Home | Feature | DISTINGUISHING CABAL FROM LOBBYSTS

DISTINGUISHING CABAL FROM LOBBYSTS

22/03/2025 09:43:00 Mfanukhona Nkambule

Font size:

Prime Minister Russell Mmiso Dlamini recently made a political statement alleging that a cabal runs Parliament. He is not obliged to mention names, as political statements do not require evidence in the same manner as judicial statements under oath.

His remarks have sparked an important discussion about the nature of cabals in democratic governance, the extent of their influence, and their distinction from legitimate lobbying and political strategy. In parliamentary democracies worldwide, Parliament is meant to serve the interests of the people, which may include businesspeople, entrepreneurs seeking government contracts, and the broader populace advocating for legal reforms. However, the reality is that Parliament is often influenced by forces outside its formal structures, and political parties and Members of Parliament (MPs) are frequently financed to serve the interests of their benefactors—individuals or groups who are not directly part of the legislature.

It is, therefore, crucial to analyse what constitutes a cabal, distinguish it from lobbying and strategic political networking, examine its intentions, and explore the legal frameworks that regulate political financing.

Defining a Cabal in Politics

A cabal is typically defined as a small, secretive group that seeks to influence or control decision-making processes for its own benefit, often outside the formal mechanisms of power. Historically, cabals have been associated with conspiracy, clandestine operations, and the manipulation of political systems to serve elite interests.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a cabal as “the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot.” While the term has a negative connotation, not all behind-the-scenes political maneuvering qualifies as a cabal. In democratic institutions, stakeholders—be they business entities, labour unions, civil society organisations, or political think tanks—routinely lobby legislators to shape policy. The distinction lies in the degree of secrecy, coercion, and self-serving intent.

Types of Cabals in Political Systems

Cabals differ in objectives, structure, and influence. The following are common types:

Economic Cabals - These involve corporate elites who finance politicians or parties in exchange for favourable policies, such as tax breaks, deregulation, or government contracts. The influence of powerful businesses in politics can be seen across the globe, from Wall Street’s ties to USA legislators to corporate lobbying in Europe.

Military-Industrial Cabals - These comprise defence contractors, military personnel, and policymakers who work together to push certain defence agendas—often prioritising warfare and military expansion over peaceful resolutions. This has been evident in multiple countries, particularly in the United States, with allegations of a deep-state influence behind defence policies.
Political Patronage Cabals - Political leaders can form internal cabals or factions within Parliament to consolidate power. Such groups often manipulate party structures, marginalise dissenting voices, and ensure that legislative processes align with their interests rather than those of the broader populace.
deological Cabals - These are networks of politicians, intellectuals, and strategists who stealthily promote specific ideological agendas—whether conservative, socialist, religious, or nationalist.
Shadow Government Cabals - Allegedly composed of influential figures—business moguls, intelligence operatives, and senior government officials—who pull the strings behind the scenes, ensuring that State institutions function to serve their interests rather than the democratic will of the people.

The prime minister has to be clear about the type of cabal that allegedly controls Parliament. Leaving the issue hanging may scare investor confidence.

These examples highlight the many ways in which secrecy-driven, elite-controlled groups can manipulate parliamentary and governance structures to their advantage.

One common misconception is the conflation of cabals with lobbyists, strategists, and mobilisers. Lobbying is a legitimate practice in democratic States like Eswatini, where interest groups, businesses, and civil society organisations engage policymakers to advocate for laws that align with their interests.

For instance, in 1997, journalists and free speech activists successfully lobbied against the Media Council Bill, and such coordinated efforts continue today. Similarly, businesspeople might form alliances to petition for or against certain economic reforms, such as the revision of the Eswatini National Provident Fund’s transition into a pension scheme.

The key difference between lobbying and cabals is transparency. Lobbying is open, involves public discourse, and operates within legal frameworks. A cabal, however, is secretive and often employs coercion, corruption, or even threats to achieve its goals. Thus, lobbyists are not necessarily cabal members, and their influence is not always detrimental to democracy.

External Forces in Parliaments

Across the world, Parliaments are influenced by external forces, including political donors, corporate interests, foreign governments, and ideological organisations. For instance, the influence of corporate donors in American politics is well-documented, with Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs financing election campaigns.

The 2010 Citizens United versus FEC ruling allowed unlimited corporate spending on elections, which has empowered business-funded cabals to shape legislation.

United Kingdom:

The House of Commons and House of Lords have long faced scrutiny regarding lobbying from corporate entities and foreign governments seeking regulatory advantages. In Russia, there have been allegations of oligarchic influence in the Kremlin’s politics, where economic elites exert control over parliamentary processes. South Africa has enacted transparency laws requiring politicians to declare financial gifts from donors and lobbyists.

This regulation is intended to prevent undisclosed influence over parliamentary decision-making. Germany and France have strict laws regulating political financing, including disclosure requirements for campaign donations and restrictions on corporate and foreign contributions. Coming back home, Prime Minister Dlamini suggests that the central government is influenced by hidden forces controlling Parliament from outside.

This reflects a global trend where parliamentary representatives are often beholden to financiers who dictate legislative priorities. If Dlamini’s allegations hold weight, then Parliament must prioritise accountability and transparency. If there is a perception that a cabal controls Parliament, then it would be within the prerogative of the House of Assembly and Senate to set up a select committee to investigate the prime minister’s claims.

This is in line with parliamentary oversight responsibilities, particularly if the accusations tarnish the integrity of the legislative body. However, members cannot accuse fellow MPs or external actors without substantial evidence, as parliamentary standing orders require proof before formal allegations can be made. Given that political statements do not necessitate judicial proof, Dlamini is under no legal obligation to name individuals involved in the alleged cabal.

While politics is often described as a “dirty game,” not all secretive dealings equate to nefarious activities. Political strategy, lobbying, and behind-the-scenes negotiations are integral to democratic governance. However, when small groups manipulate the legislative process in secrecy, acting against public interest, governance is at risk of cabalistic influences.

Prime Minister Dlamini’s remarks about a cabal controlling Parliament invite deeper inquiry into the nature of influence in legislative systems—not just in Eswatini but globally. If alleged political scheming corrupts democratic processes, Parliament must assert its autonomy by championing ethical governance.

CALL FOR REFORMS AT ESWATINI MED

Eswatini Med, the Kingdom’s largest medical aid scheme, stands at a critical juncture.

Currently mired in internal conflict and managerial instability, the scheme risks following the unfortunate path of many medical aid schemes around the world that have collapsed because of infighting. The recent dispute with EswatiniBank, along with allegations of financial misconduct, underscores the need for urgent structural and governance reforms.

If Eswatini Med is to survive and continue delivering essential healthcare services to its members, immediate corrective action is imperative. Across the world, numerous medical aid schemes have crumbled under the weight of poor governance. South Africa, for instance, witnessed the downfall of Medshield Medical Scheme, which suffered from internal governance disputes and financial mismanagement.

Similarly, the UK’s Healthcare International collapsed due to unsustainable financial models and a lack of regulatory oversight. In Australia, Healthguard Health Solutions disintegrated after allegations of misappropriation of funds and failure to maintain actuarial solvency. These failures offer a cautionary tale for Eswatini Med: without decisive intervention, it too could collapse, leaving thousands of members without crucial healthcare coverage.

One of the most alarming signs of Eswatini Med's instability is the reported refusal of some South African medical specialists to accept its coverage. This suggests that confidence in the scheme is waning—not only among members but also within the medical fraternity itself. Worse still, EswatiniBank’s move to take Eswatini Med to court in an effort to stop the termination of coverage for 130 employees signals deeper operational and governance issues. This legal battle, which involves accusations of anti-competitive practices against Eswatini Med, further highlights divisions within the organisation and potential risks to its long-term viability.

Eswatini Med argues that EswatiniBank’s push for "split membership" threatens its not-for-profit model, potentially destabilising the country’s healthcare system. If thousands of members were to pull out, insolvency could become a stark reality. Given these concerns, the survival of Eswatini Med is not just a matter of corporate governance—it is a national healthcare imperative.

To prevent disaster, all key stakeholders—namely the Board, management, shareholders, and members—must take urgent steps to restore stability.The Board must take decisive leadership in stabilising Eswatini Med. Governance structures must be strengthened to prevent internal conflict from derailing operations. Allegations of financial misconduct must be addressed transparently, with independent audits to reassure members that funds are being managed prudently.

The Board should also foster open communication between management and members to rebuild trust. Effective financial and operational oversight is needed to prevent inefficiencies and potential fraud.More importantly, a sustainable financial model must be pursued, one that balances affordability for members with the financial viability of the scheme.

They must also commit to supporting reforms that strengthen Eswatini Med’s governance and operational efficiency. Eswatini Med still has a fighting chance—but only if all stakeholders unite to save it from impending disaster.Now is the time for reform, accountability, and responsible stewardship of this vital institution.