SADC SAVED EMASWATI FROM CONFUSED DIALOGUE

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) deserves commendation for its astute handling of the political situation in Eswatini, evident in its recent decision to remove the country from the Troika’s agenda.

This pragmatic resolution reflects the maturity of the regional body and prevents a scenario where it would find itself compelled to issue apologies to the people of Eswatini for having facilitated what could only be described as a disordered and unproductive assembly under the guise of a dialogue. Had SADC chosen to retain Eswatini on the agenda, it is likely that the outcomes would have mirrored a chaotic and ineffective monkey’s tea-party, leading to frustration and disillusionment among emaSwati.

Central to this perspective is the assertion that the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM) has not demonstrated a readiness for engaging in meaningful and constructive dialogue. The apparent disunity among its various parties further complicates the potential for a successful and coherent discussion.This disunity, coupled with a lack of a fundamental political question to steer the dialogue, likely influenced SADC’s prudence to not pursue this matter within the Troika framework.

The absence of harmony within the political landscape undeniably casts doubt on the feasibility of any dialogue. With multiple factions within the MDM pulling in different directions, it is challenging to establish a unified front or a coherent set of objectives. The absence of consensus on core issues impairs the ability of these political entities to present a clear and consolidated agenda, resulting in perpetual discord. Moreover, this fragmented political scenario renders it exceptionally difficult for SADC to ascertain the precise aspirations and demands of the MDM.

Without a well-defined and fundamental political question to guide the discourse, the efforts to facilitate a productive dialogue become futile. A dialogue, by design, requires an articulation of specific issues and a shared commitment towards addressing them. In the case of Eswatini, the nebulous nature of the MDM’s objectives further exacerbates the complexity of establishing a meaningful dialogue. In this context, SADC’s removal of Eswatini from the Troika’s agenda emerges as a calculated decision, aimed at avoiding the entangling of regional resources and efforts in an endeavour without a clear direction.

The organisation has demonstrated foresight in recognising the innate challenges posed by the current political climate within the MDM. It must be acknowledged that for any dialogue to be fruitful, foundational cohesion and clarity of purpose are imperative. It requires not only a willingness to engage in discussions, but also a structured approach to tackle the existing challenges.The current state of disunity does a disservice to the people of Eswatini, who deserve a coherent and stable political framework that can adequately represent their interests.

The road to a successful dialogue—should it ever materialise—necessitates a clear delineation of objectives and demands by the MDM. Addressing the lack of a unified stance and resolving internal conflicts would be the first step in creating the conditions needed for a productive national discourse. It is essential for the MDM to introspect and identify a central political question that encapsulates their collective vision for Eswatini.

I find myself astounded by the inability of several prominent members of the MDM to distinguish between democracy and democratisation, the latter being fundamentally aimed at rendering democracy functional. While I am not at liberty to expound extensively on this political theory, it is disheartening to encounter assertions from some MDM members proposing that democracy ought to be inextricably tied to precedence set by culture and tradition.

Norms

Undoubtedly, culture plays a pivotal role in shaping identity. Analysts contend that it embodies the values and norms absorbed during socialisation within a community, serving as a defining element of personal identity. Cultural identity, I have come to understand, encompasses a deep-seated sense of affiliation with a collective, integral to one’s self-conception and self-perception. Culture is inherently adaptive, capable of self-regulation and modernisation. As individuals mature within a communal setting, they naturally discern which norms and values withstand the test of contemporary relevance. Yet, when urging for a democracy that governs culture and tradition, we paradoxically witness the emergence of animal rights masquerading as human rights as the true definers of identity. Astonishing!

Political scientist Christopher Zambakari incisively argues that national dialogues have become formidable tools for peace-building across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. However, in the context of Eswatini, it appears that esteemed interlocutors from the MDM lack readiness for political discourse that could propel the nation forward. Their grasp of basic political principles seems tenuous at best. The University of Eswatini (UNESWA) should, in part, be held accountable for this predicament, given its failure to establish a comprehensive faculty dedicated to Political Science, International Relations, and Diplomacy. Many emaSwati appear to regard politics as mere spectacle, akin to what unfolds on their television screens, thus detaching themselves from the complex reality at hand.

From my observation, it seems that many within the MDM equate politics with oratory prowess. However, genuine political engagement demands more than just speeches, riots, demonstrations and rallies. While visiting the bereaved signifies moral integrity, it does not suffice as a remedy to entrenched challenges on the ground. Politics is fundamentally about managing life; if one cannot navigate their own affairs, they surely cannot be entrusted with those of others. I have borne witness to such dynamics over the years. The current fragmentation within the MDM is not unprecedented. Back in 2014, efforts to convene an inclusive dialogue foundered. This initiative was spearheaded by Dr Bakili Muluzi, the former President of Malawi, designated as the Commonwealth’s special envoy to Eswatini.

Dr Muluzi arrived at a pivotal moment, amid growing clamours for political reform. During his tenure, political parties and civil society exhibited a willingness to negotiate a political settlement with His Majesty the King. Consequently, a coalition known as the G15 was established, intending to secure an audience with King Mswati III. However, the formation of the G15 precipitated significant division, resulting in certain organisations choosing to withdraw their membership. Concerns arose from the exclusion of two notable political activists: Mario Masuku, the late former President of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), and its 2nd Vice President, Peter Mphandlana Shongwe.

Others omitted from the G15 included Wandile Dludlu, the former Coordinator of the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and current Deputy President of PUDEMO, Quinton Dlamini, the former President of the Trade Unions Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA), as well as Maxwell Masuku, then Secretary General of the Swaziland National Youth Congress. Despite their claim of being the progenitors of the G15, these individuals were conspicuously excluded.The rationale for their exclusion, as well as the criteria for selecting G15 members, remained undisclosed to the public. Nonetheless, optimism prevailed in anticipation of the G15 meeting with King Mswati III upon his return from overseas engagements.

Regrettably, both the government and the King’s Office, along with the late ex-Acting Governor of Ludzidzini Royal Residence, TV Mtetwa, denied any awareness of prospective meetings or dialogues with the King. It bears mentioning that the concept of such discussions originated from consultations between political leaders and Dr Muluzi. Dr Muluzi initially conferred with the King in a private meeting, the details of which were not divulged. However, the Nyasa Times, a Malawian publication, reported that Dr Muluzi’s secretariat confirmed dialogue with the King centred on democratic reforms.

Despite this, neither the government nor the King’s Office elaborated on the meeting’s agenda, maintaining a shroud of confidentiality. The G15 comprised seasoned politicians, civil society stalwarts and members of banned political factions, yet they struggled to find common ground among themselves. If the G15 failed to reach consensus among itself, I am not surprised that current efforts to hold the dialogue in 2023 and 2024 have also failed. There has never been unity and one voice in the MDM and dialogue across political divide may not be possible.

In his paper published by the London School of Economics, Nchongayi Christantus Begealawuh, a PhD candidate at the School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada, writes that a national dialogue is a type of citizens’ assembly. I agree with him. Those who participate in the dialogue must have the mandate of the people.

Persistence

Christantus says a lack of inclusion and adequate trust building measures is limiting the potential of Cameroon’s national dialogue for peace. He says it is a pattern that has been repeated time and again across Africa. He argues that the persistence of conflict across Africa has fuelled the search for effective conflict resolution mechanisms. Since a national dialogue is a type of citizens assembly, it requires the assembly of a diverse range of stakeholders from different sectors of society who meet with ‘clear procedures’ for open and inclusive discussion on specific issues. In an ideal world, a well-organised national dialogue can result in increased trust among the participants and a shared vision for the country’s future. That cannot be the case with Eswatini. There are no clear procedures and specific issues.

In 2013, the PhD scholar argues that Tunisia suffered a political crisis sparked by a political assassination of a major politician. It resulted in the resignation of the prime minister and the adoption of a new Constitution. These assassinations are common in Africa. They are derailing progress.  In conclusion, SADC’s judicious decision to step back underscores the necessity of laying a robust groundwork before moving forward with political discussions. It serves as a reminder to the MDM of the importance of unity and clarity in their approach to dialogue.
Without these elements, any attempt at dialogue would indeed have been a futile exercise, resulting in further entrenchment of existing political tensions rather than their resolution.
Through this mature resolution, SADC has not only evaded potential embarrassment, but also set a precedent for handling similar situations with prudence and foresight in the future.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: