Does PM’s choice of words promote peace?

This is an unedited version of “As I See It” column article published by the Times of Swaziland on July 3, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

Bizarre seems to be a fitting description of some of the public pronouncements by none other than Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini - all simply because they do not befit the status of the high office he is occupying.

The latest of such shocking public utterances coming from the mouth of the PM being that government was keeping a record of individuals who speak ill of the country and its leaders. He reportedly informed Senators that government was keeping files on all citizens who speak negatively about the country and its leaders which would in turn be used in future to censor them from public office.

This is the same man who brought fear-inducing terminology such as “makhundu” and “sintjempeza” into the lexicon of Swazi politics. As it turns out “makhundu” or knobkerrie is a fearsome and horrendously huge traditional Swazi weapon whose well aimed blow can easily disintegrate the brain’s refuge, the skull. “Sintjempeza” is a cross between a machete or “panga” and a long-handle axe and quite a deadly weapon in the hands of whoever is wielding it. In a modern society like ours, these are weapons of choice by the criminal underworld and should be taboo to anyone, such as the PM, given to boasting about his Christian upbringing and law abiding.

As can be expected, the PM wields these weapons whenever faced with detractors, which the political leadership has conveniently labeled as enemies of the state, of the obtaining Tinkhundla political system. And it was on his singular ability to wield “makhundu” against these so-called enemies of the state that the PM was recycled back to the premiership position after a five-year sabbatical occasioned by his now infamous November 28, 2002 statement wherein he announced that government would not respect certain judgments of the highest court in the land that in turn mothered the rule of law crisis that has haunted this nation since then. As it turned out, it also became his Achilles’ heel that prematurely cut short his tour of duty and put him out to pasture until he was recycled back in 2008.

As I see it, the PM’s fondness for war-talk runs contrary to the leadership’s overstated belief that this country is founded on and a haven of peaceful coexistence. The question has to be asked just how sustainable can that peace be if it is enforced through arms, this being the conclusion derived from his war-mongering posture. In turn this brings us to the question of who really are the custodians of peace between the leadership and the citizens.

As I see it, both parties have a responsibility to ensure real, and not imagined, peace. On one hand the leadership can ensure peace through good governance whose tenets are transparency, accountability, predictability and above all tolerance for divergent political views. Unfortunately these are all anathema to the obtaining political status quo that is not only intolerant but brooks no opposition or dissent. This position is enforced by the PM’s latest utterances to the effect that government is spying on and keeping files on everyone who speaks ill of the country and the leadership.

As I see it, the Premier’s posture is contradictory to the leadership’s stated belief in dialogue in the resolution of disputes and rule by consensus. Consequently, his position is either to drive the fear of God into people so that they do not question anything but to conform in silence or to whip them into the politics of conformity and never to question authority. The sum total of the leadership position, therefore, being that it believes in using force to inculcate a culture of silence that it often boasts about to the international community as peace and tranquility.

That government is spying on and keeping dossiers of those aggrieved by the obtaining political hegemony further promotes the sub-cultures of blind loyalty, bootlicking and sycophancy among individuals, which form the basis upon which they are politically rewarded with public positions. These are all nemesis of an open democracy that the Tinkhundla system is erroneously and falsely made out to be. This explains why there is absence of critical thinkers from Swazi polity because individuals are rewarded on the wrong premises instead of their skills, expertise and intellectual capacity to take this country forward.

On the other hand, the singular responsibility of the citizen, from the perspective of the leadership, is to remain silent and conform to anything that is demanded of him or her. Doing anything to the contrary would get them into problems, including being politically, socially and economically marginalized, if the PM’s threats are anything to go by. In a way the people have been forced to abdicate active citizenship for fear of the unknown just so to maintain the artificial façade of a peaceful nation.

As is often the case, the PM seems to have also taken leave of the fact that we are now in a constitutional era and not governed by the law of the jungle. Had he done so he would have been the first to know that trying to control what people say or think is contrary to the supreme law of the land given its warm embrace to a Bill of Rights that, amongst others, guarantees freedom of expression. But then again the constitution is just another document that is often forgotten by the authorities whenever they want to appease their whims. That is why the PM and his Cabinet are still in office when initially they were rejected by Sibaya, yes that supreme advisory and policy making body as articulated by that very constitution, then by the elected representatives of the people in the House of Assembly who passed a no confidence resolution on them.

Perhaps buoyed by the failure in both instances to send them home prematurely, not to speak of the vote of confidence for a job well done when they were bestowed with royal honours during the king’s birthday celebrations in April this year, the PM is now realistically looking at a possible further term in office. After all, the people at Sibaya also tried but obviously failed in their resolution to directly elect the next PM during the on-going election process. So, he seems well suited for the job for as long as his political principals - not necessarily the people - are happy.

As I see it, the self-appointed lightning arrester may be in office for a very long time notwithstanding his affinity to wielding weapons of choice to anyone who disagrees with the obtaining political oligarchy.