Nation Magazine
July 2008
Click images to enlarge
July 2008
Click images to enlarge
Showing posts with label Nation magazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nation magazine. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
ARE YOU READY FOR 2008?
Comment
The Nation
March 2007
The Nation
March 2007
Next year [2008] Swaziland will have its first elections under a constitution. Not since 1972 has this country held an election where people had some form of protection. We need to be careful who we elect to represent our various Tinkhundla in 2008. But then, there is no blueprint on what this Tinkhundla stand for, anyway. SIPHO NKOSI-DLAMINI reports.
Next year [2008] Swaziland will have its first elections under a constitution. Not since 1972 has this country held an election where people had some form of protection. We need to be careful who we elect to represent our various Tinkhundla in 2008. But then, there is no blueprint on what this Tinkhundla stand for, anyway. SIPHO NKOSI-DLAMINI reports.
What was the significant transformation history of the last century? I would say, for Africa, it was the liberation from colonialism. Unfortunately, it became mere substitution of a foreign oppressor by a home grown one in many of our African States.
The results were the coups that contributed to the pandemic state of poverty in the midst of plenty: good soil, human resources, rivers, forests, wild life, spectacular tourist attractions, preserved cultural identities, diverse natural resource development opportunities, etc.
Even though the imperialists had been removed from the Government, their control of the thinking and planning of development strategies remained ex patria through a clandestine assistance programme of "expert" advice from the colonial masters.
The masters helped educate the former subjects to think that expertise can only be obtained from the master and no indigenous persons can match even an inexperienced externally approved so-called expert.
Thus, we have become like mentally tethered chickens who cannot appreciate their freedom to own the copyright of their own problems and solutions.
One of the preachers in the electronic media has recently declared: "The whole world knows that Africa is a corrupt continent". This was an African pastor telling an unpalatable truth.
I was hoping someone would come up with a differing view. The silence has been deafening. So be it; self-criticism may help our strife towards 180degrees turn around. Let's continue praying!
Our Prime Minister is fighting a lone battle against corruption in Swaziland. He is alone because some of his cabinet colleagues are deeply involved and there are pending cases in court.
The mere implication of a high public officer resulting in an actual charge must be followed by a resignation, even before a trial, for bringing the office into disrepute.
In our country, one who is corrupt in most cases is protected and sometimes rewarded.
HMK assented to the Prevention of Corruption Bill. Accordingly, it became Act; but its effectiveness still relies on the election, by the responsible minister, of its effective date.
This is incomprehensible to the ordinary patriot. May we have some help here? The same law discourages retrospective prosecution. This means rewarding criminals for ill-gotten wealth. One is open to enlightenment again!
The multiple medical examinations the PM is undergoing may be due to the resultant stress of fighting the corruption battle alone. He has no reason to fight alone. The populace has long availed itself to fight the scourge; but the application of the fighting rules thrives on their ignorance of how effective their contribution can be.
The system may have its good attributes, except those visible to the advantaged, but the populace is disempowered to play a meaningful role. There are no means of establishing checks and balances to develop a culture of accountability with a motto of pro patria mori (to die for the fatherland).
Who must pilot the reduction of good governance?
The permanent government comprises the civil service. Unfortunately, it has become mostly uncivil and less serving. "I" has become the most important and "we" the least important thesaurus versions.
The exploitation of national resources for personal gain has become so rampant that it has become tempting even to the true civil servants. The Almon Mbingo's culture of upholding the General Orders and service integrity has died.
A new culture of 'what's in it for me?' has replaced patriotic service.
The old civil service was truly educated in the University of Life, albeit with a relatively brief encounter with the conventional classroom. Their good performance was motivated by the yearning desire to prove the former bosses wrong about their capability.
What is motivating the present civil service? Seemingly, it is money. The modern officers spend a large amount of time with witches instead of applying the knowledge they have acquired at the expense of the taxpayer.
The belief in these nocturnal consultations -as emboldened them to cheat the employer with impudence, even wish death to their hardworking colleagues. This is a disgrace to having been in any classroom/ lecture theatre.
Now that one has given a peephole view of the scenario, let's bring in 2008. This is the year of elections in Swaziland. We have a new constitution, allowing freedom of association and freedom to stand for elections.
Let anyone challenge the constitution as to the modalities of nomination, if need be.
What is motivating the present civil service? Seemingly, it is money. The modern officers spend a large amount of time with witches instead of applying the knowledge they have acquired at the expense of the taxpayer.
The belief in these nocturnal consultations -as emboldened them to cheat the employer with impudence, even wish death to their hardworking colleagues. This is a disgrace to having been in any classroom/ lecture theatre.
Now that one has given a peephole view of the scenario, let's bring in 2008. This is the year of elections in Swaziland. We have a new constitution, allowing freedom of association and freedom to stand for elections.
Let anyone challenge the constitution as to the modalities of nomination, if need be. The fact is that the constitution must be tested at the ballot box.
Hitherto, we have elected people who have gone to Parliament for themselves and not for us. They have demonstrated that through the clause deletions they made without consulting us. We saw them last during the previous elections and they have never come to us for consultations.
Whose mandate did they have to go to Parliament? To be honest, nobody's! Our choice of MP's was based on ignorance of the real issues. We elected persons on the basis of their birth, noisiness in the House, controversial sensationalism and a belief that they know our wishes.
We never told or instructed them of our expectations; they had no method of reporting to the electorate and they eventually became our bosses because of abdication of our responsibility as the electors.
The MPs have successfully thrived on the ignorance of the electorate about parliamentary issues. Who shall save us from this Animal Farm mentality?
Could any enlightened individuals please develop papers on what the vision, structural organisation, people participation, policy development, key policies (fiscal, education, health, agriculture, competition, liberalisation, security, general development, etc?) are of those who support the Tinkhundla and/or Multi-party 'democracy' dispensations. This will help us, the proletariat, to make informed decisions.
The system of democracy has been academically described in many countries with distinct differences such that it has become clear there is no application method cast in stone.
Democracy is merely a philosophy, attractive though it may seem, whose ideals are yet to be achieved. Even the so-called great democracies have used force to promote democracy. One thus wonders how the will of the people can be imposed from outside the community.
For the assistance of those who may have no idea of the origin of the thesaurus version democracy. It comes from Greek: demos = people + kratos = power. Democracy is therefore 'power to the people'. So, any one/group who promises democracy, must premise it on the power to the people i.e. the government belongs to the people; the people do not belong to the Government.
One must congratulate Sibahle Sinje for telling the populace that they have a strategy document for 2008, albeit now seemingly misty. This will be necessary for all Parliamentary aspirants to help the electorate to make informed decisions-on the type of candidate to vote for and indeed to formulate the mandate to give theii* representative.
Otherwise, many people will continue to regard registration and voting an exercise in futility.
The low turnout in recent elections is a sign of the level of disgruntlement. Unfortunately, this attitude enables leadership by the sandy blind.
The Chief Electoral Officer has come out in the media against any campaigning until the right time has been declared. Nonetheless, the electoral centres must be readied now so that the officials do not overstep their authority and the electorate is enabled to make decisions without surreptitious influences.
The electorate need understanding of the criteria and parameters they must employ in deciding on the candidates. We should not form a government that thrives on the ignorance of the people come 2008.
Friday, June 20, 2008
WHO SAYS SIBAHLE SINJE?
The Nation
September 2006
COMMENT
Who says Sibahle Sinje?
So, Sibahle Sinje is now a political movement ready to contest the 2008 elections. But, why are the other political parties being suppressed? Indeed, is it a coincidence that at this crucial time of political change, Zonke Khumalo bounces back into a very sensitive position as chairman of the Citizenship Board? It will be a very interesting election, come 2008. Editor, Bheki Makhubu
On the 5th of last month, erstwhile cultural group, Sive Siyinqaba Sibahle Sinje held a convention at the Royal Swazi Sun's Convention Centre to celebrate its 10th year of existence.
On the same day, basking in the perceived glory of the new constitutional dispensation, the organization's leaders announced that Sibahle Sinje was now being transformed into a political movement, taking advantage of the constitution's protection of freedom of association and expression which gives everyone the right to a political party interest group.
Sibahle Sinje claimed it was positioning it self for the 2008 elections which will be the first in Swaziland under a constitutional order since 1972 when the cause of Swaziland's history was changed by the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress's (NNLC) victory in Mpumalanga, eastern Swaziland against the formidable Imbokodvo National Movement.
Some 20km away from the Convention Centre on that Saturday morning, in Mbabane, members of Swayoco, that political youth group infamous for its public demonstrations against the Tinkhundla system of government in the '90s, were taking a thorough beating from police officers at Msunduza.
On that day, they were staging yet another political rally in one of the capital city's most impoverished locations. Police PRO Vusi Masuku later defended the police action by claiming that political parties remain banned in the country despite the constitution assertion to the contrary.
Whether Masuku's statement was a reflection of the bigotry of the Tikhundla system of government which he serves, or an innocent statement borne out of ignorance is a matter of debate. What is not in dispute though, is the selective manner in which our law enforcement agencies operate.
In February this year, the NNLC tried to hold a rally at the Msunduza Inkhundla Centre, but were denied access to the place by the area's Indvuna Yenkhundla.
This, despite the constitution having come into effect at the time. Interestingly, the con stitution seeks to continue to run the country's politics through the Tinkhundla based system.
Judging from the goings on in parliament lately, it is quite apparent that there is confusion over where and how the constitution operates. It is damning that parliamentarians, the very people who extensively debated the constitution when it came before them while still at draft stage cannot tell whether it is superior or subordinate to Parliament's Standing Orders, among other things.
Mfomfo Nkambule. that outspoken member of parliament, still smarting from his sacking as a Cabinet Minister, has been trying to raise the flag in parliament over the operations of the constitution vis-a-vis the general laws of the land.
His utterances, unfortunately, seem to be falling on deaf ears because nobody wants to really face the realities of the changes brought about by the constitution. It is worth noting that the country's Attorney General, Majahenkhaba Dlamini, who sat as Secretary when the constitution was written, has never bothered to help anyone understand the workings of the document.
A constitutional expert who taught at the University of Swaziland, Majahenkhaba seems satisfied to teach only a few close associates how a constitution works and could not be bothered about parliament or the rest of society.
Therein a mess is beginning to settle.
Perhaps the answer to all this lies in the in the appointment of Zonke Khumalo as chairman of the country's citizenship board. Khumalo was the Deputy Prime Minister of the country at independence.
It was he who almost single handedly had Bhekindlela Ngwenya deported from the country in 1972 sparking a constitutional crisis that led to the now infamous 1973 Decree.
Has Khumalo been brought back as gatekeeper to play that sterling role for the leadership in case things go out of hand in this new constitutional order?
Getting out of hand, judging from the events of 1972 could mean where, say, a membe of Pudemo, Swayoco or any political part. not acceptable to the country's leaders, wo-a seat to parliament.
Who could better see to it that this Swazi could overnight turn into a foreigner than Zonke Khumalo?
Ngwenya had won his seat in parliamer on the ticket of the NNLC in Mpumalanga His victory, together with Dr Ambrose Zwane and Mageja Masilela had greatly upset the Imbokodvo National Movement. It had become imperative that the NNLC be weakened in parliament, lest they upse-the Imbokodvo's agenda in ruling the country.
So determined was Khumalo to see to it the Ngwenya never saw the inside of parliamer-that on the day before King Sobhuza opened parliament on May 26 1972, he he. him deported across the border.
When Ngwenya returned to the country Khumalo had him arrested, tried and found guilty of being in the country illegally and sentenced to 12 days imprisonment.
The NNLC challenged Ngwenya's citizenship issue, but they were faced with a formidable opponent in Khumalo. When the High Court ruled in Ngwenya's favour that he take his seat in parliament because he was a true Swazi, Khumalo brought a Bill to parliament that would remove the power to determine a person's citizenship from the courts and transfer it to a Tribunal which would have the last say.
When all this failed, the authorities of the country simply removed the constitution on which everything was based and all powers were vested in the King.
Khumalo's son, Marwick by extended family, is in the leadership of Sibahle Sinje. In fact, Marwick is the face of the organization. A successful politician who has won two terms to represent his people in parliament, Marwick is seen as a moderate version of his father's politics.
Though not popular with King Mswati III who once refused to open Parliament when Marwick was Speaker, Khumalo has not been discouraged by such misfortunes in his quest to forge a strong political carrier.
Sibahle Sinje was formed in 1996 to counter a strong political force in Pudemo, Swayoco and the SFTU which had managed to discredit Swaziland's image internationally and proven to the world that the people of this country lived in a tin-pot dictatorship.
In reflecting on the ten years of its existence, Sibahle Sinje believes it managed to stem the tide of the political onslaught that Swaziland faced from those opposed to what is seen as an archaic political system that thrives on the subservience of its people to a self-serving political hegemony.
What Sibahle Sinje has not been able to do, though, is live up to its name and slogan in selling the pride of the Swazi people in themselves.
The organization, however, has said it is now ready to contest elections and make its bid for power.
Sibahle Sinje's announcement that it was now re-launching itself as a political movement did not surprise many. They have always been seen as a pseudo-political party hiding under the guise of promoting cultural interests.
While other political parties continue to be harassed by the state, Sibahle Sinje has been given red carpet treatment by the authorities over the years because they claimed to protect Swazi culture.
King's Sobhuza's Imbokodvo National Movement seems to have withered into the wilderness. Or, is Sibahle Sinje, the new face of the country's once ruling party. Afterall, they do too claim to be a movement and could argue just as strongly as King Sobhuza why they don't call themselves a political party outright.
Sibahle Sinje did, and to a large degree managed, to find its way into parliament during the last elections through the inter-parliamentary nomination system. It was into Cabinet that they suffered their greatest setback.
Perhaps their fortunes may yet get better in the next elections if they ever get enough votes to go to parliament. It will be interesting to see how the next elections will work out because the constitution has entrenched the Establishment of Parliament Order 1992, which requires candidates to stand as individuals in their own Tinkhundla areas and not as party officials.
One thing, however, is not in dispute, the 2008 elections will be the most volatile since 1972 and much confusion of what the right thing to do is will characterize the whole process.
This is why the powers-that-be need a person like Zonke, the problem solver whose ruthless precision in dealing with opposition is well documented. He might be at his son's side yet as Sibahle Sinje seeks to find its political glory.
September 2006
COMMENT
Who says Sibahle Sinje?
So, Sibahle Sinje is now a political movement ready to contest the 2008 elections. But, why are the other political parties being suppressed? Indeed, is it a coincidence that at this crucial time of political change, Zonke Khumalo bounces back into a very sensitive position as chairman of the Citizenship Board? It will be a very interesting election, come 2008. Editor, Bheki Makhubu
On the 5th of last month, erstwhile cultural group, Sive Siyinqaba Sibahle Sinje held a convention at the Royal Swazi Sun's Convention Centre to celebrate its 10th year of existence.
On the same day, basking in the perceived glory of the new constitutional dispensation, the organization's leaders announced that Sibahle Sinje was now being transformed into a political movement, taking advantage of the constitution's protection of freedom of association and expression which gives everyone the right to a political party interest group.
Sibahle Sinje claimed it was positioning it self for the 2008 elections which will be the first in Swaziland under a constitutional order since 1972 when the cause of Swaziland's history was changed by the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress's (NNLC) victory in Mpumalanga, eastern Swaziland against the formidable Imbokodvo National Movement.
Some 20km away from the Convention Centre on that Saturday morning, in Mbabane, members of Swayoco, that political youth group infamous for its public demonstrations against the Tinkhundla system of government in the '90s, were taking a thorough beating from police officers at Msunduza.
On that day, they were staging yet another political rally in one of the capital city's most impoverished locations. Police PRO Vusi Masuku later defended the police action by claiming that political parties remain banned in the country despite the constitution assertion to the contrary.
Whether Masuku's statement was a reflection of the bigotry of the Tikhundla system of government which he serves, or an innocent statement borne out of ignorance is a matter of debate. What is not in dispute though, is the selective manner in which our law enforcement agencies operate.
In February this year, the NNLC tried to hold a rally at the Msunduza Inkhundla Centre, but were denied access to the place by the area's Indvuna Yenkhundla.
This, despite the constitution having come into effect at the time. Interestingly, the con stitution seeks to continue to run the country's politics through the Tinkhundla based system.
Judging from the goings on in parliament lately, it is quite apparent that there is confusion over where and how the constitution operates. It is damning that parliamentarians, the very people who extensively debated the constitution when it came before them while still at draft stage cannot tell whether it is superior or subordinate to Parliament's Standing Orders, among other things.
Mfomfo Nkambule. that outspoken member of parliament, still smarting from his sacking as a Cabinet Minister, has been trying to raise the flag in parliament over the operations of the constitution vis-a-vis the general laws of the land.
His utterances, unfortunately, seem to be falling on deaf ears because nobody wants to really face the realities of the changes brought about by the constitution. It is worth noting that the country's Attorney General, Majahenkhaba Dlamini, who sat as Secretary when the constitution was written, has never bothered to help anyone understand the workings of the document.
A constitutional expert who taught at the University of Swaziland, Majahenkhaba seems satisfied to teach only a few close associates how a constitution works and could not be bothered about parliament or the rest of society.
Therein a mess is beginning to settle.
Perhaps the answer to all this lies in the in the appointment of Zonke Khumalo as chairman of the country's citizenship board. Khumalo was the Deputy Prime Minister of the country at independence.
It was he who almost single handedly had Bhekindlela Ngwenya deported from the country in 1972 sparking a constitutional crisis that led to the now infamous 1973 Decree.
Has Khumalo been brought back as gatekeeper to play that sterling role for the leadership in case things go out of hand in this new constitutional order?
Getting out of hand, judging from the events of 1972 could mean where, say, a membe of Pudemo, Swayoco or any political part. not acceptable to the country's leaders, wo-a seat to parliament.
Who could better see to it that this Swazi could overnight turn into a foreigner than Zonke Khumalo?
Ngwenya had won his seat in parliamer on the ticket of the NNLC in Mpumalanga His victory, together with Dr Ambrose Zwane and Mageja Masilela had greatly upset the Imbokodvo National Movement. It had become imperative that the NNLC be weakened in parliament, lest they upse-the Imbokodvo's agenda in ruling the country.
So determined was Khumalo to see to it the Ngwenya never saw the inside of parliamer-that on the day before King Sobhuza opened parliament on May 26 1972, he he. him deported across the border.
When Ngwenya returned to the country Khumalo had him arrested, tried and found guilty of being in the country illegally and sentenced to 12 days imprisonment.
The NNLC challenged Ngwenya's citizenship issue, but they were faced with a formidable opponent in Khumalo. When the High Court ruled in Ngwenya's favour that he take his seat in parliament because he was a true Swazi, Khumalo brought a Bill to parliament that would remove the power to determine a person's citizenship from the courts and transfer it to a Tribunal which would have the last say.
When all this failed, the authorities of the country simply removed the constitution on which everything was based and all powers were vested in the King.
Khumalo's son, Marwick by extended family, is in the leadership of Sibahle Sinje. In fact, Marwick is the face of the organization. A successful politician who has won two terms to represent his people in parliament, Marwick is seen as a moderate version of his father's politics.
Though not popular with King Mswati III who once refused to open Parliament when Marwick was Speaker, Khumalo has not been discouraged by such misfortunes in his quest to forge a strong political carrier.
Sibahle Sinje was formed in 1996 to counter a strong political force in Pudemo, Swayoco and the SFTU which had managed to discredit Swaziland's image internationally and proven to the world that the people of this country lived in a tin-pot dictatorship.
In reflecting on the ten years of its existence, Sibahle Sinje believes it managed to stem the tide of the political onslaught that Swaziland faced from those opposed to what is seen as an archaic political system that thrives on the subservience of its people to a self-serving political hegemony.
What Sibahle Sinje has not been able to do, though, is live up to its name and slogan in selling the pride of the Swazi people in themselves.
The organization, however, has said it is now ready to contest elections and make its bid for power.
Sibahle Sinje's announcement that it was now re-launching itself as a political movement did not surprise many. They have always been seen as a pseudo-political party hiding under the guise of promoting cultural interests.
While other political parties continue to be harassed by the state, Sibahle Sinje has been given red carpet treatment by the authorities over the years because they claimed to protect Swazi culture.
King's Sobhuza's Imbokodvo National Movement seems to have withered into the wilderness. Or, is Sibahle Sinje, the new face of the country's once ruling party. Afterall, they do too claim to be a movement and could argue just as strongly as King Sobhuza why they don't call themselves a political party outright.
Sibahle Sinje did, and to a large degree managed, to find its way into parliament during the last elections through the inter-parliamentary nomination system. It was into Cabinet that they suffered their greatest setback.
Perhaps their fortunes may yet get better in the next elections if they ever get enough votes to go to parliament. It will be interesting to see how the next elections will work out because the constitution has entrenched the Establishment of Parliament Order 1992, which requires candidates to stand as individuals in their own Tinkhundla areas and not as party officials.
One thing, however, is not in dispute, the 2008 elections will be the most volatile since 1972 and much confusion of what the right thing to do is will characterize the whole process.
This is why the powers-that-be need a person like Zonke, the problem solver whose ruthless precision in dealing with opposition is well documented. He might be at his son's side yet as Sibahle Sinje seeks to find its political glory.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
DECISION TIME: ARE WE READY?
The Nation
Comment
Decision time: are we ready?
As we draw nearer to the elections, let's take stock of what we really want for our parliament? There is no doubt that the quality of MPs we have had in the last five years has been a terrible embarrassment. But, whose fault is it? We now have a Constitution. Do those who will vote and those who will be voted for clearly understand this document? Where are the lawyers and other intellectuals to help unpack this most important document for the rest of us? Where is the media in all this? SIPHO NKOSI-DLAMINI reports.
The time has come for the electorate to make decisions on their representations in Parliament. In addition, it is that time of the year when some unfortunate humans disappear; and if found, they are without their limbs. That is why, in developmental terms, we have stagnated as a nation.
The people have been starved of information to make informed decisions on their representation. Yesterday is history; it helps us not to make the same mistakes. Tomorrow is a mystery whose solutions we must plan for today. Today is a gift; that is why we call it a present of opportunity to act.
The enlightened have the responsibility of leading those who need the light to make informed decisions and not to decide on the basis of who provided a meal one day. The individual standing for elections must have the capacity to comprehend the intricacies of governance and the priorities of the electorate. Providing one with a plate offish without the ability to use a rod, line and hook is a strategy to keep one a dependent forever (sihhanya).
Policies are good but only made useless by those who should implement them. A launching fanfare that culminates into a feeding session for the haves, projects a wrong impression when, on the very day, some people went to bed hungry. If only that money was used to buy some maize for the people of Lavumisa and Nkalashane, the meaning of commitment to poverty reduction would start to sink in. All those at the launch went home to a plate of food!
However, HMK Sobhuza II admonished us against dependency when he said, "ungabophila ngekudla kwemuntfu, utawugcina sewusihhanya sakhe" (i.e. do not depend on someone's food to feed your family; you end up his zombie). The people only need expert advice on when and what to sow; they know that the taste of the produce of own labour is always sweetest! Our MPs have had different tastes from the electorates'. Know what for to send an MP to Parliament. This is not possible if one does not know what the system of governance prevailing is. It is important that we articulate the methodologies of service delivery to the populace.
One would like to respect MPs and never to fear them. Never again should anybody, including the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, be ashamed of us for choosing people who cannot recognise their own products of Parliamentary deliberations. Does the system enable this state of affairs? All those who have an interest and basic understanding of specific elements of the Constitution should use the available means to educate all of us. We keep hearing of tinkhundla system. Could someone please give us a document that describes the system, if only for comparative assessment?
What HMK Sobhuza II called an experiment did not have a document and never became public, like many commissions. Thus, the populace has always voted based on perceived instructions and non-issues, opening them to manipulations.
For example, a prospective MP or incumbent, at election time, suddenly remembers that the people do starve, need a market shelter, piped water, etc.
For 5 years, the MP was looking after his/her stomach. Why should people vote if they have no say on how they are to be governed? Are we going to elect the Government of Swaziland or merely "horrible" Members of Parliament? Are these MPs answerable to the electorate or to themselves?
Remember, a few years ago HMK Mswati III called them to Lozitha for his briefing as to what they had done for their constituencies ever since they were elected. A majority of the answers were an affront to the electorate. Prince David will always be correct and has my support for the naked truth. Let us not allow this to happen again!
Democracy
Many academics and politicians have written on democracy to project supportive views on the system. Others have distorted the Plutonic philosophy to project personal or group preferences. The thesaurus version merely means power to the people (demos = people and kratos = power). It developed from the desire to move away from dictatorship, totalitarianism, or any form of entrenched favouritism by whatever method. Since the proletariat were providing the taxes, they were entitled to benefit from the use of the acquired resources to be used for the collective good.
Parliamentary democracy evolved seriously after the industrial revolution in Britain where the rich regarded themselves as having a divine right to rule the poor. First, there were the Conservatives (Tories), who wanted to maintain the status quo, then came the Labour party (Whigs), an outgrowth of the labour union movement. The Liberal Democrats took the centre stage trying to accommodate those who had no extreme views on the social evolution. This was the formal structuring of multi-party democracy.
No country today would say they have achieved democratic dispensation. The haves have become have-mores and the have-nots lose the little they may have accumulated. Hobos are a common sight even in the most developed 'democratic' countries. The difference in developing countries is the available levels of opportunities to reach the stars! The opportunity to express one's personality with one's God-given capacity/talent is the inherent spirit of elementary democratic principles. Choice, by technical know-who and not technical expertise, is anathema to democratic practice.
Thus, true democracy is the ideal system we all aim at. Communalism, as practised by nuns, aimed at elimination, not reduction, of have-nots. The latter is the Godly perfect system. How does multi-party democracy or tinkhundla systems fair in the human attempt of bringing God's kingdom closer so that His will can also be done on earth without being battered by any state security personnel? In a democracy, the theory is that the people own the governors; the government exists at the behest of the governed: the will of the people is pre-eminent.
Tinkhundla System
Is what we are practising in SD today at the same wavelength as that HMK Sobhuza II had in mind? My recollection from his speech on the experiment is that the people in each sub-constituency would decide who was to stand at primary level of the process of election to Parliament.
The basis would be the contributions the individual had made in one’s community to the general and any specific sector of socio-economic development. The communities must be involved in formulating the methodology.
External coercions, be they from the chief, government officials, political parties or family members would not play a role in decision-making on one's preference if the people were well informed about the real issues. During the secondary election at the Inkhundla, the candidates would then compete for election to Parliament. It is not clear who is to educate the populace on the real issues!
Has the practice lived up to this idea, especially with respect to external influence? Has the system practice metamorphosed through manipulation by interested 'parties'? What influence do tindvuna, hunger, positions, etc, have on vote decision-making? Does the system truly allow freedom of expression (neluhlanya luviwe), so that even a mad man can be heard?
For the purpose of the coming election, what measurable responsibilities do all the governance divisions have? What parameters are used to assess their delivery capacities? Simply, how can the electorate ascertain the kind of performance results and the capacity of an individual prospective MP?
Are there any measurable parameters for eligibility for election? This will help the system to stem the scourge of gross failure through lack of analytical agility and the consequent corrupt relations that ensue. How much transparency is entrenched in the system to enable any researcher to interrogate its efficiency or efficacy? Essentially, what defence argument can one advance against those who view it as undemocratic?
Ignore the waffling arguments to protect one's plate of fish.
Multi-party Democracy
The basis for multi-party democracy is that it expresses both the will of the people irrespective of their differences and the majority view wins the day. The candidature of each potential MP is scrutinised at grass roots level based on their assimilation, comprehension and people-based national policies and their implementation strategies.
For example, health, food security, education, international relations, national security and socio-economic development are national prerogatives. The appreciation of party policies by the populace should qualify one to be an MP and not providing a plate of food for one day.
The acceptance and appreciation of differing views is viewed as honourable and intellectually stimulating. No one person possesses monopoly of knowledge and thinking. Only God does!
However, experience in some countries has been the suppression of the minority view, which could contribute superiorly to the development of the country. Some politicians have resorted to military force to remain in power. In Swaziland, we do not need that because we are one "family", being blood relations. We will always be together at the funerals.
Overall, the responsibility lies with the electorate to choose the people who can articulate their aspirations. This is assumed to form the foundation stone of the system. The system also prescribes that an eligible candidate must possess basic education (not learning) standards to contribute substantially to a stimulating debate on people's issues.
Without the basic tools of natural mental agility and basic, not elementary, ability to read, one's qualification becomes suspect. One just needs to have the mental dexterity to compare and contrast using many sources of information.
Election
That the Constitution does not ban political parties may be incomplete truth; it is indisputable nonetheless that the Constitution does not specifically reinstate them into the political dispensation. The 1973 Proclamation specifically banned multi-party politics and introduced one party or non-party system. That was a constitutional change and was not open to multiple interpretations.
Without these specifics in the new Constitution, political parties are essentially banned. This view is further supported by the breach of the very Constitution in the composition of the EBC by including a practising "judge" of qualification of eligible candidates at the primaries. One is open to correction. But that is what many understand is prevailing.
The 2008 election may indeed be a farce. However, there is need to educate the populace why it is a farce so that they make the necessary informed decision to register and vote or not. Over-generalization cannot be enough to make a responsible decision. Let them know the prevailing circumstances that militate against free and fair elections.
True democratic principles do not allow one group to be a criminal, police officer, prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time. With the means available, let the populace have the civic education they need to make intelligent decisions. No one will do it for them save those who are sufficiently enlightened to realise the wool over their eyes.
Some think the more of the same mind entering the system, the greater the impact of influencing changes from within. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an argument? Even boycotts need to be substantiated. Hitherto, the vociferous anti-boycotts have been those who derive benefits from the status quo. That is expected. The populace are still unable to make informed decisions.
Forward
The views herein are an attempt to lead us away from the prevailing disinformation climate in order for us to make informed decisions on our representatives in Parliament. Never again should we hear anybody calling our MPs stupid because they 'approve' key legislation they do not understand, later doubt its efficacy, and question their own decisions when the law is applied.
Secondly, the majority has not read and understood the Constitution under which we shall be choosing our MPs. Accepting that it is their fault and no one else's, I implore our legal boffins to help surgically dissect the Constitution, elucidate the tricky areas and intellectually lift us to the level where we can elect quality MPs.
Is the Constitution people-based enough to facilitate free and fair elections? Do the people own it sufficiently to accept responsibility for its failures? Does it facilitate choice of quality MPs? No one in the country can stand boldly proud of the quality of MPs we have had in the last Parliament. Many of us have been around since independence!
In the last election, reports were that less than 25% of the electorate registered and voted. Did we then have a legitimate Parliament? Democracy demands that more than 50% of eligible voters should register and vote. Who is to blame for that other than those who must vote? Does the Constitution stipulate the size of register and qualification of eligible participants before we can say, "the people have indeed spoken"?
To boycott or not is a choice that needs to be based on knowledge not ignorance or mob psychology. The press must play its role as a medium of healthy intellectual exchange with only the future of the country in mind. Editorials should only crystallize (that is compare and contrast) issues and avoid promoting sides!
Is it true that chequebook journalism prevents open, free and fair intellectual intercourse? Governments have no monopoly on censorship. By commission or omission, the media houses are in many instances guilty, especially in Swaziland, through editorial power to exclude the unpalatable.
I sincerely invite you to raise your views and exercise your constitutional freedom of expression; one is expecting opposite views too. Silence is never golden in Africa; it depicts taciturn disagreement. Bunhhinhhinhhi ("cooing" like a bilious pigeon) is no longer justified!
Opposite debating views are healthy; that is how one can surpass one's horizons of knowledge. Only deafening silence keeps people mentally stunted and promotes the choice of "stupid" candidates.
Please wake up from your intellectual slumber! From Cape to Cairo, Morocco to Mozambique, there are many of our politicians, not all, who thrive on the ignorance of the people. Do not be one of those who provide the platform for stomach politics.
You were born free!
Comment
Decision time: are we ready?
As we draw nearer to the elections, let's take stock of what we really want for our parliament? There is no doubt that the quality of MPs we have had in the last five years has been a terrible embarrassment. But, whose fault is it? We now have a Constitution. Do those who will vote and those who will be voted for clearly understand this document? Where are the lawyers and other intellectuals to help unpack this most important document for the rest of us? Where is the media in all this? SIPHO NKOSI-DLAMINI reports.
The time has come for the electorate to make decisions on their representations in Parliament. In addition, it is that time of the year when some unfortunate humans disappear; and if found, they are without their limbs. That is why, in developmental terms, we have stagnated as a nation.
The people have been starved of information to make informed decisions on their representation. Yesterday is history; it helps us not to make the same mistakes. Tomorrow is a mystery whose solutions we must plan for today. Today is a gift; that is why we call it a present of opportunity to act.
The enlightened have the responsibility of leading those who need the light to make informed decisions and not to decide on the basis of who provided a meal one day. The individual standing for elections must have the capacity to comprehend the intricacies of governance and the priorities of the electorate. Providing one with a plate offish without the ability to use a rod, line and hook is a strategy to keep one a dependent forever (sihhanya).
Policies are good but only made useless by those who should implement them. A launching fanfare that culminates into a feeding session for the haves, projects a wrong impression when, on the very day, some people went to bed hungry. If only that money was used to buy some maize for the people of Lavumisa and Nkalashane, the meaning of commitment to poverty reduction would start to sink in. All those at the launch went home to a plate of food!
However, HMK Sobhuza II admonished us against dependency when he said, "ungabophila ngekudla kwemuntfu, utawugcina sewusihhanya sakhe" (i.e. do not depend on someone's food to feed your family; you end up his zombie). The people only need expert advice on when and what to sow; they know that the taste of the produce of own labour is always sweetest! Our MPs have had different tastes from the electorates'. Know what for to send an MP to Parliament. This is not possible if one does not know what the system of governance prevailing is. It is important that we articulate the methodologies of service delivery to the populace.
One would like to respect MPs and never to fear them. Never again should anybody, including the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, be ashamed of us for choosing people who cannot recognise their own products of Parliamentary deliberations. Does the system enable this state of affairs? All those who have an interest and basic understanding of specific elements of the Constitution should use the available means to educate all of us. We keep hearing of tinkhundla system. Could someone please give us a document that describes the system, if only for comparative assessment?
What HMK Sobhuza II called an experiment did not have a document and never became public, like many commissions. Thus, the populace has always voted based on perceived instructions and non-issues, opening them to manipulations.
For example, a prospective MP or incumbent, at election time, suddenly remembers that the people do starve, need a market shelter, piped water, etc.
For 5 years, the MP was looking after his/her stomach. Why should people vote if they have no say on how they are to be governed? Are we going to elect the Government of Swaziland or merely "horrible" Members of Parliament? Are these MPs answerable to the electorate or to themselves?
Remember, a few years ago HMK Mswati III called them to Lozitha for his briefing as to what they had done for their constituencies ever since they were elected. A majority of the answers were an affront to the electorate. Prince David will always be correct and has my support for the naked truth. Let us not allow this to happen again!
Democracy
Many academics and politicians have written on democracy to project supportive views on the system. Others have distorted the Plutonic philosophy to project personal or group preferences. The thesaurus version merely means power to the people (demos = people and kratos = power). It developed from the desire to move away from dictatorship, totalitarianism, or any form of entrenched favouritism by whatever method. Since the proletariat were providing the taxes, they were entitled to benefit from the use of the acquired resources to be used for the collective good.
Parliamentary democracy evolved seriously after the industrial revolution in Britain where the rich regarded themselves as having a divine right to rule the poor. First, there were the Conservatives (Tories), who wanted to maintain the status quo, then came the Labour party (Whigs), an outgrowth of the labour union movement. The Liberal Democrats took the centre stage trying to accommodate those who had no extreme views on the social evolution. This was the formal structuring of multi-party democracy.
No country today would say they have achieved democratic dispensation. The haves have become have-mores and the have-nots lose the little they may have accumulated. Hobos are a common sight even in the most developed 'democratic' countries. The difference in developing countries is the available levels of opportunities to reach the stars! The opportunity to express one's personality with one's God-given capacity/talent is the inherent spirit of elementary democratic principles. Choice, by technical know-who and not technical expertise, is anathema to democratic practice.
Thus, true democracy is the ideal system we all aim at. Communalism, as practised by nuns, aimed at elimination, not reduction, of have-nots. The latter is the Godly perfect system. How does multi-party democracy or tinkhundla systems fair in the human attempt of bringing God's kingdom closer so that His will can also be done on earth without being battered by any state security personnel? In a democracy, the theory is that the people own the governors; the government exists at the behest of the governed: the will of the people is pre-eminent.
Tinkhundla System
Is what we are practising in SD today at the same wavelength as that HMK Sobhuza II had in mind? My recollection from his speech on the experiment is that the people in each sub-constituency would decide who was to stand at primary level of the process of election to Parliament.
The basis would be the contributions the individual had made in one’s community to the general and any specific sector of socio-economic development. The communities must be involved in formulating the methodology.
External coercions, be they from the chief, government officials, political parties or family members would not play a role in decision-making on one's preference if the people were well informed about the real issues. During the secondary election at the Inkhundla, the candidates would then compete for election to Parliament. It is not clear who is to educate the populace on the real issues!
Has the practice lived up to this idea, especially with respect to external influence? Has the system practice metamorphosed through manipulation by interested 'parties'? What influence do tindvuna, hunger, positions, etc, have on vote decision-making? Does the system truly allow freedom of expression (neluhlanya luviwe), so that even a mad man can be heard?
For the purpose of the coming election, what measurable responsibilities do all the governance divisions have? What parameters are used to assess their delivery capacities? Simply, how can the electorate ascertain the kind of performance results and the capacity of an individual prospective MP?
Are there any measurable parameters for eligibility for election? This will help the system to stem the scourge of gross failure through lack of analytical agility and the consequent corrupt relations that ensue. How much transparency is entrenched in the system to enable any researcher to interrogate its efficiency or efficacy? Essentially, what defence argument can one advance against those who view it as undemocratic?
Ignore the waffling arguments to protect one's plate of fish.
Multi-party Democracy
The basis for multi-party democracy is that it expresses both the will of the people irrespective of their differences and the majority view wins the day. The candidature of each potential MP is scrutinised at grass roots level based on their assimilation, comprehension and people-based national policies and their implementation strategies.
For example, health, food security, education, international relations, national security and socio-economic development are national prerogatives. The appreciation of party policies by the populace should qualify one to be an MP and not providing a plate of food for one day.
The acceptance and appreciation of differing views is viewed as honourable and intellectually stimulating. No one person possesses monopoly of knowledge and thinking. Only God does!
However, experience in some countries has been the suppression of the minority view, which could contribute superiorly to the development of the country. Some politicians have resorted to military force to remain in power. In Swaziland, we do not need that because we are one "family", being blood relations. We will always be together at the funerals.
Overall, the responsibility lies with the electorate to choose the people who can articulate their aspirations. This is assumed to form the foundation stone of the system. The system also prescribes that an eligible candidate must possess basic education (not learning) standards to contribute substantially to a stimulating debate on people's issues.
Without the basic tools of natural mental agility and basic, not elementary, ability to read, one's qualification becomes suspect. One just needs to have the mental dexterity to compare and contrast using many sources of information.
Election
That the Constitution does not ban political parties may be incomplete truth; it is indisputable nonetheless that the Constitution does not specifically reinstate them into the political dispensation. The 1973 Proclamation specifically banned multi-party politics and introduced one party or non-party system. That was a constitutional change and was not open to multiple interpretations.
Without these specifics in the new Constitution, political parties are essentially banned. This view is further supported by the breach of the very Constitution in the composition of the EBC by including a practising "judge" of qualification of eligible candidates at the primaries. One is open to correction. But that is what many understand is prevailing.
The 2008 election may indeed be a farce. However, there is need to educate the populace why it is a farce so that they make the necessary informed decision to register and vote or not. Over-generalization cannot be enough to make a responsible decision. Let them know the prevailing circumstances that militate against free and fair elections.
True democratic principles do not allow one group to be a criminal, police officer, prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time. With the means available, let the populace have the civic education they need to make intelligent decisions. No one will do it for them save those who are sufficiently enlightened to realise the wool over their eyes.
Some think the more of the same mind entering the system, the greater the impact of influencing changes from within. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an argument? Even boycotts need to be substantiated. Hitherto, the vociferous anti-boycotts have been those who derive benefits from the status quo. That is expected. The populace are still unable to make informed decisions.
Forward
The views herein are an attempt to lead us away from the prevailing disinformation climate in order for us to make informed decisions on our representatives in Parliament. Never again should we hear anybody calling our MPs stupid because they 'approve' key legislation they do not understand, later doubt its efficacy, and question their own decisions when the law is applied.
Secondly, the majority has not read and understood the Constitution under which we shall be choosing our MPs. Accepting that it is their fault and no one else's, I implore our legal boffins to help surgically dissect the Constitution, elucidate the tricky areas and intellectually lift us to the level where we can elect quality MPs.
Is the Constitution people-based enough to facilitate free and fair elections? Do the people own it sufficiently to accept responsibility for its failures? Does it facilitate choice of quality MPs? No one in the country can stand boldly proud of the quality of MPs we have had in the last Parliament. Many of us have been around since independence!
In the last election, reports were that less than 25% of the electorate registered and voted. Did we then have a legitimate Parliament? Democracy demands that more than 50% of eligible voters should register and vote. Who is to blame for that other than those who must vote? Does the Constitution stipulate the size of register and qualification of eligible participants before we can say, "the people have indeed spoken"?
To boycott or not is a choice that needs to be based on knowledge not ignorance or mob psychology. The press must play its role as a medium of healthy intellectual exchange with only the future of the country in mind. Editorials should only crystallize (that is compare and contrast) issues and avoid promoting sides!
Is it true that chequebook journalism prevents open, free and fair intellectual intercourse? Governments have no monopoly on censorship. By commission or omission, the media houses are in many instances guilty, especially in Swaziland, through editorial power to exclude the unpalatable.
I sincerely invite you to raise your views and exercise your constitutional freedom of expression; one is expecting opposite views too. Silence is never golden in Africa; it depicts taciturn disagreement. Bunhhinhhinhhi ("cooing" like a bilious pigeon) is no longer justified!
Opposite debating views are healthy; that is how one can surpass one's horizons of knowledge. Only deafening silence keeps people mentally stunted and promotes the choice of "stupid" candidates.
Please wake up from your intellectual slumber! From Cape to Cairo, Morocco to Mozambique, there are many of our politicians, not all, who thrive on the ignorance of the people. Do not be one of those who provide the platform for stomach politics.
You were born free!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)