HOW TO AVOID STALEMATE AT NATIONAL POLITICAL DIALOGUE

MBABANE – There are fears that the forthcoming national dialogue may reach a stalemate.

Political analysts and observers told the Times SUNDAY that differences in political opinion could cause the deadlock. The political analysts said the differences were too obvious to be ignored. They said the country could revert to a chaotic situation if the situation was not carefully checked and managed. The Swaziland Multi-Stakeholder Forum has already pointed out that it would not recognise the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini because it was the cause of the current political problems in the country.

It has also said that the dialogue would not take place unless incarcerated members of Parliament, Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube were released from prison. They also want the criminal charges preferred against ex-Siphofaneni MP Mduduzi ‘Gawuzela’ Simelane to be dropped. Those who are in exile should be allowed to return to the country.

enshrined

On the other hand, Cyril Ramaphosa, the President of South Africa and Chairperson of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security, said the process towards the national dialogue would take into account and incorporate structures and processes enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini, including the role of Parliament and Sibaya as convened by His Majesty King Mswati III. After meeting the King last month, Ramaphosa said verbatim:”The process towards the national dialogue will take into account and incorporate structures and processes enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini, including the role of the Parliament of the kingdom, and the Sibaya convened by His Majesty King Mswati III.”

Ramaphosa and His Majesty both called for all stakeholders to work together to end violence and conflict, and maintain peace and calm as work commences on the national dialogue process.

rejected

It must be said that progressive formations and civil society affiliated to the Swaziland Multi-Stakeholder Forum also rejected the consideration of Sibaya. Dr. Petros Qambukusa Magagula, popularly known as PQ, said successful dialogues required a strong willingness to negotiate, not to win everything. Dr. Magagula said it was imperative for challengers and the challenged in a dispute settlement to subject themselves to the discipline of political science. The former political science lecturer of the University of Eswatini (UNESWA), said it was true that power could be won forcefully or through the ballot box. However, he advised that the willingness to of the disputants to talk to each other ‘genuinely’ played a huge role in settling disputes and restoring peace. He frowned upon the ‘winner-takes-all practice or concept’, adding that there shouldn’t be a camp, for peace sake, getting zero at the national dialogue table.

dispute

Dr. Magagula mentioned that a document, which could be a core of the dispute, wouldn’t be useful in a dispute settlement. He made an example of the African National Congress (ANC) and others at the negotiation table with the Apartheid regime of South Africa whereby the Constitution of the government of that time was never used as a guiding document. “The ANC didn’t recognise the Constitution of the Apartheid regime,” he said, adding that the late ex-president of South Africa, Frederick de Klerk, had to be commended for the demonstration of the willingness to negotiate genuinely.

During the Arab Springs in 2011, he said, other countries like Tunisia, who had to negotiate genuinely, came out better while Libyan authorities who included the late former President, Muammar Gaddafi received public condemnation, resulting in his death. The noted political scholar: “In politics, you can say I want to reach there and only to find that it is very difficult to get where you want to be. But, you can say I have to, at least, settle for this and appreciate that I cannot get everything.”

Dr Magagula said disagreements among political parties would always be there, adding that the ANC was accustomed to internal politics, which resulted in differences in opinion. He said Ramaphosa and former President Jacob Zuma would never be always on the same page or at the same wavelength.
“That is part of politics,” he said.

factional

The former UNESWA lecturer said it was, however, crucial for groups to ensure they did not fight over the factional ideologies. He urged them to stick to the national goal – the fundamental national political question. Political analyst Christopher Zambakari, said national dialogues were used as mechanisms to bring the major stakeholders together when political institutions and governments were delegitimised or collapse. He said they were also increasingly used in transitional societies as a means of collective deliberation upon key issues essential to progress.

Zambakari mentioned that peace-building by the means of a national dialogue was a demanding and arduous process with great possibilities – but only when attention to the details and process preceded action. Given the sudden preference for national dialogues, he advised that those who organised them should consider six factors for success:
*National dialogues are a tool for resolving intractable conflicts.
* In need of alternative methods for conflict transformation, conflict management organisations have turned to national dialogues for peace-building and to resolve deep-seated conflicts in divided societies. However, national dialogues are not restricted to open conflicts.
* National dialogues take many forms including: national conferences, roundtables and constituent assemblies.
* National dialogues can also be deployed in contexts such as a political stalemate or where political institutions are de-legitimised – as in Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, and Lebanon. Issues to be resolved should be realistic and determined in an inclusive, consultative forum.
* National dialogues can be established through consultative meetings, which produce consensus on key issues around which the dialogues are organised. It is often important to determine such issues of importance and decide which are fit for a large-scale forum and which are suitable for deliberation in smaller forums.
* The scope of the dialogue must be clearly defined so that it is realistic, achievable and manageable by the body responsible for the dialogue in the time allocated for the deliberation.

The issues selected should also be balanced against the role that other political or transition processes might play. This suggests that the issues to be discussed, the actors that should take part, and those included or excluded in the dialogue must be carefully defined and managed. He said the exclusion of key members was unwise, inclusion of too many issues could also overwhelm a dialogue, increase the burden for resolution, and ensure that little progress was made during periods of tense negotiation.

considering

He said countries considering a national dialogue should streamline the agenda to the greatest extent possible, weighing carefully which political issues do, or do not, lend themselves to a large-scale public forum. “The balance between a big national dialogue and smaller peace processes must also be weighted carefully. In some cases, national dialogues and other negotiations can run on multiple tracks within the same effort. For example, security sector reform can be discussed in a separate, non-national dialogue forum given how big a topic it often is, and how many actors are involved,” he said. Zambakari said countries in transition often valued such mechanisms because they could galvanise all parties and the public to focus on issues of national importance.

“They do so at a price. The time and focus devoted to them can detract or derail other transition processes or even simply distract the government and public sector from business as usual,” he said.

successful

He pointed to the fact that every successful national dialogue has certain phases – and duration. He said each national dialogue was unique to a particular context and some broad phases needed to be carefully considered, including: preparation; establishment of mechanisms/committees to oversee, manage, and lead the process; conference; consultations; consensus; implementation; and developing a strategy for the post-national dialogue period. He noted that many experts believed that for an effective dialogue to occur, the timeframe should be adequate – anywhere between a few months to a few years. The expert said the process leading to the organisation of a national dialogue should be democratic – namely, broadened to include all key stakeholders in society, such as civil society organisations, professional associations, religious leaders, political parties, and armed or unarmed resistance movements/oppositions.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: