Swazi Observer
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
Showing posts with label Herman Robert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herman Robert. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
SWAZIS 'POLITICALLY POLARISED'
Times of Swaziland
21 May 2008
COMMENT
As I See It
by Vusi Sibisi
Just how politically polarised the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) is was best illustrated last week when it informed the visiting House's Dr Robert Herman from the United States that being a homogenous nation was the reason why there is no multi-party democracy in the Kingdom of Eswatini.
The rationale behind the EEC's perspective being that multi-party democracy was only good for nations that were divided along ethnic or religious lines. (What political balderdash this is?) Ordinarily you would expect such ludicrous reasoning from either a simpleton or a completely deranged person who has recently absconded from the National Psychiatric Centre. But certainly not from a body of people tasked with the onerous job of overseeing a country's national elections.
As I see it this simplistic if not plain stupid reasoning would have us think and believe that members of the same family are most likely to think alike and or desire the same things in life. In the event it would be perfectly normal for members of a family to love and marry one and the same person. Evidently Dr Herman must have seen through this patent political smokescreen when he responded by saying it was a fallacy to assume that just because a nation was homogenous then the people thought along the same lines.
Ludicrous
And of course how does the EEC and, by progression, the ruling elite explain the ever-increasing calls for multi-party democracy to replace the authoritarian Tinkhundla Political System. I am sure they will not come with the ludicrous suggestion that those advocating multi-party democracy are not sons and daughters of the soil but outsiders. For by their differing thoughts and choices, if the EEC line of thinking held sway, advocates of multi-party democracy would have automatically maligned or extricated themselves from the body of citizens - or should it be subjects - that is exclusively homogenous, thinks alike, does the same things, is uniform and conformist in every which way and, above all, is passionate about the undemocratic Tinkhundla System.
As I see it, that the EEC's take on why the ruling class banned and outlawed political parties - on the basis of the nation's homogeneity - just shows the desperation of the ruling elite in coming up with plausible defences for an otherwise indefensible, corrupt and untenable political system. It further removes all pretence of independence and or impartiality on the part of the EBC to deliver a free and fair election results because, like the Muppet Show, it is the ruling class holding the strings that controls it.
But the biggest tragedy of them all is that such thinking, as articulated by the EBC and, indeed the ruling elite - that homogeneity breeds conformity and uniformity and that multi-party democracy is divisive - negatively reflects on the collective intellect of the nation. As I see it, such mediocre exercise of the nation's collective intellectual faculties, makes this a nation of intellectual dwarfs that cannot think beyond the nose and thus are a laughing stock of the world.
As I see it all of us should be holding our heads in shame for the apparent embarrassment that has been occasioned by the EBC on this apparently God forsaken nation!
21 May 2008
COMMENT
As I See It
by Vusi Sibisi
Just how politically polarised the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) is was best illustrated last week when it informed the visiting House's Dr Robert Herman from the United States that being a homogenous nation was the reason why there is no multi-party democracy in the Kingdom of Eswatini.
The rationale behind the EEC's perspective being that multi-party democracy was only good for nations that were divided along ethnic or religious lines. (What political balderdash this is?) Ordinarily you would expect such ludicrous reasoning from either a simpleton or a completely deranged person who has recently absconded from the National Psychiatric Centre. But certainly not from a body of people tasked with the onerous job of overseeing a country's national elections.
As I see it this simplistic if not plain stupid reasoning would have us think and believe that members of the same family are most likely to think alike and or desire the same things in life. In the event it would be perfectly normal for members of a family to love and marry one and the same person. Evidently Dr Herman must have seen through this patent political smokescreen when he responded by saying it was a fallacy to assume that just because a nation was homogenous then the people thought along the same lines.
Ludicrous
And of course how does the EEC and, by progression, the ruling elite explain the ever-increasing calls for multi-party democracy to replace the authoritarian Tinkhundla Political System. I am sure they will not come with the ludicrous suggestion that those advocating multi-party democracy are not sons and daughters of the soil but outsiders. For by their differing thoughts and choices, if the EEC line of thinking held sway, advocates of multi-party democracy would have automatically maligned or extricated themselves from the body of citizens - or should it be subjects - that is exclusively homogenous, thinks alike, does the same things, is uniform and conformist in every which way and, above all, is passionate about the undemocratic Tinkhundla System.
As I see it, that the EEC's take on why the ruling class banned and outlawed political parties - on the basis of the nation's homogeneity - just shows the desperation of the ruling elite in coming up with plausible defences for an otherwise indefensible, corrupt and untenable political system. It further removes all pretence of independence and or impartiality on the part of the EBC to deliver a free and fair election results because, like the Muppet Show, it is the ruling class holding the strings that controls it.
But the biggest tragedy of them all is that such thinking, as articulated by the EBC and, indeed the ruling elite - that homogeneity breeds conformity and uniformity and that multi-party democracy is divisive - negatively reflects on the collective intellect of the nation. As I see it, such mediocre exercise of the nation's collective intellectual faculties, makes this a nation of intellectual dwarfs that cannot think beyond the nose and thus are a laughing stock of the world.
As I see it all of us should be holding our heads in shame for the apparent embarrassment that has been occasioned by the EBC on this apparently God forsaken nation!
HOME GROWN SWAZI DEMOCRACY
Times of Swaziland
15 May 2008
Democracy should be home grown, says USA’s Herman ...
STORIES BY ARTHUR MORDAUNT
MBABANE - If absolute monarchs were to move towards constitutional monarchs, they would find a very satisfied citizenry.
This was the observation of Dr Robert Herman from the United States of America (USA), who was giving a lecture on democracy, the rule of law and civil society.
Herman has been invited into the country by the US Embassy.
Speaking about the Swazi situation, Herman said it would do a lot of good for the country if the leaders were to consider this. He made an example of the Bhutan state where its monarch, after being exposed to democratic principles in the United Kingdom where he was schooling, returned to that country and changed the system from an absolute monarch to a constitutional one.
The speaker acknowledged though that he did not support shoving things down people's throats, but the Bhutan monarch's heart was in the right place.
What should surely be music to the country's authorities' ears was Herman's statement to the effect that democracy should not be imposed on any state, but should be home grown.
"While democracy is not the solution to every societal problem, it's the best way to ensure that people's rights are realised and implemented. Having a constitution alone does not guarantee rights but they should be implemented. I almost cried when I read the Soviet Union constitution because it was so beautiful, but the things contained in there were not implemented," said Herman.
He observed that Swaziland ought to change for the better and that it was still behind in the region in as far as implementing traits of democracy, which include the freedom of thought, association, press and an independent judiciary.
"The citizens should also believe that they have the power to shape their destiny. Democracy should create conditions where people can fulfil their potential. While democracy may create chances for those who may abuse the system, it can also minimise chances of conflict. It creates mechanisms to channel dissent,” said Herman.
... and advised leaders to address citizens
MBABANE - Contrary to assertions by the country's leaders that there was no need for multi-party democracy in Swaziland because the nation was homogenous, an expert in the field has said this would in fact be to the advantage of multi-party democracy.
Dr Robert Herman said he was shocked during a meeting he held with the country's Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) when it told him that the reason Swazis did not need multi-party democracy was that the nation was not divided along ethnic and religious lines. Herman said it was a fallacy to assume that just because a nation was homogenous ple are one. This presents a great opportunity for Swazis to debate real issues of policy and other social issues that affect the nation as a whole without worrying about whether the help is going to assist people of a particular ethnic group," reasoned Herman.
He also disclosed that the EBC informed him that the people of Swaziland did not want political parties and EBC agreed with this because they did not want to witness what occurred in Kenya.
Dr Herman said he would not dictate to Swazis on what of government they should have but stressed that if they wanted political parties, they have to press for them.
He said he did not understand the logic behind candidates saying they should be elected on individual merit or because they are known, they are good or because they look like the voters. Herman said someone should be elected on the basis of the input he was going to bring to that country's well-being.
He also had advice for the country's leaders.
"Stop having briefings with donors and other international organisations on your actions but ignoring the citizenry. You should always address the citizens even if you are taking an unpopular decision. This enables the people to connect with you. They might not agree with what you are saying but they will understand why you are doing it and feel like part of the nation," said Herman.
Herman's lecture was attended by representatives from civic organisations, business people and government officials. While in the country, Herman will meet various stakeholders.
15 May 2008
Democracy should be home grown, says USA’s Herman ...
STORIES BY ARTHUR MORDAUNT
MBABANE - If absolute monarchs were to move towards constitutional monarchs, they would find a very satisfied citizenry.
This was the observation of Dr Robert Herman from the United States of America (USA), who was giving a lecture on democracy, the rule of law and civil society.
Herman has been invited into the country by the US Embassy.
Speaking about the Swazi situation, Herman said it would do a lot of good for the country if the leaders were to consider this. He made an example of the Bhutan state where its monarch, after being exposed to democratic principles in the United Kingdom where he was schooling, returned to that country and changed the system from an absolute monarch to a constitutional one.
The speaker acknowledged though that he did not support shoving things down people's throats, but the Bhutan monarch's heart was in the right place.
What should surely be music to the country's authorities' ears was Herman's statement to the effect that democracy should not be imposed on any state, but should be home grown.
"While democracy is not the solution to every societal problem, it's the best way to ensure that people's rights are realised and implemented. Having a constitution alone does not guarantee rights but they should be implemented. I almost cried when I read the Soviet Union constitution because it was so beautiful, but the things contained in there were not implemented," said Herman.
He observed that Swaziland ought to change for the better and that it was still behind in the region in as far as implementing traits of democracy, which include the freedom of thought, association, press and an independent judiciary.
"The citizens should also believe that they have the power to shape their destiny. Democracy should create conditions where people can fulfil their potential. While democracy may create chances for those who may abuse the system, it can also minimise chances of conflict. It creates mechanisms to channel dissent,” said Herman.
... and advised leaders to address citizens
MBABANE - Contrary to assertions by the country's leaders that there was no need for multi-party democracy in Swaziland because the nation was homogenous, an expert in the field has said this would in fact be to the advantage of multi-party democracy.
Dr Robert Herman said he was shocked during a meeting he held with the country's Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) when it told him that the reason Swazis did not need multi-party democracy was that the nation was not divided along ethnic and religious lines. Herman said it was a fallacy to assume that just because a nation was homogenous ple are one. This presents a great opportunity for Swazis to debate real issues of policy and other social issues that affect the nation as a whole without worrying about whether the help is going to assist people of a particular ethnic group," reasoned Herman.
He also disclosed that the EBC informed him that the people of Swaziland did not want political parties and EBC agreed with this because they did not want to witness what occurred in Kenya.
Dr Herman said he would not dictate to Swazis on what of government they should have but stressed that if they wanted political parties, they have to press for them.
He said he did not understand the logic behind candidates saying they should be elected on individual merit or because they are known, they are good or because they look like the voters. Herman said someone should be elected on the basis of the input he was going to bring to that country's well-being.
He also had advice for the country's leaders.
"Stop having briefings with donors and other international organisations on your actions but ignoring the citizenry. You should always address the citizens even if you are taking an unpopular decision. This enables the people to connect with you. They might not agree with what you are saying but they will understand why you are doing it and feel like part of the nation," said Herman.
Herman's lecture was attended by representatives from civic organisations, business people and government officials. While in the country, Herman will meet various stakeholders.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
SWAZI BOYCOTT - OR NOT?
Swazi Observer
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
political
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
political
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)