Times Of Swaziland: DRIVING A FALSE POLITICAL NARRATIVE

DRIVING A FALSE POLITICAL NARRATIVE
================================================================================
Emmanuel Ndlangamandla on 25/07/2022 06:46:00


THE lack of profundity by sections of Eswatini society has been laid bare by the
false narrative being driven and perpetuating apropos South Africa inching
towards embracing a tinkhundla-styled dispensation in the face of a
Constitutional Court ruling calling for the amendment of that country’s
electoral laws to include independent candidates who wish to stand for
elections. With research having been simplified by new technologies, it is
stupefying why sections of our society lack the basic appreciation that not all
multi-party dispensations are cut from the same cloth and consequently, that
they are not uniform in form and design, especially when it comes to their
electoral codes.
Consequently, the questions begging for answers are; are such apparent
falsehoods attributable to a lack of scholarship and comprehension on the
varieties of multi-party democratic dispensation, especially with reference to
electoral systems or; is this wrong narrative being driven by the overbearing
and zealous desire for political correctness to curry the favour of the
political establishment or; is this a consequence of the absence of freedom of
speech and expression is in total control of what can and cannot be published or
broadcast or better still; is this a genuine error by a section of society
mothered by ignorance of the various electoral systems obtaining in multi-party
democracies?
Tendency
There is a noticeable tendency by loyalists of the Tinkhundla Political System
to use the South African version of multi-party democracy as representative of a
universal barometer of the pros and cons of this system of governance. And given
its infancy, the South African version of multi-party democracy can easily be
likened to an airline at cruising altitude hitting turbulence, which loyalists
of the Tinkhundla System readily pick up and use to demonise this political
system as worse than their beloved tinkhundla.
As it turns out, the South African version of multi-party democracy is different
in respect of the electoral code from a majority of older democracies. Where a
majority of older multi-party democracies electoral systems are direct
constituency-rooted, the South African system is indirect in that it is the
political parties that are voted in place of individual candidates. Instead of
fielding candidates in constituencies, political parties prepare lists of
candidates to represent them in parliament as well as in the provincial and
local governments dependent on the percentage of the votes each political party
is able to muster in national, provincial and local government elections. Also
factored in this scheme of things is the proportional representation that is
decided based on an agreed minimum number of votes each party must garner at the
polls.
Challenge
While a majority of multi-party democracies elsewhere provide for individuals to
participate as independent candidates, the South African dispensation does not
accommodate independent candidates, hence the challenge to the constitutionality
of the electoral law to the apex court, which was inevitably found to be
unconstitutional, with the Constitutional Court ruling that the electoral code
should be amended accordingly to allow for independent candidates to canvass for
and be elected in their respective constituencies. This leads to the question
of, if the ruling is in favour of allowing independent candidates participating
in elections at constituency level can be equated to embracing the tinkhundla
system. The answer would be a firm no! Firstly, because the South African system
is not necessarily universal but peculiar in that it embraces the popular vote
as well as proportional representation and voting is indirect in that it is the
political party, and not a candidate, that is voted for.
Secondly, the South African system is not reflective and representative of
universal multi-party democracy electoral systems. Thirdly, a majority of older
multi-party democracies elsewhere, including the United States (US) and the
United Kingdom (UK)for example, have always had independent candidates standing
for elections in their respective constituencies long before the tinkhundla
experiment was conceived. Furthermore, candidates, whether representing their
parties or standing as independents, are elected directly from their
constituencies in the majority of countries under multi-party democracy.
As I see it, the notion ought to be dispelled that tinkhundla experiment is
lodestar of democracy ostensibly because, unlike in a majority of multi-party
democracies where power resides with the people, power – executive,
legislative and judiciary – is centralised on and exclusively exercised by the
King. Talk of consultation and consensus is nothing but empty talk, devoid of
any truth. Not surprisingly, the foundation upon which the Eswatini polity is
constructed is the nemesis of the truth hence those who speak the truth to power
are nemesis of the State.
Competing for a pride of place for enacting false and misleading narratives
about the tinkhundla political system with its concomitant baggage of immoral
and unethical leadership that has birthed sub-cultures of institutional
corruption, nepotism and cronyism and capture of all institutions of State, that
has torn this country apart is the mentality with which the leadership and its
proxies, as fronted by spokesman Alpheous Nxumalo, deal with critical national
issues. The latest instalment of the tendency of trivialising critical issues
was over snubbing the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Organ on
Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation – Organ Troika - emergency summit
in the same vein that the State has been indifferent to the unknown number of
emaSwati murdered and maimed by the state’s security apparatus last year for
demanding multi-party democracy.
As I see it, the collapse of the scheduled Organ Troika Emergency Summit was a
non-issue to the government which, since last year, has been ducking and diving
over convening a national political dialogue. While condemning the random
killing of its security agents as cowardly, government has to date failed and
neglected to launch investigations into the wanton murder and maiming of
emaSwati last year. But I shed no tear for SADC over the abortive summit but
shed oceans of tears for compatriots cowardly murdered and maimed for demanding
their inalienable rights and freedoms.