WeekendAnalysis

Mit’s time we change the approach for the message on dialogue to come across. The killing and violence is a clear threat to our very own existence and can evidently not solve any of our many political problems. We need a diplomatic approach in the calls for a dialogue.

Diplomatic approach on dialogue is about creating or reinforcing communication channels between State organs and other actors who can influence the State, with a view to strengthening trust and understanding, reducing tensions, or preventing or resolving conflict. By facilitating talks between adversaries, conflict parties, or other non-likeminded actors, this approach helps find creative solutions to problems, whether political or economic or otherwise.

I will come back to the subject of diplomacy and dialogue as an option for a solution driven process in a while, but I want to put some background facts into perspective on the whole political unrest issue and maybe, just maybe, we will be able to move forward.

As far as I know, and I have heard, the people are calling for three key things as justified from the list of petitions delivered the tinkhundla centres, before the eruption of the political mayhem in June 26, 2021. I still believe that the real call for change can only be traced in those petitions and nothing else. In fact, anything that comes outside of those petitions will only lead the nation to a wrong destination.

The three key components of the petitions as demanded by the nation were;

An elected prime minister (PM)

The unbanning of political parties Service delivery

1. 2. 3. AYBE DIPLOMACY

Let’s get back to the issue of diplomacy and the dialogue and see how it could help in solving the three key issues. However, it is worth mentioning that the first two can easily come along if a call to amend the Constitution and let the PM be elected at inkhundla level and political parties be allowed to field candidates could be made.

Right now the country needs political diplomats to bring together the groups with dissenting views.

The biggest challenge which the chairman of the National Dialogue Committee could be facing is to bring together all the stakeholders under one roof and to get them to listen and give each other a chance at the podium. This is the real struggle for PM Cleopas Dlamini right now.

Political diplomats, such as Lobamba Lomdzala Member of Parliament (MP) Marwick Khumalo should now take the stage and lead the country out of this political mess. He has the pedigree to bring the progressives and conservatives under one roof and to get each to listen to the other. We need someone that the

7KH 3LJJ¶V 3HDN 0DJLVWUDWHV &RXUW ZDV UHFHQWO\ WRUFKHG E\ IRXU DUPHG PHQ FRXUW UHFRUGV DQG RWKHU GRFXPHQWV

opposition can listen to and heed to the call to cease fire and stop the violence.

The Political Parties Assembly (PPA) and the Multi-Stakeholders Forum (MSF) both have muddy hands. They no longer qualify to call the other party to the table.

Political diplomats are different from political activists. The PPA and MSF long assumed the status of activists.

Respectable leaders such as Reverend Absalom Dlamini should come out of the shadows now. Avid thinkers such as Lutfo Dlamini should also take a position at the front.

The Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA) leaders such as Barnes Dlamini and Dominic Mngomezulu form part of the cream that should now be leading the country as political diplomats.

The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) also has great thinkers and leaders such as Australia-based Dr Arafat, who has huge experience in dialogues from around the world; but I would officially leave their names out of the conversation because PUDEMO remains banned in the country under the Suppression of Terrorism Act 2008.

DEFENDING

Political diplomats help the country to navigate between defending the incumbent government’s legitimate interests, while also addressing the legitimate needs and concerns of the opposing political stakeholders

The biggest question now is how this diplomatic approach can assist us to resolve the current conflict and the answer is clear; diplomacy opens up channels of communication that enable the parties to outline their positions, interests, and needs, as well as express their concerns, fears, expectations, and ambitions.

By engaging in such an exchange through diplomacy, adversaries can better understand each other, clarify misperceptions, and potentially avoid or resolve a conflict that can be fuelled by miscommunication.

Let me delve a bit on some of the misperceptions engulfing the dialogue call; the question of whether the violence and political killings will stop if the national dialogue is pronounced comes to the fore. This is a very serious perception that is currently affecting

GHVWUR\LQJ

the thought pattern of whether to pronounce the dialogue while people are being killed just for having a dissenting view.

Government Spokesperson Alpheous Nxumalo is on record asking the very same question and most of those in political positions asked the same question, whether people are not going to be attacked, killed or have their properties burnt for not agreeing with the common view.

This is where political diplomats come in, to give assurance that both sides will have a fair chance to present without any form of intimidation and fear imposed. The political diplomats take responsibility and become the face of the team on the table.

The diplomatic dialogue approach could well be a home-grown solution since it has become clear that there are many red tapes on the involvement of the international community on such an issue. The protocol has been a major let down for the people.

UNCEREMONIOUSLY

During the time of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa as the Chairman of the Southern Development Community (SADC) Troika Organ, the nation was made to believe that help was very close until the bubble got unceremoniously burst. A team of SADC officials led by Jeff Radebe came and progressives and other stakeholders from the civil society made presentations but nothing came out.

Ramaphosa confused us even more when he said, after the 42nd SADC Summit of heads of State in August this year at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), SADC will send a panel of elders to look into the crisis in the country.

It later transpired that protocol does not allow for the panel of elders to look into the matter as yet; this being another clear indication that only an internally brewed solution can assist us right now.

We need men and women of dignity who are respected by the masses to approach His Majesty King Mswati III and give assurance that the people will stop fighting each other if the dialogue table is opened. The way things remain right now, the perception of a deathtrap dialogue holds and even if the dialogue was to be called immediately, people would fear to speak their mind. The nation needs political diplomats to give assurance.

The King, as a protector of the people, needs to be assured that if he pronounced dialogue, the people would be safe and free to converse on the political issues.

It remains the truth that the country needs dialogue and needs it now, but who can stand up and say those opposing calls for democracy won’t face the wrath of a matchbox and that those who want democratic changes won’t become victims of the State.

That is where the biggest issue is and this is where the need for a diplomatic approach comes. We cannot let things be this way; even as I write I am not sure whether someone will be offended from both camps and start flagging me as an opponent.

This is madness, total madness. We can’t even exercise freedom of speech as enshrined in the country’s Constitution. The media is under threat, just for writing news.

Get me clear on this one, we appreciate the presence of the Chairman of SADC Organ Troika, President Hage G Geingob in the Kingdom of Eswatini and we are optimistic that a solution will come out of his visit, but I am more convinced that a home-grown solution would be more ideal.

The fact that the president’s visit in the country remains under a sealed agenda according the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Thuli Dladla does not give me any hope but makes me believe even more on the theory of a diplomatic approach to fast track the dialogue process.

COMMUNICATION

The diplomatic approach opens up channels of communication that enable the parties to outline their positions, interests, and needs, as well as express their concerns, fears, expectations, and ambitions. This is a key component in stopping civil war which is currently brewing.

I do not want to be a prophet of doom but even a blind man can see that we are now headed for revenge killings. The more innocent people die or lose property the more their anger grows and soon someone will kill someone just for revenge. Once a country gets to the level of revenge killings, there is no point of return, a fully-fledge civil war would erupt.

I have spoken much about a home-grown solution but I do not want to completely discard the practice of diplomacy at a government-to-government level. However this approach is largely governed by customary practice and established protocol as codified in international law.

This helps to set acceptable rules of behaviour, and to guide interactions between States and other international actors. I only have a problem with the time frame on this approach considering the escalating levels of violence in the country.

This approach can even be effective when done by a non-diplomat, as long as the non-diplomat have the requisite legitimacy, mandate, and skills. In some diplomatic contexts such mediation in conflicts, a non-diplomat can be more effective, as the situation may require a neutral party who can facilitate discreet, informal dialogue, which can be difficult for officials to do.