Why ownership of Swaziland an issue?

Why ownership of Swaziland an issue?

This is an unedited version of the article that appeared on the As I See It column of The Times of #Swaziland of April 17, 2013

               

By Vusi Sibisi

Clearly Chief Gija, head of the Elections and Boundaries Commission, was not misquoted or quoted out of context on his reaction to the news that two political formations in Sive Siyinqaba, alias Sibahle Sinje, and the Swaziland Democratic Party were strategizing on a partnership for the general elections later this year, otherwise he would have disowned the statement attributed to him.

Chief Gija in his response to the strategic partnership between Sive Siyinqaba and the Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA) last week was quoted by this newspaper as having said: “The owners of this country have clearly stated that people will stand for elections in their individual capacities and not through political parties. As for entities such as Sive Siyinqaba, I can just call them clubs formed by people who are like minded. I do not foresee them having any influence whatsoever in the outcome of the elections.”

For the fact that the Kingdom of eSwatini is probably the only country with a dual system of government, the traditional and western-styled systems, much should be read in Chief Gija’s reference to the ownership of this country. This is particularly so when the traditional government is the more senior partner to its western-styled counterpart that, to all intents and purposes, merely acts as the artificial mirror reflecting this country as a modern state and, therefore, normal to the international community. Yet that is all a false façade!

In a nutshell Chief Gija revealed just about everything about the Swazi polity in his utterance that can only be summed up as scare tactics.

As I see it, the fact that Chief Gija, chairman of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) has remained silent and not disputed his response as quoted by this newspaper is that he was correctly represented and not misquoted or quoted out of context. That, of course, is unfortunate as it is regrettable, because his utterances have created the impression that this the Kingdom of eSwatini is not a nation state because it does not belong to the people but only to a select few whose identities can best be left to conjecture.

But it would be amiss of all of us patriots who hitherto honestly believed we had a stake in a country that we have seriously taken to be our own as a collective as well as individually and to whose development we have contributed immensely physically, intellectually, financially through our taxes and otherwise. That Chief Gija has drawn the line on the limitation of rights of the ordinary folk in contributing to nation building, because that is essentially the import of his reaction, was as good as opening a window into the inner workings of this country’s unique system of governance that lays claim to democratic credentials.

As it were Chief Gija and his ilk who are predominantly the apologists and apparatchiks of the obtaining political dispensation lanced the boil on the head; the leadership, and indeed the obtaining political system, does not recognize us in our collective but only as individuals in typical fashion of the archaic doctrine of divide and rule. And that is why there deafening silence on many critical matters of state, such as the many flaws of the current political system and its apparent excesses, which the leadership conveniently interprets as peace and tranquility occasioned by the manner in which its exercises its political power.

Paradoxically, but not surprisingly so,  Chief Gija’s assertion is a radical departure from the leadership’s traditional defence of the Tinkhundla political system that it was chosen by the majority of the people over other political systems, specifically over multiparty democracy. Now at the wake of Chief Gija’s rather illuminating explanation we know that the people are but silent passengers, if not stowaways, in the ship of state with no say on how they are or should be governed and generally on all national matters that directly affect them simply because this is an exclusive preserve of the so-called owners of the country.

As I see it, the truth always has a way of asserting itself however much it can be suppressed. And we now know that political power does not resides with the people hence the fatally flawed obtaining political hegemony that purports to vest political power on individuals other than the Swazi collective or collective entities such as political parties. This is understandable from the context that it is easier to deal with and manipulate individuals than it is to control and suppress a people united by a common bond or persuasion. That is the legacy of the Tinkhundla political system, which is an affront to democratic values.

Perhaps as a traditional leader, Chief Gija, as with his ilk, has a one dimensional view of the world, which would be the bedrock of his political power base that informs his perspective of Swazi polity. To this end that would translate into meaning that the post-2005 era of constitutionalism has in from his perspective not transformed the Swazi polity, especially in separating and defining the divide between the dual systems of government being traditional and western-styled in order to assist the likes of Chief Gija to have a clearer appreciation of the political evolution of the Swazi nation. The situation has also not been helped by the fact that the constitution is applied selectively when it suits the leadership and is not the universal political bible that informs the progression of the country and the Swazi nation.

As it were the western-styled government is subordinate to the traditional leadership that is essentially steeped in the past and carries with it a train-load of ambiguities that drive, if not define, the Swazi polity. It is these ambiguities that are responsible for the complex political and socio-economic crises that have manifested themselves in recent times. Thus while there is talk of making this a First World country the traditional machinery continues to hold back this country from its natural progression of transforming into a modern nation state anchored on a constitutional order that upholds the rule of law and the sanctity of the human being.

Ultimately, Chief Gija and the like-minded of the political status quo are drowning in the misguided notion that the only rights accruing to the Swazi nation are those that are appropriated by the leadership. In the event the leadership is wielded as a scarecrow whenever the people demand was is inalienably theirs, as ably attested to by Chief Gija’s unfortunate but true position about the ownership of this country.

The question begging for answers, therefore, is not about who owns the country but rather for how long the people will continue to be denied their God’s bestowed inalienable rights.