WeekendAnalysis MPs desperate act to save themselves
Tresolution by Members of Parliament (MPs) to kick-start their own political dialogue sounds like a desperate act to save themselves. This is nothing but a plan to redeem themselves from betraying the nation and keeping silent when their voices could have saved us all from the current political quagmire.
I am even tempted to think that the reaction was not provoked by their love for the people but by fear of being the next victims of the escalating political violence. As a liSwati who believes in the legislative powers bestowed upon Parliament, I felt betrayed by their prolonged silence on the calls for a dialogue and I cannot stop but wonder if this call was now genuine or they were just playing the stage to keep themselves away from the anger of the opposition.
They cannot buy my understanding through theatrics when they had a whole sixteen months to call for the dialogue. They could have just refused to carry on with the business of the day in the house until the Chairman of the National Dialogue Committee Prime Minister (PM) Cleopas Sipho Dlamini gave answers on the progress and dates of the dialogue. But no, they were content enough to take their monthly cheques and enjoyed everything.
National Dialogues are typically convened at times when the fundamental nature or survival of a government in power is in question. Thus, they are usually intended as a means of redefining the relationship between the State, political actors, and society through the negotiation of a new social contract. In such historical moments, pro-change and anti-change forces emerge.
HE PROPOSED
I read the five steps of the dialogue before dialogue proposed by the MPs. First, the MPs seem to have forgotten that the country is where it is now because people wanted to deliver petitions to them. They seem to have forgotten that a majority of those petitions were already delivered when government stopped the deliveries. They seem to have forgotten that the people were clear in those petitions on what they want. Now, the one important thing that they seem to forget is that they have not yet delivered responses on the issues raised in those petitions. That, unfortunately, is where they should start, not the dialogue before dialogue hullabaloo.
In fact, the first response they should give to the people is the reason why they had to wait for violence and bloodshed for them to start talking progress.
My other worry about the decision taken by the MPs is that the country made a commitment to dialogue within the confines of the Constitution therefore what they seek to do could easily be viewed as a cover-up to be seen as doing something when, at the end of the day, the outcome won’t matter.
How do they propose to start a dialogue process without the two MPs who by virtue of not being convicted, still hold a seat in the house. There is nowhere in their five steps where they will consult with jailed Hosea MP Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza or Ngwempisi MP Mthandeni Dube. Another betrayal right there!
REFORMS
Bacede and Mthandeni should form a bigger part of the dialogue from the beginning to the end. They were a part of the authors of the calls for political reforms. The deputy prime minister even asked them for evidence that the people wanted the reforms. Petition deliveries at their constituencies formed a backdrop for the political unrest as sparked earlier by the death of Thabani Nkomonye.
Dialogues, whether pre or post should provide an inclusive, broad, participatory and official negotiation format, which can resolve political crises and lead the country into a political transition. At least I have learnt as much from my colleague Mfanukhona Nkambule after his controversial trip to the United States of America. Dialogues are convened to address issues of national concern, typically longstanding causes of conflict that have been brought to the fore by political protest or armed insurrection. My issue here is that they seemed to avoid the context of their dialogue in the laid out five consultative steps. What is it that they want to achieve, is there a political question or Government Spokesperson Alpheous Nxumalo was correct to think they wanted to usurp powers? Oh, step five indicated that the intention was to move a motion in Parliament, what motion? Petitions were delivered to the MPs countrywide; can’t they formulate a motion based on those demands? Forgive me but I still believe that this is a charade aimed at getting political recognition after a long slumber which even provoked the involvement of the International Parliament Union and the United Kingdom MPs. The fear of being left out might have motivated this resolution.
National Dialogues have mandates that include political reforms, Constitution-making, and peace building. National Dialogues have clear structures, usually with a mix of plenary and working groups, and have defined rules and procedures for dialogue and decision-making.
A research study commissioned by the United Nations Department of Political Affairs based on National Dialogues indicated that such dialogues were typically accompanied by broader societal consultations designed to communicate results of the negotiations and channelled people’s demands into the process. These may take the form of consultations, commissions, high-level problem-solving workshops, and/or referendums.
SEGMENTS
A major rationale behind the inclusion of large segments of society within a National Dialogue is to generate buy-in for its outcomes. So for me, the impact of the MPs dialogue before dialogue remains unclear and how this would be communicated to the general masses is not specified hence I still insist that they wanted to be seen as relevant and engaging just to save themselves from the wrath of the opposition. I don’t want to think that they were just trying to align themselves, no.
The research study I quoted above also reflects that dialogues typically involve principal national elites, including the government and the largest (armed or unarmed) opposition parties, and occasionally the military. Other groups who participate include those representing wider constituencies such as civil society, women, youth, business, and religious or traditional actors. The wider population is often indirectly included through broader consultation processes.
One of the five steps indicates the formation of terms of reference but does not include the other stakeholders in the formation of the ToRs. National Dialogues are inclusive throughout the entire negotiation process, meaning that participants are involved in discussions in all phases. Usually it also means that the decision-making procedures give, at least on paper, a voice and a vote to all included actors.
Dialogues are usually initiated by the government, which most of the time opposes the change with an aim of regaining legitimacy by controlling the negotiating process and outcomes. Pro-change forces on the other hand, envisage National Dialogues as an opportunity for redefining the future of the State.
For these reasons, both pro-change and opposing actors should agree that the dialogue is a format that can be used to impact change in governance.
As I conclude, let me bring this even further home; the MPs could not even hide the fact that they were calling the caucus as a result of the ongoing political killings and that is where my problem begins. No one called a caucus to discuss the June 2021 deaths or initiated such for a purpose of moving a motion in Parliament. They had to either wait for retaliation or for more innocent blood to be shed before they could start their dialogue before dialogue process.The mover, Manzini North MP Macford Sibandze, even said as legislators and the entire populace, they were not feeling safe in ‘their own country’ owing to the persistent killings and arson attacks. He said the House would not continue as if everything was normal yet their safety was under threat. This to me was the red flag.
BRAVERY
I am fine with Sibandze as a person and a politician; he is among the brave in the House and to even call for a caucus was an act of bravery but I am quite intrigued by the resolution. I would have expected them to go back to the people with responses to the petitions delivered because that where the gist of all the calls for reforms.
In fact I like the way he said “the general feeling is that Parliament is burying its head in the sand and it’s business as usual in the House while the situation out there has changed from a matter of life and death to a matter of death and death. It is dangerous out there and carrying on with the business of the day will be for nothing if stepping out of these premises means our lives are in danger.” Its clear that all along they were just there enjoying themselves while things got bad outside.
You don’t need a dialogue before dialogue to know that the people wanted the MPs to move a motion to amend the Constitution on the appointment of the PM. That was well articulated in the petitions. You also don’t need the dialogue before dialogue to know that the people called for the recognition of political parties; what we need to know is what the MPs intend to do with those demands. My parting shot is that even if the dialogue before dialogue work, it will take the MPs back to the motion they have been failing to move all along; the recognition of political parties and the election of the PM. I believe, and I sincerely hope I am wrong, the MPs took the long route hoping Parliament will be dissolved before the process ends and they won’t face the truth of having to move the motion or the reality of being labelled failures who kept quite when the country got burnt.