On whose mandate is Cabinet in office?

On whose mandate is Cabinet in office?

This is an unedited version of the article that appeared on the As I See It column in The Times of Swaziland of April 10, 2013

By Vusi Sibisi

The controversial call last week by Health Minister Benedict Xaba for the retention of the current Cabinet must not be looked at generally or in isolation because it might lead to wrong conclusions but must be viewed from within the context of whether or not Cabinet had fulfilled the mandate it was given to fulfill.

Before anyone accuses me of having taken leave of my senses at the wake of overwhelming public loss of confidence in the Cabinet as ably communicated during last year’s Sibaya, the People’s Parliament, coupled to the now controversial but constitutional no confidence resolution on Cabinet by the people’s elected representatives in parliament’s House of Assembly, hear me out.

In politics, as with the relationship between an employer and an employee, it is taken for granted that the continued subsistence of political tenure for Cabinet Ministers or other politicians is hugely depended on them doing or performing in accordance with the mandate of their political master, who in the labour market would be the employer. Alternatively, should the political principal, as with the employer, be unsatisfied with the performance of the Cabinet collectively and individually, he may decide to terminate its or their services.

While the labour market and indeed the relationship between the employer and employee are regulated by law, the same cannot be said about politicians. Thus once an employer engages the services of an employee his/her authority is to a large extent abdicated to the prevailing statutes that regulate the newly consummated relationship. While it is easier for the employer to engage the services of an employee, it is not a walk in the park to disengage or terminate the relationship unless the requisite law is followed to the letter. Similarly, an employee’s continued contract and, indeed, their upward mobility is determined by their ability to meet the objectives for which the position was created through periodic processes of assessments and appraisals.

In a nutshell, in the employment relationship everything is transparent, or ought to be if one is not in transgression of the relevant enabling laws, from the recruitment or hiring processes and in addition is underpinned by predictability. In the event where there is a perception that the relevant laws have been contravened there is room for a number of interventions leading to the courts of law for ultimate adjudication in the event the parties remain irreconcilable on their differences or in the interpretation of the law after exhausting the other processes.

But do similar sets of rules apply in the realm of politics? Until July 26, 2005, the date on which the national constitution was promulgated, there was decidedly no discernible uniform set of rules to which our politicians, specifically Cabinet, were accountable. But once the constitution came into force it was largely assumed that it established the basic mandate for politicians and Cabinet, in particular, that they were in the service of the country and the nation at large. That was until last year when, initially, the people at Sibaya and later on their elected representatives in parliament, the House of Assembly to be precise, decided that the Cabinet was no longer serving their best interests and that, therefore, it should be sent packing.

As I see it, while the constitution established Sibaya as the supreme advisory body without delving on specifics, it nonetheless was clear when apportioning the authority on parliament, the House of Assembly, to decide on the dissolution of Cabinet through a vote of no confidence if and when this became desirous. First, it was the people at Sibaya who called for the dissolution of Cabinet and later this call was not just echoed but was endorsed by the elected representatives of the people in the House of Assembly who duly passed a no confidence resolution on the self same Cabinet that Minister Xaba last week recommended should be retained for a job well done.  

With the so-called supreme law of the land, the national constitution, having been nullified by the leadership by side-lining people’s views and recommendations at Sibaya and failure or refusal to authenticate the resolution of no confidence on the Cabinet by Members of Parliament, no one in the public gallery has any inkling on the mandate of the Cabinet right now. It can only be assumed that it is the Cabinet, and not the people, which has a clear picture on its mandate and it is probably on this basis that Minister Xaba made his observations and, as it were, his conclusions. In that case we, the people, should also conclude that Cabinet, indeed government, is not primarily in the service of the people as we had initially assumed or rather we were made to believe by the constitution that is selectively implemented on the whims of the leadership. What has become crystal is that the people serve and are subservient to the government hence the uniqueness of the Tinkhundla political system.

As I see it, the present Cabinet might as well be retained in the new government after general elections later this year if its political masters are pleased with its performance, as it seems to be the case by reason that it remains in office to date, in spite of the fact that it might well be the worst Cabinet ever to be in office if its failures are matched against its successes, that is if any. And that was apparently also the verdict of the people at Sibaya as well as through their elected representatives in parliament notwithstanding that their voices count for nothing when it comes to major political decisions impacting on the kingdom and the nation at large. The truism is that ultimately Cabinet, indeed government, is not responsible and answerable to the people hence Minister Xaba’s stated position.