REFERENDUM QUESTION ON BALLOT PAPER

During the last Sibaya, His Majesty King Mswati III announced the awaited dialogue, which he said will be held after the national elections and before the end of the year.

This announcement was received with great enthusiasm from the general public and the international community. It recently occurred to me that, maybe, if the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) were to introduce a yes or no political question in the form of a referendum or plebiscite in the voting ballot papers, the upcoming dialogue would be enriched greatly. One gets the feeling that the EBC Chairman, Prince Mhlabuhlangene, is a man of integrity, who, together with labadzala and the national council that advices His Majesty, could structure a few yes or no questions, which could steer the country in the right direction by giving clarity on some of the burning political issues facing our country. It is done all the time in First World countries.

Referendum or plebiscite

A plebiscite is a national vote on a question that does not affect the Constitution. It is a simple question that is designed to assist a government to gauge the general feeling of the people. However, a referendum is a direct vote by the electorate (in our case the whole Eswatini nation) on a proposal, law or political issue. A referendum is passed if it is approved by a double majority and can lead to the amendment of a Constitution. An example would be the referendum on ending apartheid that was held in South Africa on March 17, 1992. The referendum was limited to white South African voters who were asked whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by then State President F W de Klerk two years earlier, in which he proposed to end the apartheid system that had been implemented since 1948. The result of the referendum was a large victory for the ‘yes’ side, which ultimately resulted in apartheid being lifted. The South African Constitution was changed to include all races in elections and the African National Congress won and became the ruling party.

The question facing emaSwati is not the appointment of the prime minister (PM) because, in any monarchy system such as ours, the King or Queen, who is the head of State, appoints the PM. The real question at hand is how the PM is selected or elected to become PM. Presently in Eswatini His Majesty, emabandla and labadzala (royal elders) select the PM, who is then appointed by the King. Whereas in other monarchies, such as the UK and Lesotho, the PM is voted for (elected) by the people through political parties and is then appointed by the head of State, and asked to form a government. The people are ultimately responsible, through whatever political system, for voting for the PM and if he fails, they blame him, not the Monarch, who is the head of State.  

Selected or elected PM

The referendum question would simply be along the lines of ‘Do we vote for our prime minister? Yes, or no? The details of how the public could vote for a PM would come from the dialogue that has been promised after the elections. The dialogue would then determine the details around the process. If the dialogue says we should continue using the Tinkhundla Political System it must elaborate on how that would be done. Should we opt to use political parties the dialogue would have to determine what that would look like given our current traditional structures and the history of political parties in Eswatini. The important question would have been answered. The important aspect of this referendum would be the international legitimacy it would provide on the Sibaya process and ultimately the dialogue itself. EmaSwati have traditionally emphasised the need for the will of the people to prevail. Sibaya and vuselas can’t, without a formally recognised process such as a referendum/plebiscite, convince the international community on any claims they make. Labadzala may know where they stand with emaSwati but they still need processes such as referendums/plebiscites to prove their position with the international community if they are to get foreign direct investments and fight against the American political interference, for example.

Direct vote of PM dangerous

As a word of caution, directly voting for a PM could be dangerous in that we could have a famous actor, for example, with no idea of how to run a country after winning the race. Or maybe we wouldn’t be able to attract the quality of professionals needed to run a country effectively but end up with rich businessmen with no clue about politics. The country has evolved politically over time. We once had an elective college that was used to choose Members of Parliament (MPs) but this was changed. The country evolved. Emabandla and labadzala have been acting as a form of an electoral college to select a PM with the King over the years. Maybe it is time to evolve again in the process of selecting the PM. My concern is, are we ready as a nation to directly elect the PM? Given the quality of the MPs we have, no offence to them, I don’t think so.

The King has had to complement them with individuals from the corporate world to bring them up to standard. The salaries offered to MPs are just not attractive to corporate professionals, and we need to place the country in a position of achieving First World standards. Maybe we should evolve into the Sibaya National Elective Conference of some 4 000 delegates selected from across the country to select a PM of the required standard. The people would continue voting for MPs, including appointees, and the Sibaya delegates would vote for the PM from among parliamentarians. Comment septembereswatini@gmail.com  

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: