Corruption. Corruption this, corruption that. It seems to be the ‘it’ word amongst most of our politicians in our beloved African continent. “We will fight against corruption,” they will shout at the top of their vices during election campaigns. Usually, such hackneyed declarations will be met with thunderous applause by the gullible—or is it just hopeful?—crowd. Yet once they are in power it’s all systems go—business as usual. No change. As I see it, it’s just rhetoric; just political humbug. Politicians’ tongues are usually sharp against corruption, yet their day-to-day actions invalidate the big talk.

   Once these gentlemen (and the ladies too) are in power, they realise how much they’ve missed out over the years. So much wealth to amass in spite of the poor people who struggle to make ends meet. There are little or no repercussions. They collude with big business, the powerful bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and they eat. I know for instance that in South Africa and in Swaziland there is a justification—flimsy at it may be—for one’s helping themselves to public funds. It goes, “Badlile labanye, sekudla tsine” (Others have already eaten; now it’s our turn to eat).

   To validate the rhetoric of fighting corruption and to ‘eat’ in peace, most of our governments form anti-corruption commissions or units. Such a step is always accompanied by flare. These units are hailed as the saving grace in societies where ‘kugcobisa sandla’ (the greasing of one’s palm) or paying a bribe is a common way to get services from the government bureaucracy. But in many cases, this is just a decoy, a trick to make the public believe that something’s being done to curtail corruption. They’ll haul one or two expendable chaps (within the ‘eating’ scheme) to court; the case will drag for years and soon everybody forgets about it. When an overzealous civil society organisation begins harping about corruption this, corruption that: the authorities will use the aforementioned cases as a point of reference. “We have high profile cases already in court,” the government spokesperson will officially note, “and all we can do is to let the law take its course. We all know the wheels of justice grind slow, but very fine,” he or she will end self-importantly and very pleased with their response.

   But I dare you to scratch beyond the shiny surface. You will find that most of these anti-corruption initiatives are half-hearted and the agencies ill-capacitated, and consequently have their hands tied, in as far as dealing with this societal ill is concerned. For an example, Swaziland has the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). It is empowered by the establishing Act to investigate, and if satisfied that it has built a case, send everything to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for prosecution. That corruption case, which may have had tongues wagging, joins the long queue of cases—criminal, commercial or what have you—that have to be prosecuted by this overworked office. The corruption case may make it to the court roll in the next two months or two years; no one knows, these things are beyond anyone’s control, or so we are made to believe. The public ends up apathetic and questioning themselves if there’s anything wrong with embezzlement and misuse of public funds in the first place. Why? Not even a single big head is rolling.

If the graft-busting unit is well-capacitated and doing its job fairly well then it poses a threat to the elite, especially the political elite. Therefore means will be made to cut it into a manageable size. Politicians and their cohort do not like an anti-graft unit that is getting too big for its own boots. Yet that is not what they will say once they begin cutting it down to size. The words will be along the lines of ‘restructuring’ r ‘capacitating’. Take the case of South Africa; the Scorpions had a respectable anti-graft unit that had quite an impressive conviction rate. But its target at that time had been chiefly amongst the business class, without the requisite political connections. Once it began investigating the political hot-shots, there were grumblings in the corridors of power. The Scorpions had begun desecrating holy ground. Next thing you knew, they were disbanded under a masquerade f restructuring and that they had become a law unto themselves (a privilege reserved for politicians).

   Citizens of Africa, it’s nothing personal, our elites would like to help themselves on our taxes with no one breathing down their necks every time they stick their hands into the cookie jar. You see, the so-called fight against corruption must be dexterously balanced with the mantra ‘Others have eaten already, now it’s our time to eat’. Whether this is the best way to deal with the problem really depends on who you ask. 

Home truths about Democracy in Swaziland

 Recently, the spokesman of South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC) reaffirmed the commitment of his party in fostering democratic reform in the kingdom of Swaziland. Mr. Jackson Mthembu, speaking at a policy conference of his party said that they, in principle had no qualms with the monarchy of Swaziland. He asked why the monarchy of the country could not emulate that of the kingdom of Lesotho—that is allow multi-party contestation of political power and extricate itself from the day to day rigours of active politics. At the moment, political parties are banned in Swaziland and some have been proscribed as terrorist organisations under the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 2008.

In essence, this statement by South Africa’s governing party means that the government of that country will continue to attach the rather unsettling (to the political elite of Swaziland) condition of social and political reform to the 2.4 billion rands loan that Swaziland had sought from her “big brother” neighbour, in a bid to solve the financial crisis she currently faces. But as thing stand, the loan has not yet been released to Swaziland because the aforementioned condition continues to stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. So controversial is this condition to some senior figures within the higher echelons of the traditional authorities that a senior prince once declared that Swaziland would not sell her birth right to South Africa.

Indeed, within the ranks of the pro-democracy camp in the country, this mere pronunciation by the ANC has caused great joy and has been hailed as a milestone in the fight for democracy and human rights in the country. Yet I have reason to take this pronouncement and its intended effects with a pinch of salt. Perhaps against this backdrop one may ask: What is the predetermining factor of positive change—socio-political change—within a country? To rephrase the question: Which is the most formidable force of constructive change in a country, one engineered from outside or one which the people are fully committed to and determine its course?

The reason for my skepticism regarding the position of the ANC—well-meaning as it may be—vis-à-vis socio-political reform in Swaziland is that even though such a stance may be enshrined as policy in the former’s elective conference late this year; that is hardly a guarantee of an aggressive approach at government level in pursuance of such. Real politik will tend to militate against such. By the foregoing statement I mean that interactions and dealings at the highest government level of South Africa and Swaziland—taking into account their history and traditions—may result in nothing concrete aimed to achieve the goal of reform in the latter. If anything, the approach of the former may be lax and placating—to the chagrin of those who might have liked it to be a bit more aggressive—and might not change anything in the long run. Such is not impossible, as we have witnessed not very long ago of South Africa’s approach to the Zimbabwean crisis. The final result was a superficial reconfiguration of the political system which resulted in a unity government that has threatened to be asunder ever so frequently and hasn’t brought much benefit for the ordinary man; save for the halt in violence that had seen the country teetering on the brink of civil chaos. Otherwise, poverty and stark inequality are still the grim daily realities.

Therefore, notwithstanding the important role that external factors may play in the process of social and political transformation in the kingdom, the ball primarily falls in the court of the people of Swaziland. As the country goes through the current turbulences—protracted teachers’ and civil servants’ strikes and fiscal (?) challenges—the people must stand up and voice their opinions appertaining to the future of the country. Civil society groups still face the herculean task of conscientising the people on the goings-on in our society and explain to them the causes of such.

The current protest actions by teachers and civil servants do not necessarily translate to strife for democratic reform per se. So long as a tight iron lid remains on the most popular media—the radio—and the rural folks are consequently kept ignorant of the rocking government boat and its iniquitous acts, the political elite and their cohort consider themselves safe—if only for a while. The true power of democratic social and political reform lies within purposeful efforts in educating the poor masses—69 per cent according to the World Bank—on why they find themselves in such odious conditions of poverty and underdevelopment.

So long as the masses’ minds are held hostage under the masquerade of culture and a mystique of intact traditions—which must be followed to the letter, when the select few who determine its course do not even try to abide by them—democratisation is only a distant mirage. People must know that debate and questioning in political discourse is not taboo. If anything, it is a norm.

A culture of holding our leaders accountable ought to rise and be buttressed in our society. Gone are the days of governance through the unquestionable “wisdom of the right thigh”, to quote the words of writer, Can Themba. We cannot be held ransom in a country we have every right (?) to be in as our leaders. We must therefore all act to change such a pitiable state of affairs.