Noose tightening on Tinkhundla

Noose tightening on #Tinkhundla

This is an unedited version of “As I See It” column article that was published by the #Times of Swaziland on Wednesday, March 27, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

The noose is tightening on this our beautiful Kingdom of eSwatini over its continued resistance to transform into a modern democratic state while the leadership remains ensconced in its natural habitat of denial pretending all is normal within the Tinkhundla-driven Swazi polity even when its twin-pillars, the constitution and Sibaya, dramatically collapsed last year in front of our disbelieving eyes.

The latest indicator in an increasing crescendo of voices calling for political pluralism comes from the European Union (EU) whose Director for Southern and Eastern Africa at the European External Action Service, Koen Vervacke, last week called on government to allow political parties to become players in the country’s political space. While the EU respected that democracy was not a one size fits all, Vervacke said it was important that internationally accepted principles were respected and adhered to.

Vervacke’s two-day visit to these shores last week came on the heels of a fact finding mission by EU ambassadors last year. It is reasonable to conclude that the EU position, as articulated by Vervacke, was informed by the findings of that ambassadorial mission to this country. In all instances, the EU officials, including Vervacke, interacted with both the leaders and the wider civil society, including proponents of multiparty democracy and other civic organizations, to get a holistic picture on the obtaining Swazi polity.

But even before the EU’s double-pronged mission to this country, the former colonial master, the United Kingdom, had called for multiparty democracy. Last November British Foreign Office Minister Mark Simmonds told the House of Commons, the equivalent of the House of Assembly in the local parliament, that the UK continues to urge the Swazi government to ensure that all political parties are able to operate freely and participate in this year’s elections.

Earlier this month, United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs in the State Department, Reuben Brigety II, issued a veiled threat apropos the renewal of the American Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), which essentially extends preferential trade to qualifying countries to access the American market. As it were the country’s imported textile industry was built on the opportunities deriving from AGOA. The American diplomat pulled no punches when he said for this country to continue benefitting from AGOA it has to have strong democratic credentials, in what was perhaps the strongest language ever to come from the US on the kingdom’s continued refusal to open up the political space to multiparty democracy.

And closer to home, the regional political and economic superpower, the Republic of South Africa, has also voiced its concern about the continued banning of political parties. At the height of the kingdom’s fiscus crisis in the past two to three years, the SA government came out with stringent conditions for an E2.4 billion bail-out loan that the country wanted, which included political, financial and economic reforms. At its Mangaung, Bloemfontein, conference late last year, the ruling African National Congress recommitted itself to the democratization of the country.

The latest offering from our giant neighbour is that of using receipts from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) to coerce the Swazi leadership to embrace multiparty democracy. SACU receipts account for over 60 percent of the kingdom’s annual budget. In fact the SA government has come under heavy criticism from its legislature for what that country’s Parliament Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation said was a soft spot for the kingdom relative to how it was dealing with Zimbabwe.   

As I see it, these indicators all point to a hardening of attitudes towards the leadership of this the Kingdom of eSwatini. But what has been the state’s response to the mounting pressure for political reforms? Comical, just about sums it all up, if government’s spokesman Percy Simelane’s ripostes are anything to go by. But even Simelane himself has been finding it increasingly impossible to be innovative when defending the indefensible and of late is given to using the constitution as his last line of defence. What constitution when the one he refers to has been breached with such consummate ease by its supposed supreme protectors to the point that it barely exists?

By now it has become academic to even enumerate on the many instances that the leadership has turned a blind eye to the existence of the so-called supreme law of the land. But even in its virgin form, the constitution’s standing could hardly be said to have been universal ostensibly because of the manner it was enacted. As is normal within these shores, the processes of enacting the national charter were not credible because they departed from international norms and practices and were not all-inclusive. And once its drafting had been completed, it was never passed by the people in a referendum, a universally recognized forum that insures acceptance and credibility, but was shoved down their throats. Any wonder, therefore, why even the people could not come to its defence when it is overlooked and by-passed by those holding the reins of political power.

Alongside the demise of the constitution, which had become a refuge of choice for the ruling elite whenever the Tinkhundla political system was criticized for its skewed democratic credentials, the revered institution of Sibaya also crumbled. This followed the failure of the leadership to implement the wishes of the people, if indeed it is representative of the majority, such as dismissing the entire Cabinet – a call later echoed by their elected representatives in parliament when they passed a no confidence resolution on the Cabinet that was abortive when the powers that be failed to follow the dictates of the constitution – as well as, among others, calling for the prime minister to be directly elected by the people. The only thing the people had demanded during Sibaya that was implemented was the reinstatement of teachers who had summarily been dismissed for participating in what is popularly referred to as “Waya Waya” strike that had in fact precipitated the convening of Sibaya. But even that was a half measure because the salaries of the reinstated teachers have been withheld or deducted exponentially to the number of days they were on strike.

As I see it, it is the refusal of the ruling elite to transform the country from a fiefdom into a modern state that is at the core of their refusal to embrace real democracy other than the misconception represented by the Tinkhundla political system experiment that too has never been embraced by the people in a referendum. The overwhelming fear for pluralistic politics by those holding political reins is the loss of political clout - which comes with substantial benefits - that would naturally evolve to the people when a truly democratic dispensation is ushered in to replace the obtaining political hegemony. 

 

Deny, the leadership might, the tightening noose on the country but the reality check will come sooner rather than later. It is this country that depends on each of these powers with a grip on the noose that could snuff the life out of this country. South Africa, as the regional superpower and the kingdom’s primary trading partner, can tighten the screws on a number of areas that could negatively impact on the nation. The EU could simply review the preferential treatment of our major export, sugar, to its markets while the US could withdraw our access to AGOA. These could have dire ramifications for the country’s development unless the leadership wakes up to the reality that you can fool some of the people some of the time but certainly not all the people all of the time.

The ball is in the court of the leadership to decide the kind of future this country will have. That the leadership has the platform from which to continue misrepresentation of what is obtaining on the ground, will not necessarily resolve the political impasse. The time for transforming this country from a fiefdom wherein the respect of state institutions and the rule of law is not an option into a truly modern nation state in which all organs of state are accountable to no one else but the people.

The clock is ticking…!