This is an unedited version of an article published by The Times of Swaziland on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 under ''As I See It''.
By Vusi Sibisi
The one area in which successive
governments of the Tinkhundla political system have perfected is that of
creating crises out of nowhere yet paradoxically they have not mastered the art
of either managing or resolving these once they have allowed the elephant into
the living room.
As can be expected of a political system
that has an over concentration of political power in one centre, there is a
catalogue of crises that were a creation of successive governments under the
obtaining political hegemony, the latest conundrum facing the leadership being
what to do with the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA). After much arm
twisting and agonizing, government eventually went to the Industrial Court to
formalize its extra-judicial de-registration of TUCOSWA, which it had initially
registered under no duress from any quarter whatsoever but merely conformed
with the Industrial Relations Act of 2000 as amended.
Perhaps manufacturing crises is deliberate
stock-in-trade of the Tinkhundla political philosophy so as to divert attention
from the inherent weaknesses and failings of the system.
As I See it, the problem did not begin with
the registration of TUCOSWA but only started when government arbitrarily and extra-judicially
nullified this act by de-registering the organization. This was accomplished on
the flimsy grounds that it had been wrongly registered since the law, the
Industrial Relations Act of 2000 as amended to be precise, had not anticipated
the creation of and registration of such organizations. In the event,
government concluded that TUCOSWA’s registration was a “non act”. Paradoxically,
government’s arbitrary action in this regard was also not in conformity with
the same law, which laid out the process of resolving dispute, should any arise
since the registration of TUCOSWA had become a dispute from the perspective of
the government.
The requisite law does not give unfair
advantages to any of the tripartite partners under any circumstances to the
extent that an aggrieved party could seek resolution through extra-judicial
processes or even outside that law. In this case government was an aggrieved
party, this arising from the registration of TUCOSWA by Commissioner of Labour
Khabo Dlamini. But instead of pursuing its grievance through the legal processes,
as spelt out in the Industrial Relations Act, government resorted to aggression
by unleashing its political might to have its way and see to it that TUCOSWA
was de-registered and, by so doing, created an unnecessary crisis.
All along government had been ducking and
diving over its underlying reasons for attempting to dismantle TUCOSWA. It
certainly had nothing to do with the improper registration of the workers
federation because the requirements of the law were sufficiently met so as not
to make its registration a ‘’non act’’. It had been initially suspected that
government’s motives were political more than anything else. It stands to
reason that if the de-registration of TUCOSWA was not political, government
could have sought other avenues within the tripartite arrangement, or the
Industrial Relations Act itself, to resolve the issue without necessarily
escalating it into a national crisis as it apparently did.
Consequently, the belated court case at the
instance of government challenging the existence of TUCOSWA could have happened
earlier before the organization was arbitrarily de-registered extra-judicially
was nothing but a farce calculated to legitimize government’s unilateral, if
not illegal, actions in preparations for the annual meetings of the
International Labour Organisation. But now we know better, that government’s
actions were political, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Labour at the wake
of government’s futile attempts to convince the International Labour
Organisation that it acted in good faith and in accordance with the law.
The Labour Commissioner alluded to the fact
that government’s actions were informed by TUCOSWA’s political stance
articulated during its launch for regime change or change of government and
boycott of this year’s national elections. “They (TUCOSWA) can discuss politics
but there are limits,” the Labour Commissioner was quoted by Times SUNDAY as
having said.
“They cannot speak pure politics such as regime change. They
cannot go that far. Issues of the stomach or labour are political in nature but
then they went beyond when they questioned the country’s system of
government.’’
As I see it, government saw TUCOSWA as a
political party in disguise and felt threatened by this collectivism of workers,
which was diametrically in contradiction to its divide-and-rule individualism
espoused by the Tinkhundla political system. That is the reason why political
parties remain outlawed in this country. Yet the absence of multiparty collectivism
gave organised labour a broader role to play in the political life of this
country especially since at times the lines between politics and business has
been blurred owing to the business interests of the political establishment.
There can never be a better example of this than the matter between the
Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications (SPTC), a government parastatal, and MTN
Swaziland in which the latter was subsequently allowed to usurp the position of
the former ostensibly because this financially benefited the political elite
invested in the private company.
Additionally, one of the primary roles of
government in a country is to create an enabling environment for business to
flourish as well as for the economy to attract foreign direct investments. That
the Kingdom of eSwatini’s economic performance is trailing the rest of Africa
is a direct indictment of the obtaining political hegemony and its failure to
create the kind of environment that should be a magnet to investments in order
to spur economic growth and development. In such circumstances, the interests
of workers cannot be overstated because a poorly performing economy cannot
create jobs invariably leading to wide scale unemployment and in the process
workers being disenfranchised.
Yet ironic as it may be, a political system
that frowns on collectivism as personified by organised labour and political
parties, does strive on crises. Much as crises create uncertainty and political
instability, the prime nemesis of foreign direct investments, these nonetheless
provides the political establishment with the opportunity to unleash its
military might to brutalize the people into submission to inculcate a culture
of fear to force people into silent conformity. Regrettably, this is what the
ruling elite calls peace, the fragile foundation upon which this country is
built.
