Home | Feature | GOVT OFTEN ACTS LIKE AN OPPOSITION

GOVT OFTEN ACTS LIKE AN OPPOSITION

28/08/2017 06:23:00 By Vusi Sibisi

Font size:

THE Government of Swaziland often comes across as an opposition, yes an opposition to the people, when it should be a catalyst towards the achievement of their and the country’s development goals.

The two recent examples of government’s unlikely opposition postures involve the liberalisation of the national communications backbone and international gateway infrastructure and the other, a refusal of a scholarship to a student pursuing studies under the Priority Areas for Pre-Service Tertiary Education Agreement Order (PTET) in direct violation of its own policy and the applicable legal framework.

With reference to the liberalisation of the communications backbone and international gateway infrastructure, government apparently was at variance with legislators in the House of Assembly who sought to end the monopoly enjoyed by the Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (SPTC) in the provision of the backbone and gateway infrastructure. Members of Parliament tasked government, through the Ministry of ICT to amend the Electronic Communications Act of 2013 in order to end the monopoly enjoyed by SPTC.

The effect of liberalising the backbone and international gateway infrastructure will be manifold but the immediate gain for the citizens would be the drastic reduction of communications tariffs. In the medium to long-term this move would make the country competitive which would translate into economic benefits that would lubricate the country’s development initiatives. In turn this would translate into an improved lifestyle for the people whose knock-on effect would be reduced social ills, such as crime that is spiraling out of control, especially among the youth.

Odd as it may appear, it was Minister of Labour and Social Security Winnie Magagula, and not ICT Minister Dumisani Ndlangamandla, who defended the current set-up by suggesting that opening up the international gateway would compromise the kingdom’s security. Another reason advanced by Minister Magagula was that the kingdom would be the first and only country in the world to place its telecommunications backbone infrastructure in the hands of private entities. But of course she was being economical with the truth save that the legislators, either out of ignorance or other influences, did not censor her for that apparent quiescent argument.

As I see it, what is strange apropos the security concerns is a contradiction in terms in that this government never misses an opportunity to boast about the stability and peace that has become synonymous with the kingdom. Yet government has never come out to explain its overzealousness in militarising the country, at inhibitive costs to the taxpayer, in peace times. Government’s posture on this issue is not different to that it adopted when protecting the almost 20 years of mobile telecommunications monopoly enjoyed by MTN Swaziland. Hence mobile telephony tariffs within these shores were second to none until recently. As I see it, government’s position on the backbone and gateway infrastructure is militating against economic development and, by progression, ensuring that the majority of the people remain enslaved by poverty.

As for the other matter involving one Nompumelelo Tsabedze, the university student who took the self-same Minister Magagula and the Scholarship Board to court for refusing her a scholarship, depicts a cold hearted and callous government that does not care about the future of bantfwana bemaSwati.

As I see it, the question we should all be asking is how many Swazi students’ futures have been extinguished and destroyed by such blatant abuse of power by an uncaring government. Nompumelelo could have just been another statistic ending up in the scrapheap of drop-outs at the bottom of the food-chain but was so passionate and persistent that she found means – which for all intents and purposes could have been radical and life-changing - to enroll in a university as well as pursue a court case in the name of social justice against a formidable foe.

That government chose not to defend the matter has robbed the nation of an opportunity to have insight into the processes of awarding scholarships. These two issues, among a plethora of others, do not bespeak of a government looking out for and acting in the best interests of the people. Unfortunately, the people cannot wish away nor can they change government if they are not happy with its performance even in the presence of periodic elections.
Such is the nature of the abhorrent Tinkhundla Political System.