Times Of Swaziland: A HUGE DENT TO OUR DEMOCRACY

A HUGE DENT TO OUR DEMOCRACY
================================================================================
Thobeka Manyathela on 22/10/2023 15:00:00


Before we go any further on this one, I guess it would be fitting to start by
quoting the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini Act, 2005.
“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,” reads Section 79. It is now doubtful if the 10
people who were controversially elected into the Senate this year were nominated
and voted for based on individual merit. If I had things my way, they would all
be disqualified and the process started afresh because it has been tainted.
Those who deserve the seats would still win in the new vote.
Other commentators have already noted that this is not the first time
allegations of ‘cash for votes’ emerge in the Parliament of Eswatini. The
allegations did not start in 2018. They were there even before the 11th
Parliament. My point though, is that despite the Section 79 constitutional
provision, some emaSwati believe that the country is not fully democratic. This
is usually raised by people who complain that the exclusion of political parties
makes the system of government undemocratic. In recent times, this argument has
also been joined by those who feel the prime minister should not be appointed
but elected. In 2021, calls for the election of a prime minister intensified and
reached fever pitch during the political unrest that left the country reeling
from sporadic arson attacks and the cold-blooded murder of State security
agents.
democracy
On the other hand, those who believe that the Tinkhundla system is democratic
cite the same section I have quoted above, saying this is a unique democracy
that allows emaSwati to elect representatives from grassroots level, directly
into the august House and even Cabinet. They argue that in countries where
political parties compete to form a government, the party that wins elections
has the sole right to appoint its own cadres into Parliament and other political
positions. Section 67 of the national Constitution deals with the appointment of
the prime minister and other ministers. Subsection (2) states that the King
shall appoint ministers from both chambers of Parliament, on the recommendation
of the prime minister. My focus is on subsection (3) which provides that at
least half the number of ministers shall be appointed from among elected members
of the House.
This is one of the clauses cited as giving anyone from anywhere, only if they
are a citizen of Eswatini and have attained the age of 18, the right to be
appointed a Cabinet minister.
The election of senators is also an exercise supported by the same national
Constitution. This activity is addressed in Section 94, which states that the
Senate shall consist of not more than 31 members who shall be elected or
appointed in accordance with the same section. It provides that 10 senators, at
least half of whom shall be female, shall be elected by members of the House of
Assembly in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law at their first
meeting, so as to represent a cross−section of the Swazi society.
consultation
It is after this election that 20 senators, at least eight of whom shall be
female, are appointed by His Majesty the King in his discretion, after
consultation with such bodies as he may deem appropriate. We are where we are
today because of this particular clause. You have to agree that this section is,
by itself, democratic in the sense that it gives the nation, through its
representatives in the House of Assembly, the right to have representatives in
the Senate. Notably, a majority of the MPs in the House of Assembly are elected
while only a minority is appointed. In Senate, it is vice versa. If the
allegations of bribery are true, as every day that passes seems to confirm that
they may be, our representatives in the House of Assembly have let us down in a
big way. I am mindful of the fact that even if money exchanged hands, it is not
all the Members of Parliament (MPs) who got involved. Yes, there are honourable
members in there, who would not want to get involved in corruption so early into
their term of office.
However, those who took money from people who aspired to become senators have
practically shown architects of the Constitution the middle finger. In a way,
they have demonstrated that they do not believe in the democratic principle of
electing public officers. I am saying this because by taking money, they are
robbing themselves of the right to vote for people who genuinely possess the
skills to take this country forward politically, economically and socially. They
have decided against supporting ‘individual merit as a basis for election or
appointment to public office’. By taking bribes, they are corrupting
themselves while electing similarly corrupt people into the Senate. This is a
dent to the democratic principles provided by the Constitution. It is an insult.
electing
In fact, these MPs are no longer electing but appointing the 10 senators. No
wonder some people are saying this cash-for-votes scandal demonstrates that
emaSwati do not, as yet, understand what democracy means. These commentators say
maybe the entire Senate should be appointed by the King because nobody would
even think of bribing him. The United Kingdom (UK) employs a political system
almost similar to ours. This is the two-house system which comprises the House
of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Commons operates much like our House
of Assembly in that it makes laws, scrutinises the work of the executive arm of
government and debates current issues. It also appropriates funds to government
through approving money Bills. Members are publicly elected. In contrast,
membership into the House of Lords is not generally through election. Members
are appointed to serve for 15 years or for life and are drawn from religious and
political groupings. The House of Lords’ functions are similar to our Senate.
That is all I am going to say today, lest I be misinterpreted.