IS ESWATINI PRONE TO STATE CAPTURE?

THE narrative of State capture - juxtaposed and equated to that experienced in neighbouring South Africa - occurring within the shores of this the Kingdom of Eswatini is, oddly enough, seemingly gaining traction yet the possibility of the phenomenon rearing its head here seems to be as remote as eliciting voluntary admission from the governing elite that the Tinkhundla political system is devoid of democratic credentials and, consequently, is a threat to this country. 
But can State capture happen in this country?

And what are the fundamentals and characteristics of State capture? To be contextual to the subject matter, there is a need to level the playing field by extracting the etymology of the terms, democracy and capture, for a better comprehension of their form and meaning in the context of the subject matter.
That the obtaining political system is considered to be democratic by its architects, even if political power is not resident with the people, coupled with the absence of political plurality points to a language impediment in the proper diagnosis of the meaning of the very term, democracy, and its etymology by those entrusted with the reins of power.

To clarify, the etymology of the word democracy derives from the Greek word (am not certain of its Latin equivalent for surely there must be one), demokratia, which means rule of the people. Consequently, can the Tinkhundla political system be said to be rule of the people? The answer is a firm NO!

Apparently electing a majority of representatives into the Legislature – even if some of these get to be appointed into Cabinet – does not necessarily mean the people rule. The people, or their elected representatives, do not appoint the Cabinet and, in turn, the Cabinet is not answerable and accountable to the people. The people do not originate national policies and national imperatives in the critical political, social and economic realms. These core activities are an exclusive preserve and exercised elsewhere independent of and without the involvement and consultation of the people, and implemented through Cabinet.

Initially the matter of the possibility of State capture happening within these shores was raised by S’thofeni Ginindza when, as chairman of Eswatini Electricity Company (EEC), delivering a report on the financial performance of the State owned entity. He raised the issue again when ventilating at the recent Sibaya, ahead of the appointment of Prime Minister Ambrose Mandvulo Dlamini, wherein he also bemoaned the fact that he could not aspire for the position since he had the wrong surname.

In South Africa, the face of State capture is (was) the once all powerful Gupta family with, paradoxically, then President Jacob Zuma as its acolyte, to gain control of and manipulate the operations of State owned entities (SOEs) and provincial governing structures to amass wealth. This was achieved through meticulous political manipulation in which the Gupta family appropriated to itself some of the president’s authority apropos Cabinet and provincial government appointments and only their chosen candidates occupied key corporate and political positions. And, by progression, this ensured that leadership of SOEs was in the hands of their lieutenants through which they controlled their operations from which flowed billions of Rands into their bank accounts through procurements, tenders and a variety of other business deals, gives a brief anatomy of state capture in the neighbouring country from my perspective.

As I see it, State capture is a hybrid of institutional corruption higher up in the echelons of power that is mothered by an environment of moral decay fueled by greed. So, abuse of political power, institutional corruption, decadence and greed, not to leave out opportunity, is the sum total of state capture. Of course throw in the institutions responsible for generating revenue and/or dispensing tax money either through services, procurements, etc for that critical clash of atoms that generate human appetite for greed. And we should not mistake State capture with tenderpreneurship because the latter is infantile with lower returns and not as complex and sophisticated relative to the construction of the former.

Can the same happen in this the Kingdom of Eswatini? The answer is a firm NO! To begin with, the political and social construct and ecosystems are quite different to those obtaining in South Africa. For the phenomena that happened in South Africa to replicate itself in this country, it would be essential to establish evidence of the existence of free, independent and autonomous institutions, be they statutory or SOEs/parastatals, which would be the targets for capture. Certainly the conditions obtaining here that are primarily influenced by the political and social architecture are not the same as those in South Africa. For in the kingdom no institution can be captured ostensibly because no institution is or has ever been free, independent and autonomous under the obtaining polity. Ultimately, what is in currency here is far worse than state capture, a situation exacerbated by almost non-existent oversight, lack of transparency and accountability and weak institutional governance.

SA’s salvation has been the existence of strong institutions such as the Legislature playing an effective oversight role, the Judiciary and strong civil organisations hence State capture has been unearthed and is now being dealt with through the Justice Zondo Commission of Enquiry.
Regrettably the same cannot be said of this country hence nothing can be captured since just about everything is under political and social patronage of the elites that can only be halted by radical political transformation. Why, even private entities are susceptible to being captured in Eswatini through extra-legal demands for shareholding often times with promises of State tenders.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: