Home | Feature | TROUBLE ON THE STREET

TROUBLE ON THE STREET

19/08/2021 08:04:00 BY CHRIS MORGAN

Font size:

The political strife that exists in Eswatini today threatens to remain, unless key players come to the table.

Whether this is clear to all those involved in the making of decisions is not known. But to delay is to deny; to deny is to decry. The need for dialogue has also been voiced by our international friends. We need them, just as we need investors, for the future prosperity of all emaSwati. And the future well-being of all emaSwati must surely be the overriding, preeminent objective. And talking is the healthy way of resolving differences. Why do you think marriage counselling, involving the two unhappy partners in the relationship, is the proven route to resolve prevailing marital differences? That is what you do. Both players come to the table for collective discussions; the differences to be resolved amicably and productively.

Process

With a plan and process for moving forward. And invariably the presence of an arbitrator – the counsellor - cool, collected and experienced, provides valuable guidance to participants and sets the scene for sensible discussion, with none of the usual throwing of toys out of the cot. That is what should, in my humble view, be asked for in the present circumstances. So how do you achieve that? Certainly not by burning schools; that is damaging the lives of the youth of the nation. Absolutely nothing is achieved by destroying the means by which our youth, the future of this country, can gain a decent education and proceed to sustainable livelihoods. And absolutely nothing is gained by those who destroy and loot businesses, denying income for the very people they claim to serve. They simply lose the credibility of those they claim to represent.

Power

What is happening here today is that an angry segment of the population, with no money in the pocket and no jobs to look forward to, have suddenly found power at their fingertips; the power to destroy and loot, where previously the lack of money in the pocket, and a prevailing respect for peace, left a complete absence of power. That is a reflection on the very poor economic growth rates and control of public financial resources of recent years. No growth means huge unemployment and continuing poverty, creating bitterness, even anger; exacerbated by the recent loss of life on the streets. And the new power is addictive.

But people who talk and behave violently have no credibility, and attract no trust among the people who matter in life. Furthermore, posting a rough threat on social media that intimidated travellers and businesses earlier this week did far more harm than good to those behind it. No one is impressed by that. It was stopping people going to work, running kombis and opening businesses; causing people to lose money. It should be made very clear – and there appear to be people with the street-credibility to do just that – that such behaviour is not only destructive, but also effectively self-destructive. At the recent Sibaya, the nation was reminded by the King of the constitutionally articulated route for getting the opinions of the people to those in charge of the nation. The views of the people can be submitted to their respective tinkhundla and Members of Parliament (MPs) and thence to Sibaya. So what on earth is holding that up?

Denial

Well, what’s put a spanner in the works is the imprisonment and denial of bail for two MPs. Their trial has been prioritised, starting next week. Consistent with the judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty, the common cause – whoops, I forgot my wig – must be to assume that the judicial process and outcome will be honest and fair, until proved otherwise. We cannot possibly predict what would be a fair outcome until we see and hear all the evidence. And it would be entirely inappropriate of me to speculate on what might happen in each potential scenario; I won’t be tempted to play judge and jury. In due course, the court of public opinion will assess the judicial outcome of that case in the light of the evidence that, by then, will be known. But, above all, any assessment should be peacefully and respectfully transmitted in the public domain. Communication - including protest - that is expressed with dignity and through the correct channels, always attracts a lot more credibility and support than vicious threats and displays of violence and looting.

It would not be too challenging to organise a referendum on ‘do you want regular national forums of free dialogue; yes or no?’ The forums being for pre-qualified participants, under independent moderation and arbitration, to ensure fairness and the ability to exclude spoilers and troublemakers. Such dialogue would help to educate and develop expectations for subsequent years. It’s a straightforward subject, giving people the opportunity to speak. What can be fairer than that?