HEATED DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT

Constitutionally, the Parliament of Eswatini is mandated to strengthen democracy and good governance.

It does this by enacting legislation ‘for the good of the nation’, maintaining oversight of the executive arm of government on behalf of the people, and representing the interests and aspirations of constituents (voters and appointing authority), for the promotion of democratic governance and achievement of sustainable development. Various commentators have in the past described our Parliament as undemocratic, citing the fact that parliamentarians are elected as individuals and not members of political parties.

This is what Section 79 of the Constitution provides. It reads: “The system of government for Eswatini is a democratic, participatory, tinkhundla-based system which emphasises devolution of state power from central government to tinkhundla areas and individual merit as a basis for election or appointment to public office.” The response from conservatives has always been that political parties do not necessarily mean a country is democratic. They argue that Eswatini is democratic because more than 60 of the people who make it to Parliament, every five years, are elected from constituencies and the four regions spread out across the country.

Debate

They also put forward the argument that at least half of all Cabinet ministers are appointed from the elected legislators. This debate is far from over and I am not here today to revive it.
I just thought of democracy, as a principle, after the past week’s events in and around Parliament. We witnessed a somewhat vigorous House of Assembly, with a handful of Members of Parliament (MPs) asserting themselves and indicating that they understand their role. It was while they were making their intentions known that Prime Minister Russell Dlamini, warned them against what he perceived as grandstanding.

He advised MPs on Thursday to avoid raising issues just to attract the attention of the media. He also said they should do thorough research before raising issues in the House. The head of government was actually responding to the MPs dissatisfaction with his five-year national policy statement. This piece of advice, had it been delivered in an amicable tone, would not attract criticism and scorn because at the end of the day, it is indeed incumbent on all MPs to conduct research on pertinent national issues and raise them in Parliament on behalf of affected citizens. However, it did not at all come out well PM. You cannot tell honourable MPs they are seeking media attention! Really? I digress.

We have seen and heard MPs in the past, rising to speak just for the sake of having said something that day. A long time ago, one MP asked why the bakery truck was always late to deliver bread in his constituency. We have heard many other hilarious submissions, which clearly demonstrated that the legislators in question had not done their homework. Moving on, after the PM’s advice to legislators, there was a heated debate around Phase II of the restructuring of salaries for junior police officers in the country. Dlamini once again took the floor to warn legislators against stirring up trouble or inciting others. This was after several MPs had raised concerns regarding the restructuring process. Here we go again PM. So to ask important questions is to incite?

Rejected

They had actually rejected a report presented by Minister of Public Service, Mabulala Maseko. Among other concerns was the fact that the report insinuated that junior police officers had been awarded a salary increment of eight per cent, taking into account the four per cent cost of living adjustment and the four per cent increase of salaries for all security officers in 2022.
The MPs felt undermined by the PM’s warning on incitement, with Lobamba Lomdzala representative Marwick Khumalo going to the extent of asking what gave the PM the impression that he could tell them how to speak.

He used the vernacular phrase, “Nawungubani wena?” Nkomiyahlaba MP Mduduzi Dlamini was among those who declared their interest, saying he was a career police officer. He said Minister Maseko was being economical with the truth in his report, yet the junior security officers had been patient with government for a few years. He said if the PM felt that it was proper to warn them against incitement, government should lead by example in that regard. Mayiwane MP Sicelo Dlamini, also a former police officer (though he says he will remain one until he dies), suggested that the public service minister’s report should be rejected.  Incidentally, Manzini Region MP Thandeka Mavuso opined that it was the minister who was causing unnecessary discontent among junior police officers. She said it was shameful that the minister could bring to the House a report devoid of facts.

“Akangabhebheteli umlilo kunemoya,” (he should not add fuel onto fire) she said, Now, I found these debates rather interesting for at least two reasons. Firstly, one of the issues being discussed had to do with the adjustment of salaries for security officers, a cohort that one would say most emaSwati dislike, if one relied on social media to gauge public opinion.
This is apparently not quite true because the same `social media streets’ were following this debate in Parliament, as and when the Times of Eswatini gave updates accompanied by short videos and all.

Condemning

Most of those who made comments actually sided with the junior police officers. Instead, the focus was more on condemning the PM’s utterances than rejecting the idea that the police should be given more money with the implementation of Phase II of their salary restructuring process. Indeed, they need the money. We all need money. Secondly, if you take a look at my opening lines, you will note that I briefly outlined the functions of Parliament, as provided for in the Constitution and other laws. Members of the House of Assembly proved to all and sundry that there were alert in playing their oversight role on the executive arm of government.

They got agitated when they realised that the wool was being pulled over their eyes, especially with regard to the junior police officers’ salary restructuring issue. Even on the PM’s policy statement, legislators demonstrated that they were not going to blindly accept anything brought into the House by the Executive. They stood their ground. While the jury is still out on whether Eswatini is democratic or not, this past week’s debates were based on at least one or two of the tenets of democracy.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: