Tinkhundla: Govt employs extreme measures
THERE is something bordering on desperation in government’s fixation with validating and proving the credibility of the Tinkhundla political system to the level of peddling claims that neighbouring South Africa (SA) has embraced the principles of this political system in its body politic, by allowing independent candidates to stand for and contest elections. As if Tinkhundla is all about elections and nothing else, which is injudicious. It is common cause to the discerning - minus those whose stomachs are more important than principles, ethical and moral leadership - that independent candidates are allowed in a majority of multiparty political dispensations across the globe and this has been the practice long before the Tinkhundla experiment was imposed on emaSwati or SA was liberated.
This is in the wake of government, through Alpheous Nxumalo, misappropriating emaSwati’s tax Emalangeni on a statement claiming that SAhad embraced Tinkhundla principles, in the wake of SA’s Parliament amending that country’s electoral legislation in compliance to a Constitutional Court’s judgment, paving the way for independent candidates to stand for and contest elections. South Africa remains a multiparty democracy anchored on a progressive Constitution wherein all are equal before the law, something that cannot be said of this, the Kingdom of Eswatini.
Convince
But just whom, except themselves, is government trying to convince that Tinkhundla has gained universal traction and, therefore, validity as the political system of choice? Government, the leadership and phalanx of stomach politics driven apologists must think they are one eyed in the land of the blind! But if the Tinkhundla political system was glorious, why would government go to such lengths of trying to validate same when it, the system, should be able to do and achieve this on its own premise, on a positive track record in making Eswatini stable, peaceful, an economic and political powerhouse as well as attractive instead of the volatile and unpredictable place it is presently.
Perhaps the answer to the above questions is that government and the leadership are going to the extreme of validating the system in order to convince themselves that the Tinkhundla political system is the best when deep down they - at least those who still have consciences - know this is not quite true. Empirical evidence to the fact is provided by the Constitution that government and the leadership have sought refuge from lately when repulsing demands for a multiparty democratic dispensation.
Election
Whereas the Constitution, in section 79, explains Tinkhundla as follows: “A democratic, participatory, tinkhundla-based system which emphasises devolution of State power from central government to tinkhundla areas and individual merit, as a basis for election or appointment to public office.” But almost 20 years since the adoption of the national charter, the Constitution’s, power has not evolved to the people, a shortcoming among many that has birthed constitutional delinquency on those controlling the levers of power. In spite of the fact that the King heads all arms of government, thus annulling the principle of separation of powers, his State of the Nation Speech during the State opening of Parliament is, for example, not interrogated and debated by Parliament, as is the practice in democratic jurisdictions across the globe, including SA. Hence this country is burdened by multibillion Emalangeni vanity projects - among inherent weaknesses of the system - which were and are not subjected to robust interrogation, with no prospects of ever becoming viable save to remain black holes that, in the absence of miracles, will be a drain to the taxpayer in perpetuity. The same applies to policies that are enacted in isolation of the populace and are self-serving to the political elites and phalanx of blind loyalists.
As I see it, examples abound of the failure to operationalise the very Constitution notwithstanding its inherent contradictions. For while the Constitution provides for a Bill of Rights enshrining all the rights and freedoms of the individual, freedom of expression is still elusive to emaSwati, hence even the media is tightly leashed by the State. That is the reason why more and more emaSwati are ventilating their frustrations and opinions on social media that government is going to extremes to control. Also, political parties remain banned notwithstanding the freedoms of association and assembly enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
In a nutshell the whole hocus-pocus apropos SA embracing elements of the Tinkhundla political system is part of a defensive wall government and the leadership have erected to counter the pro-multiparty democracy movement, to maintain the ruinous political status quo that has reduced this country into a basket case of poverty, disease, socio-political instability and runaway unemployment. Worse of all is that the system has created and is promoting apotheosis by cultivating and perfecting the cult of veneration of the monarchy.
As I see it, at this point what this country really needs is a state of moral emergency because emaSwati are afflicted by mental slavery – camouflaged as culture and tradition – which Marcus Garvey opined was the worst form of slavery. Bearing testimony to this is the desecration and pollution of culture of late to coerce loyalty, as well as weaponise it against the mass democratic movement demanding multiparty democracy. Regrettably, this affront on emaSwati cultural practices by guardian individuals and institutions on the altar of political expediency could spell doom for our rich cultural heritage.
But worst of all is the sanguinary posture of those in leadership whose primary role should be the protection of the lives and interests of all, not some, of emaSwati. Already enough blood has been shed, as testimony to this nation losing its moral compass. Yet government and the leadership are still dilly-dallying on the subject of a national dialogue – a very strange way of displaying love for this country and the people.