How does PM hope to restore trust in govt?
THERE has been a bizarre attempt, especially among patrons and loyalists of the Tinkhundla political system, to draw comparisons between the unrest that recently convulsed Eswatini and South Africa perhaps in a desperate effort to water down the real and historical value and meaning to what happened in the kingdom as a common feature of insignificance in the region that should not be allowed to become a national preoccupation.
With the exception of the concomitant looting, destruction of property and tragic loss of lives that were common in both protests, there was no commonality on the underlying causal factors and the envisaged outcomes. Described as a failed insurrection by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African riots appear to have been planned either to embarrass that country’s leadership and or cause the collapse of that country’s government riding on the jailing of former president Jacob Zuma. It appears the whole thing was planned on factional lines inherent within the African Nation Congress ( ANC) pitting white monopoly capital allegedly personified by Ramaphosa and his supporters against radical economic transformation embodied by Zuma and his acolytes in the echelons of the liberation movement.
Arguably, the outcome sought by the SA protesters was securing the immediate release Zuma but either got hijacked – or perhaps was insidiously planned – to unseat Ramaphosa and his top lieutenants from the ANC. Thus the riots can be said to have been fermented by the jailing of Zuma and, to some extent, opposition to and dislike for Ramaphosa who is perceived as an ambassador for white monopoly capital by forces loyal to Zuma who presents himself as the champion of radical economic transformation. Conclusively, the riots had nothing to do with SA’s body politic but perhaps, much to do with differences among and between political personalities within the governing ANC.
Eruption
Back home, it is common cause that the protests were an eruption of long bottled anger germinated by the ouster of the independence Constitution in 1973, which was replaced by a regime that outlawed political parties and generally further criminalised the exercise of fundamental human rights and liberties. Government pulled the trigger with its ill- informed decision to ban the delivery of petitions at constituencies, which directly challenged the undemocratic nature of the obtaining Tinkhundla System and called for an elective prime minister. A consequence of this ban was the declaration of war by the national commissioner of police, himself riding on an earlier clarion call in Parliament by Prince Simelane to fight fire with fire. Therefore, one can safely conclude that demands for political reforms leading to a multiparty democratic dispensation were causal to the protests with the expected outcome being a process underpinned by negotiations that would culminate with the installation of a new Constitution whose flagship would be the reinstatement of political power back to the people.
Consequently, it is disingenuous and downright infantile to downgrade and equate events that unfolded here to those that happened in SA. Additionally, so far there is nothing suggesting the fatalities recorded in SA were perpetrated by security forces other than being racially motivated. But the same cannot be said of those killed in Eswatini with prima facie evidence, reinforced by video footage in some instances, pointing to the police and the military, a position strengthened by government’s uncanny creativity by blaming the murder of emaSwati on so- called ‘ mercenaries’ without even advancing an iota of evidence to back this up.
The objective of trying hard to draw similarities between the two events in the neighbouring countries, as I see it, was to water down the demand for a new democratic dispensation when all along the Tinkhundla System was being hoisted by the leadership and its acolytes as an example of so- called home grown democracy. Hence supporters of the system were quick to associate thuggery and criminality with the pro- democracy movement to portray the uprising as a criminal project. The overall objective for this was a desperate attempt to nullify the notion of political discontent among emaSwati.
Nightmares
I had planned that today’s column would focus on the recent Sibaya, but had not envisaged that it would be the stuff nightmares are made of. Since it is not my wish to insult the intelligence of emaSwati, specifically those who did not attend, I will let it pass. The appointment of Prime Minister Cleopas Sipho Dlamini, who has since been rained with advices from yonder and thither, is however, unavoidable to let pass without comment since among the pieces of advice he has been getting seems to assume he enjoys unfettered powers to do anything when in actual fact he has none, hence my challenge to him shall be on a matter that may relatively be termed minute, but extremely relevant in the exercise of public office. How does the new PM hope to restore the trust of the people in government after the deluge of untruths, particularly during the pro- democracy protests, peddled by, among others, the then acting PM, in respect to, among others, the fib on ‘ mercenaries’ and internet infrastructure being damaged by rioters after government shut it down and not forgetting Minister Manqoba Khumalo. The importance of trust does not need to be over emphasised because that is the only valid currency in the public and government intercourse.