Debate over hosting of elections vs dialogue
MANZINI – A number of stakeholders are questioning the barometer used by government to determine a conducive environment to host the national elections and not to engage in a national dialogue.
Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister, Cleopas Dlamini, in a press briefing subsequent to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Troika Extraordinary Summit, said the country would partake in national elections this year.
He said government had already started rolling out preparations for Sibaya (constitutional dialogue) when all plans were halted by the politically-related violent activities, which escalated in 2021.
In light of this, various stakeholders representing different groups, expressed concern in the interpretation of one equally important item taking priority over the other.
As such, a majority of the organisations engaged by this publication were of the view that the national dialogue should be convened before the national elections. They were of the view that the politically-linked killings since June/ July 2021 unrest needed the citizenry to reconcile before elections could be held.
On October 29, 2021, the Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration reported that at least 46 people died during the June/July protests; 245 people had gunshot injuries; 22 people multiple gunshot injuries; and 118 people had unspecified injuries.
Secretary General (SG) of the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) Sikelela Dlamini said: “As the MSF, we envisage elections that will be held after the all inclusive national dialogue. We believe that the dialogue should be prioritised.”
When asked on the concern raised by government of violence regarding the national dialogue, Sikelela said it was the duty of government to make the situation on the ground conducive for the dialogue, if indeed it was deemed not conducive at the present moment.
Also, the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) SG, Mduduzi Gina, said the call for national elections before the political dialogue opened government to criticism.
“It seems the violence seen to be a threat for the national dialogue will cease to exist when national elections are held,” Gina said.
Rhetorically, he asked what would alter as the situation was still the same and ideally the national dialogue should be held before the elections so that the animosity existing now would be addressed through reconciliation.
Gina said in his understanding, both events required a high level of calmness from the citizenry and the same level of security. He supposed that government was choosing one over the other, which was not good for governance. This, he said, showed manipulation and lack of eagerness to consult stakeholders through citizens engagement.
On the other hand, the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) supposed that government had minimal concern about the future of the country.
Chairperson of SUDF Lucky Dlamini said, seemingly government was doing all possible to oppose the genuine political demands of the majority oppressed people of the country.
He purported that government had lost its credibility to lead the people and they were avoiding by all means convening the national political dialogue. He said it must now be clear to all emaSwati that government was not prepared to come to an all inclusive political dialogue to find lasting solutions to the political challenges facing the kingdom.
SUDF’s view, according to Lucky, was that government had to create a conducive environment for the all inclusive political dialogue by unbanning political parties, releasing all political prisoners, allowing the unconditional return of all exiles and removing the 1973 King’s proclamation to allow free political engagement and freedom of expression and access to the State radio and television.
“SUDF strongly believes that the two need a peaceful environment that shall produce results that are free and fair as per SADC protocol on elections,” Lucky said.
He said the people’s demand was to elect their own government and have self-determination than to watch while the country faced lack of political pluralism and a system of governance supposedly without checks and balances. He said the lack of checks and balances in a system of governance promoted corruption, violations of human rights and nepotism.
The same view was held by the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) SG Wandile Dludlu, who supposed that government was playing politics of convenience.
He purported that government was engaging in the national elections before the dialogue because it benefitted from the current status quo. Dludlu claimed that if government was honest about the purported security threats to the national dialogue; both events would not take place as national elections were also delicate.
“It is surprising that there are no security threats to the elections; yet they exist towards the national dialogue. Even during the course of a war, there is a dialogue and this is what is worrying us on the prospects of a national dialogue ensuing at all,” Dludlu said.
On the other hand, SG of the Swazis First Democratic Front (SFDF) Gift Dlamini, said the position taken by government showed clearly that there was no political will on its (government) side to engage in an all-inclusive political dialogue.
He claimed that government had remained adamant in retaining the status quo. The SFDF SG said: “What the government fails to understand is that after the massacre of the over 100 people since June 29, 2021, the systematic incarceration of activists in the pretence that they are terrorists, the well calculated assassination of political leaders and daily intimidation of activists forcing them into exile, has not gone unnoticed by Swazis and the international community. The only way out of this political dilemma, we all find ourselves in is an all-inclusive political dialogue.”
Gift said as a matter of fact, elections needed a stable environment to be credible, free and far while on the other hand a political dialogue could go on even when there was actual fighting like in the case of Russia and Ukraine. He said the war was ongoing, but there was dialogue on the side, because in politics, dialogue was necessary when there was conflict.
The SFDF SG said there was absolutely no need to wait until all was calm before there could be a national dialogue. The presence of this political turbulence, he said, was what necessitates an all-inclusive political dialogue, not elections.
Rhetorically, he asked; “How can we even think of elections when there are pertinent questions that this regime has to own up to, blood has been shed here, people’s blood?”
With this, he reiterated that the national dialogue did not require a stable environment for it to ensue, while elections required a stable environment that we could not have until there was dialogue.
Furthermore, he said for government, elections were the easy way out of the (political) mess.
On the other hand, he said a political dialogue would demand compromises from both parties, which would definitely lead to change.