The bridges of national consensus

There are many differing opinions on how the Swaziland political set-up should be constituted, as we move forward as a nation trying to find itself.

What is important though is that as a basis for whatever argument we put forward, we must have in mind a basic understanding of what the purpose and role of the various institutions that come into play when talking about the issue of political governance and democracy.

It is also important that we agree on the roles of these various institutions.
It is only then that we can have any meaningful debate or dialogue or discussion about these issues, as we will all be ‘on the same page’ in a sense.

As a starting point, let’s look what governance is and how Parliament relates to government.
Governance is the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It consists of mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups express their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.

It is the role of a democratically elected Parliament to represent its constituencies and make laws.
Representing their constituency and being responsive to their wants and needs goes hand in hand with the responsibility of informing and educating the public. The other aspect of parliamentary duty is to pass laws as informed by their constituents, and then oversee their administration.
This would be summed up as “policy responsiveness”.

Read against this backdrop, the current political set-up in Swaziland greatly deviates from the above. In fact, to accurately describe the political situation in Swaziland, replace the words ‘citizens and groups; in the first paragraph with the word ‘government.’

Central to ensuring that that government effectively represents the interests of citizens is the need to put in place a system of representation, with well-functioning political parties and interest associations. This goes hand in hand with an electoral system that guarantees free and fair elections, as well as universal suffrage.
The government in power is made accountable via a system of checks and balances based on the separation of powers, with independent judicial and legislative branches
An extension of these checks and balances comes via the promotion and maintenance of a vibrant civil society, able to monitor government and private business — and provide alternative forms of political participation.

In addition a free, independent media, which reports independently on government, politicians and general society with intimidation or government sanction.
Lastly, effective civilian control over the military and other security forces is crucial.
Three particular sections in the constitution go against the spirit of and fostering an effective, independent and truly representative of legislature.
The first is section 134 subsection one, which states that ‘the king may prorogue Parliament or dissolve Parliament’
The second is section 106 which states that ‘subject to the provisions of the constitution, the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the king-in-Parliament’, The constitution goes on to give the king the final say on whether a bill becomes a law or not (assent) section 108 .
All these sections clearly take away all sense of real authority from representatives in Parliament as supposedly mandated by the people.
Useless
The words ‘mandated by the people’ are of particular importance because it is only through a mandate given to their representative to go and represent them in Parliament, that the people exercise power.
The government constantly declares that the Tinkhundla system of governance is democratic, arguing that the people directly elect their representatives.
The point we make is that, elections should not just be held for the mere sake of holding elections and to satisfy some useless SADC principles that do not look beyond elections, to whether or not a real and effective mandate with real power, has been given out by voters.
In his speech to the Ghanaian legislature Barack Obama put is clearly when he said:
“History offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not.
This is about more than holding elections - it’s also about what happens between them.”
What happens between elections in Swaziland is that:

*   The government does not properly manage the country’s resources in a manner that is equitable and in the interests of the vast majority,
*    Nepotism is rampant at all levels of government and across all its institutions, to the detriment of the interests         of the people,
*    There is a demonstrated and endemic inability by the regime to eradicate corruption. This situation is a direct result of nepotism as stated above, There is a culture of unbridled, self enrichment against a backdrop of abject poverty and poor economic performance,
*    Services across all sectors of government have continued to         decline both qualitatively and         quantitatively.

There is a deafening silence coming from inside the chambers of Parliament on all these issues. This silence coming from the ‘peoples’ representatives.
The great Achilles heel of the current political setup is that ultimately with the king as Executive Monarch, the buck stops with him.

Democracy dictates that when things go wrong the people recall the mandate of the government, and duly elect and alternative government when elections come.
This is doesn’t happen in Swazi-land because the people we recall are powerless and so not responsible for the successes or failures of our government.
The constitution clearly states where the power lies and so points clearly to where responsibility for the performance of government lies.

The constitution also clearly points out that the mandate of the commander in chief is irrevocable. Any such call is immediately described as treasonous our seditious.
The NNLC believes in and espouses a culture of robust but constructive criticism, mindful always not to trample on the rights and dignity of those on the receiving end.
This is why now more than ever before, it is therefore necessary that the king, be above politics so as to safeguard his dignity and that of the institution of the monarchy from the focus and scrutiny of public opinion. It is also in the interests of open and robust public participation in issues of governance and policy.

The challenges, both politically and socio-economically, facing government have become more and more contenti-ous and as such, have quickly become the subject of widespread public debate, potentially putt-ing the king in the unwanted and highly undesirable situation.
We renew our call for the opening up of a dialogue with civil society that will put in place the processes that will result in Swazi-land becoming a constitutional Monarchy. Central to this process is the need for a vigorous progra-mme of unbiased civic education, supported by all stakeholders in the process of promoting democracy, furthering national interest and fostering national unity. A people without political power cannot decide their destiny.

Continued civic education is crucial even once a democratic government is in place, because it is through civic education that the citizenry is made aware of all the above things about the importance of good governance, the role of Parliament and most importantly, their duties as citizens to take and active interest in issues of governance and policy, and to hold their mandated representative accountable to them.
It is only through active, effective participation that the citizenry can be said to hold real power, and not merely by having laws in place that say they have power. Someone once said: “Power is not real power unless it is exercised”.

It is, therefore, only through a truly democratic system where political rights are guaranteed and protected, and it is political parties that contest and hold political power, that a coherent, co-ordinated and consistent, set of national policies will come into fruition. Once this is achieved all the pressing issues of governance and socio-economic advancement, will begin to be addressed meaningfully, as the vested interests of the majority and not just a few will be brought to the fore.

That is real people power, not a disjointed group of elected representatives, we have in parliament that holds no real decision making power.
It is against this backdrop that we feel discussion, debate and dialogue about changing the way in which we are governed and the way in which government must be constituted, should be held. Necessarily, as I have said before, it calls for principled men, women, devoid of selfish interests and interested only in effectively advancing the lot of the people, to sit down and begin building bri-dges across which the journeys to consensus will be undertaken.

If we do arrive at a time when this realisation is widespread and is the commonplace, the process will be a very easy one. Until then though, we will continue to live in a country where our leaders in government are chosen based on how effectively they can repress, spread fear, stifle free thinking and encourage a culture of cronyism, all at the expense of the people.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: