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.

Parliament ambushed by proposed election laws

Parliament ambushed by

proposed election laws

This is an unedited version of As I See it column article published by the Times of Swaziland on May 8, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

Almost five years after the last elections, parliament has been ambushed with a rung of election laws on the eve of elections slated for August this year.

The question, as I see it, is this by coincidence or by design. Here I am reminded of the immortal words of the late statesman, Mabalizandla Nhlabatsi, during the halcyon days of the Liqoqo hegemony in the mid-1980s when he cautioned fellow legislators about the pitfalls of blindly enacting laws that might one day haunt them. Indeed it is history that some of the harsh laws that were targeted at detractors of the then political status quo came back to haunt some of those who were instrumental in enacting them.

The turn-about came when the very same laws the late Nhlabatsi had warned about that had been used to incarcerate and silence opponents of the Liqoqo regime were invoked to send to prison some of the Liqoqo leaders who were instrumental in their enactment. The lessons of that episode epitomized by the wise words of the late Nhlabatsi were that law-making should not be driven by emotions to settle scores with political adversaries but should rather be informed by need.

As I see it, the rung of election laws that have been sprung on not just the legislators but on an unsuspecting electorate, may well become a minefield come election time ostensibly because they may not be well meant but aimed at manipulating the elections so that deserving candidates disliked by the leadership are ostracised from participating. Otherwise I cannot find the logic why government waited five years before enacting these laws in what now appears to be a mad rush to formalize them.

As it were the current lawmakers have registered their regrets in passing certain laws without properly scrutinizing and consulting adequately on these with the electorate. The outcomes of this were bad and unworkable laws some of which are contrary to the dictates and letter of the constitution. Yet the government has in its wisdom failed since 2008 to prepare the road-map to this year’s elections by enacting requisite legislation that is in line with the national charter, the constitution, until the last minute. Ultimately one wonders when the electorate would acclimatize these laws to comprehend what is required of it in order to be effective when faced with the ballot.

As I see it, having defied the constitution in the last elections in 2008 by going to the Hastings under the outdated and indeed unconstitutional 1992 statutes, government cannot justify its actions of flooding or rather ambushing the legislature with a rung of election laws at the eleventh hour if its actions are honourable. What would be understandable is if these laws were derived from and influenced by last year’s Sibaya or People’s Parliament. But that is not so since not a single of the four pieces of legislation currently before parliament has to do with people’s inputs at Sibaya. After all the Prime Minister will still be chosen by the king whereas the Sibaya, when calling for the dismissal of the entire Cabinet for having failed the nation, wanted to directly elect the Prime Minister.

That incumbent Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini has since given a strong hint of being retained in the position is a strong indication that what the people want is not necessarily what they will get simply because they have no say in important matters of how they are and should be governed. The long and short of it as that Sibaya is, contrary to the constitution that it is the supreme policy and advisory body, is but a talk shop where people let off hot air, kutihhamula.

Indeed the point was further driven home during the recent king’s birthday celebrations in Siteki when the incumbent PM and his Cabinet were bestowed with royal honours for a job well done, a position that is contrary to the people’s views as expressed at Sibaya. It is apparent therefore that unbeknown to the nation, the outgoing Cabinet has performed beyond its mandate hence the kudos for a job well done. It is anybody’s guess if the entire Cabinet will not bounce back to form a new government after the elections. And there is absolutely nothing the people can do about this.

But, as I see it, parliament would do all of us a big favour if it can defer the four proposed election laws before it to the next government. This would allow the in-coming lawmakers ample time to scrutinize and consult with the electorate before enacting these into statutes. There is absolutely no rush to pass these laws even if they are meant to bring the process into conformity with the constitution. After all what is the constitution when it is violated at the whims of the ruling elite every time it wants to accomplish self-serving objectives.

But then again our lawmakers are not known to subscribe to high, or any, moral values. This much became apparent apropos last year’s abortive no confidence resolution on the Cabinet that the lawmakers are now sucking up to. As such what is uppermost in the minds of our legislators right now must be to please Cabinet at all costs in order to secure their hefty exit packages that they will use to obtain fat-cakes with which to buy votes. In the event they will perform their natural role of rubber stamping that which Cabinet has dictated to them, period. Hopefully the electorate has a long memory – not hunger pangs - to help and influence their votes on the day of elections by sending self-serving lawmakers to the dustbin of history by not reelecting them.