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.