New Parliament, New Beginnings?

The 10^th Parliament has been officially been opened by His Majesty King Mswati III in Swaziland. The legislators have said they are ready to execute their duties. The question on the minds of analysts, concerned civil society groups and other so-called progressive groups is whether we will see a significant change in the government’s modus operandi vis-à-vis ideas that go against what it believes is right. 

   It is my opinion that there will hardly be any change in that regard. Old habits do indeed die hard. On the whole, the members of parliament (MPs) elected hardly inspire hope for vibrant and fruitful debate in the house. The less said about the House of Senate the better. This is in spite the presence of the likes of former trade-unionist fire-brand Jan Sithole. He is likely to cause a stir in the house but I am of the view that over-zealousness on his part will be checked disproportionately by a deeply conservative membership. Mr. Sithole is a member of the recently formed political party, the Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA), but he contested the election on “individual merit as a basis for election or appointment to public office”, as provided by the Constitution of Swaziland. He is not there representing his party but furthering the policies of the current system, that is as far as the government is concerned.

   Noteworthy here, is that there are many firebrands that have gone into the Swazi legislature firing from all cylinders, but they were duly neutralised. Most of them were co-opted into the government and given high positions. Some of them are the late Albert Shabangu and Arthur Khoza. They had thought that they would advocate for the introduction of multi-party politics using legislative channels, but as we know, that never happened. And—at the risk of sounding pessimistic—those who shall try in the current parliament shall meet a similar fate.

   The choice of prime minister by his Majesty states the message very clear: there will be no room for negotiations with so-called progressives, or those that want to see political change in the country. Prime minister Dr Barnabas Dlamini, who has often referred to himself as a lighting arrester and such other endearing words, is indeed the guy who suits the country very well (in the eyes of leaders at least) when a strong and hostile stance is needed towards workers and other periphery groups like political parties. He is a man who has weathered many a political storm and has come out unscathed. The leaders of the country see tough times ahead; hence he is at the helm yet again.

   At the heart of this article is the view that any change political change in Swaziland will not come from parliament. The weakness of the legislature in the country has historical roots. Culminating to the 1973 decree that annulled the independence constitution and political parties, MPs from the majority royalist Imbokodvo National Movement (INM) had already surrendered power to the King, after they said they couldn’t govern. The long and short of the story is this: the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) had won 3 seats in the House of Representatives. The powers that be were not happy with that and therefore contrived a story that one of the NNLC MPs, Bhekindlela Ngwenya, was not a Swazi. They took the case to court and lost. Then the INM said the nation was ungovernable. This is a well documented story that can be sourced in such case as Ngwenya vs. The State, and articles written by Prof. John Daniel.

   One way in which the nation could deal with the elephant in the room would be through opening genuine dialogue with the disgruntled parties. And here I don’t mean platforms skewed against the underdogs. Platforms like the so-called Smart-partnership and the cherished sibaya (affectionately referred to as the people’s parliament) will not work. The agenda of the dialogue ought to be set by all interested parties; the product of debate and compromise. In the minds of all those involved must be to find an all-inclusive solution to the problem.

   Of course this cannot happen unless the government concedes that there is a need to have a conversation about such this and other burning questions. A long shot, I know. Nonetheless, it would be in its best interest to invite the interested parties to a table with legs of the same height, instead of pretending as if all is well. That would be a very important step in diffusing a ticking time-bomb.

   It is only after genuine engagement that we can implement the recommendations of the dialogue, which may range from constitutional amendments, referendum, among others. Vision 2022 will remain elusive if leader continues to opt for silence and unawareness as political strategies.