Visionary or reactionary?

ONE of the most popular management training programmes is Change Management. Because, apart from Benjamin Franklin’s ‘death and taxes’, there is nothing more certain in life than ‘change’. And, unfortunately, mankind doesn’t manage change very well, unless either guided or forced. Well, there’s rarely any justification for the latter, so better to take the guidance route.

Global society changes quite dramatically as each decade rolls by. If you’d predicted the impact of satellite technology and computerised data processing 70 years ago, they’d have applied social distancing to you! In my youth, the word ‘gay’ meant happy; today, gay movements – probably happy too – demand recognition and respect, and they get it. And the world now accepts transgender status and non-binary, the latter denying having any sex status at all; weird eh?

Necessity

One day – and by necessity – we’ll be driving only electrically-powered cars, as the magnificent internal combustion engine joins the VHS player in the museum. So don’t hang on stubbornly to the styles and traditions of old; adjust to the times. Or you’re going to be unhappy or make others unhappy. In the broader societal picture, when managing political change, you’ll get the visionaries and you’ll get the reactionaries. In that context, a visionary is someone who looks to motivate and guide a country towards a good and great destiny. A reactionary is someone who pursues a course that promotes the status quo when that is simply no longer the right way to go. The coming days, in the early part of 2022 in Eswatini, offer an amazing opportunity for the visionaries and a challenge to the reactionaries. Which of the two labels will we end up attaching to the designers of the National Dialogue Forum (NDF)?

We’re showing the door to Omicron – we think – with our infection rates, deaths and hospitalisation figures dropping daily, despite the rather modest vaccination figures. Children are going back to school; it gives us a pretty good feeling, taking us closer to the Eswatini we had before COVID-19 and the troubles that started last June. Those reflect a society, in which an un-quantified, but certainly sizeable, chunk of people want political change.

Involved

Those involved in designing the NDF need to put their visionary hats on and design a way forward that meets the criteria embraced by the genuinely decent societies of the world. If we want Eswatini to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with those great countries – attaining ‘First World Status’ – we must aim to match their standards.

And, whether you support it or not, take note that almost all have one characteristic in common; multiparty democracy (MPD). And I don’t include the pseudo democracies.

If the visionaries suggest the MPD route, it can’t be achieved overnight. Familiarising, training and testing are all pre-requisites. Instead of an in-your-face political ultimatum, take one step at a time, disaggregating the politics, and presenting one main component for response in the coming weeks. The Sibaya is the venue authorised in the Constitution. Proposal, response and implementation is a sequence that can work. Those designing the NDF should recommend that the monologue, albeit reciprocal, style of the Sibaya is developed into dialogue, or supplemented by informative and collaborative dialogue.

Start with one proposal – freedom of speech; the essence of a decent society. The laws of the land should protect the honest, but peaceful publicly-spoken word while punishing fake news, libellous remarks in the written word, and slander in the spoken word; and hate speeches prosecuted as in France this week. There should be no one afraid to criticise legitimately; the seeds thus sown for healthy politics; and the process overseen by external and independent monitors.

Vision

It should be a vision that is put into effect in stages. A broad articulation of that vision is, however, essential at the outset in order to provide the assurance and encouragement that is vital to bringing everyone onto a common path. All peace-promoting political groups should be recognised and they must be screaming out their condemnation of arson and other forms of anarchical damage to people and property. In every society, you’ll get groups of dysfunctional individuals who simply want to cause trouble. Here they’ve acquired power – the ability to do damage. And they’re enjoying it, bolstered by the hatred arising from their poverty; seeing the greed and self-centredness in others. Intergenerational dialogue is vital, inspired by a conducive environment for dynamic job creation; not just words.

There’s no welfare state to support the poor so, to get the necessary public resources for it, you need substantial foreign direct investment and a thriving tourism industry to create economic growth; and we won’t remotely get all that if there’s continuing civil disturbance and damage. And the people of the rich nations are getting choosier about which countries deserve their development assistance. Let’s pray for open, peaceful and visionary designs of the future dialogue; this is the big chance.