WeekendAnalysis Change first, then call for change
Cis essential and inevitable, and I have no qualms with this body of facts. However, it is very unfortunate to see unchanged people calling for change. A person or group that is calling for change or any reform, be it political, social or economical, is a torch-bearer.
In fact, the group that advocates transformation is considered to be an enlightened entity. That person is supposed to be a shrewd leader who leads from the front where he or she is privileged to show the followers the right way. If somebody advocates western democracy, he is expected to show the nation through conduct, professionalism, execution of duty, intellect and through principles what it actually means to have a reformed political system.
The key features of western democracy are institutional competition among parties and individuals, respect for opposition and transparent distribution of resources. Are we seeing all these abovementioned elements in the groups that are calling for political reforms?
I have observed in total dismay how egocentricity, blatant disregard of basic principles of democracy, unwarranted grandiloquence and institutional gasconading coupled with violence have spoilt what could have been a splendiferous initiative.
Did you watch a talk show styled ‘People and Places’ on Channel YemaSwati where Mphandlana Shongwe was pitted against Ncamiso Ngcamphalala?
HANGE
The young man, Ngcamphalala, challenged Shongwe, a long-time serving political activist, to a brief debate on the ‘practical’ definition of democracy. He told him that a person, un-affiliated to any political party, could be democratically elected to power. Mr Shongwe sir, address the issue. “You don’t know what you are talking about, you are still young, I wouldn’t have honoured this talk show if I had known that you (referring to Qhawe Mamba, the host) had invited this kid to be part of this show,” said Shongwe as he interjected while Ngcamphalala was still addressing the viewers. The question is: “Are we progressing or regressing in politics?” I am disappointed.
In politics, change starts with the person or group calling for reforms. We may all be aware that the world has oftentimes witnessed countless failed political changes. The political reforms became unsustainable, temporal or not as permanent as we had envisaged because the drivers and implementers of these reforms neglected the vitality of changing alongside the situation. They did not change with the situation.
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on
Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the ‘Oslo Accord’, at the White House.
Mind you, Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians. On the other hand, the PLO renounced terrorism and recognised Israel’s right to exist in peace. In short, both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. Good news indeed. The world celebrated victory. Peace at last!
While former USA President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun. We are learning here. It is probable for parties in conflict to agree to a change to which they are not committed.
In most cases, people are not committed to change because they often fail to define the reforms in a way that will make even those who are supposed to embrace the transformation to comprehend the process. Dr Patricia Maulden, Associate Professor and Director of Dialogue and Difference Project at George Mason University in the USA, talks about theories of change that complement with my personal observation about the real change that I briefly elucidated above.
Dr Maulden taught me that there are no shortcuts and substitutes for thorough and thoughtful conflict assessment and analysis. I actually asked myself what she meant. I then understood her to mean that conflict assessment and analysis influence choice of what needs to be changed. What is it that we are changing? Proper responses to such questions create a shared understanding of what is it exactly that we want to change, and in which context. Unplanned change creates problems in future as it does not have a foundation. Anything
without a foundation is unmanageable. If we were to change politically, how do we manage this change? Is it a sustainable change that we can be proud of ? Has this change been influenced by emotions? Dr Maulden shares helpful advice to ensure we do not curse in the future the change in which we invested our time and resources.
The associate professor advises as follows:
Perform thorough analysis of context; determine types of change and possible sequence of change; determine types of actions to produce desired change at each sequence level. There are no short cuts and no substitutes for thorough and thoughtful conflict assessment and analysis. Of course, depth and focus of analysis influence choices of what needs to be changed and what theory or theories of change will be used in resolution approaches. Ladies and gentlemen, change has theories. The theories of change, if implemented adequately, are meant for the good of a country or the person advocating them.
Individual change is one of those theories as it entails transformative change of persons within groups. The associate professor points to the fact that this type of change involves consciousness, attitudes, behaviours, and skills. Possible practice approaches include listening, dialogue, consciousness raising workshops, literature reading, sharing of ideas, tolerance, respect, etc.
Healthy relationships and connections also form part of theories of change. This is very important as parties and people are supposed to break down isolation, polarisation, prejudice and stereotypes between groups. As part of the possible practice approaches, we can, of course, achieve these goals through inter-group dialogue, networking, intergroup problem solving and shared cultural events.
This is the area in which the Swaziland Liberation Movement (SWALIMO) and People’s United Democratic Party (PUDEMO) and other parties failed to master, resulting in some of our people having doubts about multiparty democracy. If a new thing is introduced by inter-groups, healthy relationships and connections are vitally important to instil confidence and certainty in those who are supposed to embrace the change. Reduction of violence is a critical theory of change. Long lasting or real change is not accompanied by violence. Ordinarily, successful peace talks are not violent. I have no records of fighting people in a dialogue setting reaching consensus. There is, therefore, a need to address cultural, structural, and direct violence in order to break the cycle of violence. We can achieve this goal by employing possible practice approaches such as storytelling, listening, dialogue, analysing public policy, promoting nonviolent methods at the political, social, economic, and cultural levels.
Dr Maulden states categorically clear that underlying issues of injustice, oppression, exploitation, identity and security threats, and sense of injury/victimisation are honestly and holistically addressed to ensure real and long lasting change. This is how we work for change. That is why there is a need to have campaigns for political/social campaigns for structural change, truth and reconciliation workshops, dialogues, problem solving workshops to organise groups and develop goals and strategic plans. In Eswatini, we have groups bragging about their old age. That is not supposed to be the case. Institutional development is another key theory of change as it seeks to establish stable/reliable social institutions to guarantee equity, justice, and fair distribution of resources. It is not possible to have real change in an environment in which there is zero focus on human rights, rule of law, anti-corruption, and economic development.
Groups which are serious with peaceful and prosperous change always increase levels of interest of leaders in changing political calculus. This is meant to ensure greater political, economic, and social equity. The leaders of the country should appreciate the change. They shouldn’t be made to hate the change or doubt the credibility and sustainability of the reforms.
If I were to ask, what benefits will His Majesty King Mswati III derive from the political reforms? Has anyone tried to persuade His Majesty the King in a way that he begins to appreciate that multiparty democracy can be of benefit to him? Did we achieve that or we insulted him? We forget that he is in power and he can use the power to derail or thwart any effort for the very change that we often fail to advance in a civilised and professional manner. The threats against people who still believe that non-party state can deliver is an indication that certain groups do not understand the principle of opposition whose main characteristic is ‘view-dissenting’.
The issues of bread and butter must be discussed openly. How will multiparty democracy perform better than the Tinkhundla System of Government in economic development? Do they (political groups) have an economic policy?
Which political parties have an economic policy? It is not easy to embrace political reforms without a defined economic policy. Don’t tell me they will have the policies once they are inside. How are they different from those of the Tinkhundla System of Government? I am looking forward to a change of attitude.