Parly largely remains a circus for the PM

This is an unedited version of the article published by the Times of Swaziland under the As I See It column on June 12, 2013.

By Vusi Sibisi

Has anyone wondered what lawmakers expected to happen once they had reported Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini to the king for his commission apropos his hand in the local branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association debacle taking into account that dissolution of parliament, indeed government, in preparations for the elections is now a matter of weeks away?

Over the past five years we have witnessed parliament often being turned into a circus for God knows towards what objectives. May be this is the last of such circuses to bring down the curtain before the nation goes to the Hastings to elect another parliament.

Coming to terms with the latest resolution to report the PM to the king, could it be that legislators expect the king to relieve the PM of his duties even at this late hour? Of course that would be foolhardy for a number of reasons. First and foremost, given what remains of the tenure of this government, it would be preposterous to even imagine the rationality of dissolving government with just a matter of weeks left before the elections get under way in earnest. That is even considering that the King would for once take seriously the protestations against the PM.

Secondly, by deciding to report the PM to the Sovereign, lawmakers have exposed their incapacity to deal with issues to their proper conclusion without invoking the name of the King. As they say, you can run but cannot hide. And this is the case with parliamentarians. Passing the buck elsewhere will not necessarily absolve them from blameworthiness for having tacitly diminished the stature of the legislature into a useless talk-shop incapable of resolving issues independently on its own. Alternatively the incumbent PM is just too much for the legislature combine to put him in his place hence the need for the king’s intervention. This raises the question, once again, if parliament is indeed subordinate to the PM as he once claimed. The sum total of the lawmakers’ resolution seems to prove this point and that is the PM was correct to say he was in charge of parliament one way or the other.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of last year’s ill-conceived no confidence motion by the House of Assembly should have been instructive to lawmakers about the futility of the exercise of reporting the PM to the King over his so-called interference into the affairs of the local branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA). One cannot even begin to wonder what crime the so-called interference, or even the alleged manipulation of state institutions, constitutes that is mostly likely to sway the King into turning his back on the PM, whom empirical evidence on the suggests is his most trusted servant.

As I see it, last year’s abortive no confidence resolution coupled to earlier calls at Sibaya, the People’s Parliament, for the dissolution of Cabinet as well as for the direct election of the PM by the people in this year’s elections – apparently all exercises in futility – were clear indicators even to the village idiot that the incumbent PM enjoyed full confidence of the appointing authority. If that was not tacit enough, that the PM and his Cabinet went on to be honoured with royal awards during the king’s birthday celebrations in Siteki in April this year, also underscored the confidence they enjoy from bakaNgwane. Simply put, the PM and his Cabinet performed well beyond the mandate they were given when they were appointed into office hence the royal awards of excellence that were bestowed on them by the appointing authority. That conclusion, again, does not require rocket science to deduce. 

As it were, last year’s failed vote of no confidence resolution on Cabinet coupled to Sibaya’s similar position culminating with the PM and his Cabinet being rewarded with royal awards, should have been a learning curve for all of us about the workings of the Swazi polity under the obtaining political dispensation. Now we know, for instance, that Sibaya is nothing but a talk-shop similar to the successive and expensive Smart Partnership Dialogues that have been hosted routinely in recent years without producing any tangible outcomes hence the country was plunged into a cash-flow crisis because of the poor management of the fiscus.

As for Sibaya, its only usefulness seems to be when deflecting international criticism of the authoritarian Tinkhundla political system, making the world believe that it provides a platform through which the nation discourses and reach consensus on political, socio-economic and other issues of national importance. But after last year’s Sibaya, this has been proven to be far from the truth since almost a year later none of the most important resolutions taken there have been implemented. In fact a lot of those resolutions have become redundant now that the term of office of this government is about to end.

As I see it, the failure to operationalise Sibaya is in no way an accidental omission on the part of the powers that be but deliberate. If Sibaya was an important national institution, the supreme advisory body as spelled out by the constitution, efforts would have been made to create enabling legislation to operationalise it. Such legislation would spell out how the process is managed whenever the nation is gathered at Ludzidzini Royal Cattle Byre to ensure, among others, that it is all-embracing instead of being biased in favour of those supporting and living off the obtaining political oligarchy. The enabling law would also spell out how and by whom the report is compiled and how the nation authenticates same before implementation. Implementation too, would be predictable instead of the nation being left in suspense about what exactly happens once the people have spoken at Sibaya.

The absence of such an enabling legislation almost eight years after the national constitution came into force is proof enough that Sibaya is nothing but a façade created to defend the apparently indefensible oppressive Tinkhundla political system. This is further bellied by the fact that whereas the constitution dictates that Sibaya should be convened at least once a year, this has hardly been the case in the almost eight years since the constitution became the supreme law of the land. In reality the constitution itself is nothing but a subterfuge from which the ruling elite can spin a web of deceit to the international community in order to sustain the undemocratic political status quo.

But all said and done, it would be wise for parliament not to waste the little time left before legislators are sent home by pursuing the PM because that is an exercise in futility. If they must know, the PM is simply indispensable hence he continues to enjoy the confidence and protection of the appointing authority. Perhaps unknown to the lawmakers when deciding to report the PM to the king they might just have pre-empted his political longevity by being reappointed to the position in the next government. After all he has delivered beyond the expectations of his political principal even if the nation remains disgruntled to the point that the people resolved that they should elect the PM instead of the incumbent being appointed.