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.