Do we understand democracy?

Some emaSwati, mainly progressives, oftentimes, think democracy is what they want, not what others want. 

For starters, it is important that I do mention that the concept of democracy traces its roots to ancient Greece, particularly in the city-state of Athens around the fifth century BCE.

The term ‘democracy’ originates from two Greek words – demos, meaning ‘people’, and kratos, meaning ‘power’ or ‘rule’. 

Ladies and gentlemen, democracy literally means ‘rule by the people’. I have learnt that this political system emerged as a response to the aristocratic systems that had dominated Greek political life. Athens, under the leadership of reformers such as Solon and Cleisthenes, laid the foundations for what became known as Athenian democracy.

Since Athenians had their own democracy, can we have our own in Eswatini?

Solon, who lived in the early sixth century BC, introduced reforms that sought to reduce the power of the aristocracy and empower ordinary citizens. As a result, his laws restructured the political system, allowing broader participation in governance. EmaSwati can relate here. During the pre-and-post-constitutional era, they called for the restructuring of the political system, resulting in 50 per cent of the Cabinet appointed from among MPs elected by the people at constituency level.

They abolished the electoral college that denied them the right to elect MPs directly to Parliament. Isn’t this a feature of democracy?

 Ladies and gentlemen, Cleisthenes, often referred to as the ‘father of Athenian democracy’, introduced further reforms around 508 BC that reorganised Athenian society into 10 tribes based on residence. Democracy, I have realised, cannot be a one-size fits all. I advised European MPs last week that since they have their own Western democracy, they must allow us to have our own African democracy. They agreed with me. In Greece where democracy originated, this reorganisation allowed for a more inclusive political structure, where citizens could participate in the Ecclesia (Assembly), which was responsible for making decisions on laws and policies. In Athenian democracy, citizens had the right to speak and vote in the Assembly, serve in public office and participate in juries. However, it is important to note that not all inhabitants of Athens were considered citizens. Despite the introduction of democracy, women, slaves and foreigners were excluded from political participation.  Regardless of these limitations, the Athenian model represented a revolutionary shift towards popular sovereignty and collective decision-making, setting a precedent for future democratic systems.

Democracy, in its purest sense, is a political system agreed upon by the people. It is not confined to any specific model such as a multiparty system or the Tinkhundla System of Government. The essence of democracy lies in the will of the people, their collective decision on how they wish to be governed. Whether a nation chooses a multiparty democracy or the Tinkhundla System, what matters is that the choice reflects the consent and participation of the people. In the context of Eswatini, democracy must be understood as a system that embodies the values, traditions and aspirations of emaSwati. If the people decide that their preferred political system is the Tinkhundla structure, then that decision represents a democratic expression of their will. Similarly, if they choose a multiparty system, that too would be a democratic outcome. Democracy, therefore, is not determined by the form of government, but by the legitimacy derived from the people’s consent. If the nation collectively agrees that a council of pastors and chiefs should have 60 per cent representation in Cabinet, the authorities must follow the will of the people.

The legitimacy of such an arrangement would stem from popular approval, not from external prescriptions. This illustrates that democracy is flexible and context dependent as it adapts to the cultural and social realities of each society.

The role of data in determining political direction is very significant. 

Data plays a fundamental role in shaping the political direction of any country. In a democratic society, decisions must be informed by evidence rather than assumptions or political rhetoric. Blanket statements or political guessing have no place in democratic decision-making. When citizens come together to decide on a constitutional framework suitable for their country, their deliberations must be guided by data, surveys, consultations and empirical research that reflect the true sentiments of the people. In Eswatini, for instance, when people claim that emaSwati are no longer supportive of the current political system, such claims must be substantiated with credible data. Without data, political assertions remain speculative and risk undermining the democratic process. Evidence-based decision-making ensures that governance reflects the actual will of the people, not the opinions of a few vocal individuals or groups. This is because democracy is, above all, about the people. It is the ordinary citizens who hold the ultimate authority to determine their leaders and the direction of their nation. One may study in an advanced and prestigious university, yet to occupy a legislative position, one must go through the people. That is the beauty of democracy as it levels the political playing field and ensures that power emanates from the collective will rather than privilege or status. Democracy is not a collection of bombastic words or the art of delivering eloquent speeches. It is a living system that thrives on participation, accountability and respect for the people’s voice. The strength of a democracy lies not in its rhetoric, but in its practice, apparently in how faithfully it reflects the aspirations and choices of its citizens.

Democracy is broadly defined as a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who exercise that power directly or through elected representatives. It is based on the principles of equality, participation and accountability. I have to point it out that the essence of democracy lies in the idea that the authority of government derives from the consent of the governed. It is a political system that ensures that the voices of citizens are heard and that leaders are accountable to the people. 

At its core, democracy is both a political ideal and a practical mechanism for governance. It promotes freedom of expression, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Here, we refer to expression, not freedom to express disgust and disdain. It is also characterised by regular, free and fair elections, where citizens could choose their leaders and influence public policy. 

Democracy is not a one-size-fits-all concept. It evolves according to the cultural, historical and social contexts of each nation. The Athenian model of democracy inspired many societies throughout history. The principles of citizen participation, equality before the law and majority rule influenced political thinkers and reformers across the world. The Roman Republic, for instance, adopted certain democratic elements from Greece, including representative institutions and public assemblies, although it combined them with oligarchic and aristocratic features. In modern times, several Western countries have drawn heavily from the Greek democratic tradition. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland are among the nations that have incorporated elements of classical democracy into their political systems. The American founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, studied Greek political philosophy and adapted its principles to create a representative democracy based on checks and balances.

Similarly, European countries like France and the United Kingdom developed parliamentary systems that reflect the participatory ideals of ancient Greece. While many nations adopted the Greek concept of democracy, others modified it to suit their unique political and cultural contexts. The United States, for example, transformed direct democracy into a representative form, where citizens elect officials to make decisions on their behalf. This modification was necessary due to the size and complexity of the modern State, which made direct participation impractical. The United Kingdom also developed a distinctive form of democracy known as constitutional monarchy.  In this system, the monarch serves as the ceremonial Head of State, while elected representatives in Parliament hold legislative power. Similarly, France adopted a republican model, where sovereignty rests entirely with the people and leaders are elected through universal suffrage. In Africa, countries such as South Africa, Ghana and Botswana have also modified democracy to reflect their traditional governance structures and post-colonial realities. These adaptations demonstrate that democracy is not static, but it evolves in response to social, economic and historical conditions. Each country interprets democratic principles in a manner that aligns with its national identity and aspirations. As I conclude, from its origins in ancient Greece to its modern adaptations across the world, democracy has remained a dynamic and evolving concept. It is rooted in the principle that power belongs to the people.  While nations have adopted and modified democracy in different ways, its essence remains constant that it is a government by consent. In the context of Eswatini, democracy must be defined by the will of emaSwati. Whether through the Tinkhundla system or otherwise, what matters most is that the system reflects the collective decision of the people. Ultimately, democracy is not about form, but about substance. Of course, this refers to the empowerment of people to shape their own destiny. I thank you. 

 Lincoln’s definition of democracy

One of the most widely cited definitions of democracy was articulated by Abraham Lincoln, the 16^th President of the United States, in his Gettysburg Address of 1863. Lincoln defined democracy as ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people.’ This succinct and powerful statement captures the essence of democratic governance that the people are both the source and the beneficiaries of political authority. Lincoln’s definition supports the idea that legitimate government must reflect the will of the people and serve their interests. Over time, various scholars have provided their own definitions and interpretations of democracy, reflecting its complexity and evolving nature. Joseph Schumpeter (1942) defined democracy as ‘that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.’ Schumpeter’s definition emphasises the procedural aspect of democracy, elections and competition, rather than the broader ideals of equality or participation. Robert A. Dahl (1971) described democracy as ‘polyarchy’, a system characterised by inclusive participation and public contestation. Dahl argued that democracy exists where citizens have the right to participate in decision-making and where there is competition among political leaders for support. Giovanni Sartori (1987) defined democracy as a system in which the people have the opportunity to accept or reject those who govern them. Sartori’s definition highlights the accountability aspect of democracy where leaders are subject to the judgment of the electorate.

Samuel P. Huntington (1991) viewed democracy as a political system in which the most powerful collective decision-makers are selected through fair, honest and periodic elections. Huntington stressed the procedural and institutional dimensions of democracy. Larry Diamond (1999) defined democracy as a system of government that not only ensures free and fair elections but also upholds civil liberties and the rule of law. Diamond’s definition integrates both procedural and substantive aspects, recognising that democracy extends beyond the ballot box.