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.
No comments:
Post a Comment