Political referendum after civic education
Apolitical constitutional referendum means a referendum (nationwide vote) in which the electorate (emaSwati) is invited to vote on the question as to whether they approve or disapprove of a constitutional amendment Bill, which is held in accordance with the Constitution.
One of the most basic signposts of a democracy is citizen participation in the formation of the government. Participation is the key role of citizens in a democracy. It is not only their right, but it is also their duty. EmaSwati are now faced with the fear of participating freely. This fear is real now.
To call a free and fair dialogue under these conditions is just unrealistic, undemocratic and dangerous. Who can speak freely knowing very well that it could cost his property or even life? As much as it is a democratic right to have and form an elected government, it is also a right to safety and the ability to decide which form of democracy.
We may decide as a nation through a constitutional referendum to amend the Constitution to take a one-party political system, two-party political system, or multiparty political system. EmaSwati might just choose to improve the Tinkhundla political party system to include the direct election of the prime minister (PM), who will form an elected government. There may be a combination of political systems, but it is dangerous to force citizens to choose without a true understanding of what they are choosing. Even worse, dialogue at gunpoint will not bring desired peace. As some emaSwati are now at the point that they feel it’s time for multiparty politics, let there be a proper civic education process to educate about the political system first. We are now divided, and citizens need to vote freely with knowledge. We need to trust democracy, not force it. We need to trust the people.
History of political referendums
A referendum on repealing the first Constitution was held in Swaziland on January 19, 1964. It was called by King Sobhuza II following what he termed, the imposition of a colonial Westminster constitution by the British colonial authorities in 1963. He opposed it due to what he felt was its non-democratic nature, as it was imposed on the nation as part of the conditions for getting independence. The Constitution had been imposed on the colony due to the failure of the Swaziland National Council (which represented the Swazi traditional aristocracy) and the European Advisory Council (representing white settlers) to agree on how to form an all-inclusive Constitution.
The 1964 referendum was boycotted by political parties, and the result of 99.87 per cent in favour of repealing the Westminster constitution was ignored by the British colonial authorities. Despite the landslide victory by King Sobhuza II on the repealing of the constitution, a general election was held later in the year, according to the same Westminster constitution that was rejected by the people through the referendum.
King Sobhuza II and the Swaziland National Council (SNC) were forced to form the Imbokodvo National Movement (INM) in April 1964 to contest the election (Macmillan 1989, 306). The INM’s platform focused on assistance to peasants, ordinary emaSwati, labelled the other political parties as ‘foreign’, divisive and hostile to Eswatini ‘tradition’ and sought to keep traditional land tenure unchanged while vesting mineral rights like land, in the hands of the monarchy (in trust for the nation) as had been for hundreds of years.
The settlers formed the United Swaziland Association (USA) to protect their interests and property rights (which had already been guaranteed by the King) while supporting INM on the land and mineral issues. The Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) had formed an alliance with the striking workers and had called the general strike (Levin 1997, 67). As a result, the leadership of the NNLC was bogged down in litigation as a result of trumped-up charges by the colonial masters, such that its organisational ability was seriously weakened and it was all but bankrupted (Levin 1997, 70).
The INM’s 1964 election victory was overwhelming, for it won all eight elective seats with 85.47 per cent of the vote, the SNC supplied them to the eight Tinkhundla seats, and they won one of the white seats; their allies, the USA, took a further six seats (So Booth (1983, 66); Levin does not give the distribution for the white seats but notes that Carl Todd won his white seat as an INM member. The NNLC, which represented the only opposition, managed to garner 12 per cent of the vote, though this did not translate into any seats in Parliament (Booth 1983, 66).
Political tolerance
The British had totally ignored the will of the majority of the people at that time. His Majesty King Sobhuza was forced to form a political party, INM, which won with a landslide in the 1964 general election and again on the May 6 and 17, 1972 elections. A lot has since transpired over the years, but we achieved peace during a very difficult transition period for Africa. The time has come again to ask hard questions. We need a referendum on how to elect our government and which political system of government we use. Do we use Tinkhundla or the various political parties system or a bit of both? However, the EBC needs to educate emaSwati on political issues so that when we finally hold our dialogue, the people will be better informed. What is most important is political tolerance on both sides; after all, we are building our country together.
There is a false assumption from progressive forces that the introduction of political parties will automatically strip the King of his powers and throw him into the dustbin of history. What if the King, using his vast financial resources, decided to form a political party like King Sobhuza II was forced to do in 1964 or King Seretse Khama of Botswana?
What if he then used the traditional structures of the 385 chiefs to solidify his position within rural areas, funding Tinkhundla projects and making it virtually impossible to penetrate? Politics is now all about money; ask the ANC. The workers unions, churches, youth movements, and women’s organisations can all be funded to support a royal-sponsored political party. Singapore is an example of political power funding. This has not happened simply because King Sobhuza maintained that the King is a King for all emaSwati regardless of their political affiliation. Comment septembereswatini@gmail.com