery of the Swazi polity. But the politics of boycotts proved to be untenable since they could not deliver the land of promise in which all could be accommodated whatever their political hue.

Perhaps had the scenario, being the unwillingness of the institution of the monarchy to secure a cohesive nation, crystallized itself earlier, it would have been prudent to thoroughly interrogate the politics of boycotts. But now with a constitution in tow, it is prudent not just to embrace the politics of boycotts on a blank cheque without properly defining how and where they will take this country. Surely, boycotting for the sake of boycotting is unlikely to influence positive political transformation. After all, history teaches us that political power is rarely handed over a silver platter but is rather wrestled away from those who monopolise it for their and narrow and self-serving agendas. 

As it should have been prior to 2005, there is an acute and urgent need now more than previously to seriously and soberly interrogate the politics of boycotts simply because they cannot be an end on their own but can only be part of a process for them to be viable. And for any process to garner the sort of impact that is essential to influence positive political reforms it has to be properly defined and packaged so that it can find a buy-in from the people. In the world of business this is known as a marketing strategy. But a marketing strategy is effective only if there are products or services that are being promoted but even the best strategies cannot be effective in a void. Sadly, so far there is nothing in terms of substance that is an accompaniment of the boycotts as part of a well defined and thought out strategy towards achieving the stated objective of pluralistic politics.

Consequently while the politics of boycotts have failed to deliver the desired political reforms, the Tinkhundla political juggernaut is rolling on unhindered. The politicians fathered by the system are exploiting cyclically the poverty enslaved majority of the people churned out by the deliberately skewed distribution of wealth that favours the haves over the have-nots. That is why the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) is having a tough time maintaining order as outgoing lawmakers flood their constituencies with much needed food and other handouts to trigger a feeding frenzy amongst the impoverished majority of the electorate. The EBC can only watch in awe as vote buying with food continues unabated long before campaigning is opened.

Ultimately those who believe they have a chance of upstaging the status quo by crashing the party and participating in the elections should be allowed to do so without any hindrance. It is called freedom of choice. Perhaps they have a fighting chance of stopping the continued ransacking of the economy for the benefit of a few. With sufficient numbers in parliament they stand a good chance of influencing political reforms and stopping the continued exploitation of the impoverished electorate by the haves. But be warned, that would not be a walk in the park given how a parliamentary vote of no confidence on the Cabinet last year was sabotaged by the powers that be in a naked display of utter contempt for the constitution.

Government out of touch with people

Government out of

touch with people

This is an unedited version of As I See It column article published by the Times of Swaziland on May 15, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

First, it was E25 million worth of maize meant for the poverty stricken majority of our people surreptitiously sold off by government to raise money only God knows for what, and next were tons of beans left to rot in a government warehouse that too was meant to alleviate the hunger pangs of our economically deprived compatriots.

Both of these stories made newspaper headlines but hardly caused any shockwaves and were soon forgotten. As usual, the government through its spokesman Percy Simelane, commenting about the sale of the E25 million-worth donated maize from Japan, was unapologetic and instead justified his boss’ actions as having been helpful to those the donation was meant for. He never explained how helpful government’s actions were or where the E25 million proceeds from the sale of the maize went to. It is anyone’s guess.

What is indeed worrying and aggravating in this whole sordid affair is government’s condescending demeanour about its actions. Its position and posture were similar to those it adopted early last year when explaining how a private jet had been secured for the king, the ludicrously unbelievable tale being that the aircraft was a donation from a development partner who did not want his identity disclosed. Similarly, government’s response that it had used the E25 million proceeds from the sale of the donated maize for the benefit of the poverty stricken communities was not convincing. In fact, it appeared government could not even convince itself with its explanation because it was unable to even volunteer how exactly this money had assisted in alleviating poverty.   

As I see it, what is gutting about these two stories is that there are still tens of thousands of people – at least 69% of the population – who still have to face each day wondering from where the next meal would come. Yet government, now acting nonchalantly, had purportedly gone begging internationally on their behalf and when countries such as Japan responded positively by shipping tons and tons of maize to this country, it decided that it had other priorities in tow other than passing on the donation to the hungry mouths for which it had solicited the maize. Or was it all a well machinated case of fraud by the state? To date it remains a mystery what government did with the E25 million proceeds from the sale of the maize meant for poverty stricken communities but my guess is it went into the same black hole of entitlement that was essentially responsible for the financial crisis that crippled government during the watch of the outgoing Cabinet.

Given government’s dismissive stance over its actions, one has the sense that it went to the international community to beg for crumbs on behalf of the poverty stricken masses knowing very well that this was a misrepresentation of fact because it had its own grandiose plans. A misrepresentation because as much as the majority of the people are mired in poverty, government had merely used them as pawns to get the sympathy, and indeed donations, of the international community knowing very well that the ultimate beneficiaries would not be the targeted section of the population. Surprisingly, government, if anything was to be garnered from its spokesperson’s riposte, saw nothing wrong with its actions and in fact expected gratitude from the gullible people it had cheated.

But even assuming that government had employed the proceeds from the sale of the donated maize towards alleviating poverty, which is most unlikely if the tract record of this government is anything to go by, the question arises if the donor country was adequately informed of and agreed to this development. In the event this did not happen this would automatically alienate Japan and the Japanese people for having been led down a blind alley by our crafty leaders and would not want to lend a helping hand in future. The potential of this is a ripple effect that could impact on all external donors refusing to assist in future. Obviously those who would feel the brunt of this will not be those in leadership already enjoying a First World lifestyle but it would be the down trodden people whose lifestyle is a vicious cycle of poverty, deprivation, disease and unemployment.   

Indeed it is hard to believe that Cabinet lives in so tall an ivory tower that it has not come across the face of poverty in rural communities of this country hence its detached exterior to the affected communities. Or Cabinet has a pretty good picture of the impossible living conditions of the majority of the people but is drowning in a warm and comforting cesspool of immorality that it really does not care about everyone and everything else but for its own and its principal’s survival. After all it is common currency that poverty has had such an indelible impact on those on the receiving end to the point of dehumanizing them hence they are even prepared to barter their votes, as the country is going to the Hastings, for fat cakes to keep body and soul together. Yes, food plays such an important part of the election process in the Tinkhundla political set-up that potential lawmakers do not necessarily need to have an intelligent quotient of above one to win elections – all they need is a fair supply of food and, Bingo!, they are in parliament to rubber-stamp decisions of the executive.

It would have been quite instructive how the ordinarily silent people of the Kingdom of eSwatini would have reacted if the stories of the Japanese maize and the rotting beans had surfaced on the eve of last year’s Sibaya, or People’s Parliament. For the people found their voices at the last Sibaya and were unequivocal that they had had enough of this Cabinet and implored the king to dissolve it. In fact the people went a step further; they no longer wanted an appointed prime minister but wanted to vote for their own from within their midst. Yet even when for once the people had broken their silence the leadership still refused and refuses to listen to them and will predictably and deliberately cock a snook by returning almost the same old faces in Cabinet even if no one else can repose faith in their ability to occupy political or any leadership positions.

As I see it, what is more horrifying about the obtaining political hegemony that regards the ordinary people as inconvenient passengers in the ship of state is what else our leadership has successfully hidden from the magnifying glass of public opinion.