[twitter style=”horizontal” source=”@intlpolitical” float=”left”][fbshare type=”button”] “Hard times”. This is the title of English novelist, Charles Dickens’ book that was first published in 1854. Although he was precisely dealing with the economic and social pressures of contemporary time in England, this phrase, “hard times”, aptly describes the current situation facing the government and people of Swaziland. The country currently faces a dire financial crisis, arguably unprecedented in its history.
Such a problem has been attributed to the country’s over-reliance on, and the consequent decline of receipts that the country receives from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). This customs union is the oldest in the world, having been formed in 1910, and comprises of South Africa (often seen as the big brother, on account of her strong economy), Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia. The decline in Swaziland’s share from this customs union has had a direct impact on the country’s ability to finance its national budget and thereby meet its obligations, especially social, and this had led to the development of an acrimonious confrontation between government and civil society groups in general.
Mzukisi Qobo, head of the Emerging Powers Programme and Global Challenges at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), a think tank, noted in a presentation at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, that according to “rough estimates”, Swaziland relied on customs revenue for 75 per cent of its budget. According to the budget speech of 2011/12, SACU receipts in the 2009/10 financial year went down by 13.6 per cent, from E6.0 billion in the previous year to E5.6 billion. The country is expected to receive, in the financial year of 2012/13, about E7.1 billion Emalangeni, a much larger chunk than that of the preceding financial year which was a meagre E2.1 billion.
In spite of the woes of brought by the fluctuating receipts from this customs union, not everyone is convinced that this is the sole reason for the financial troubles currently engulfing the tiny kingdom. Civil society groups have voiced out that corruption, amongst other factors, has had a major effect in the deteriorating funds in the public purse. Indeed, the Minister of Finance Majozi Sithole, presenting the budget speech for the financial year 2011/12, noted that the country was losing an estimated E80 million a month through corruption. Yet, at this point there have been no tangible moves on the part of government to try and tackle this problem that it admitted publicly. What exists currently is an ill-capacitated and poorly funded Anti-Corruption Commission, which, since its inception, hasn’t made any significant in-roads in as far as combating high-profile corruption cases, is concerned.
What has also raised the ire of civil society is that the leaders of the country (mainly Cabinet and Members of Parliament) seem to be engaged in double standards, whereby they plead for “belt-tightening” for all citizens while they, on the other hand, afford themselves luxuries in the form of salary raises and other perks. Civil society has referred to the controversial Finance Circular No.1 of 2010 which introduced, among other things, monthly payments for former Prime Ministers (PMs) and their spouses. Such decisions, according to some citizens, seem to contradict the assertion that the country is in an economic crisis.
As if the foregoing problems were not enough, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has requested, inter alia, for government to reduce its civil service by about 7000 employees, and this is a precondition for accessing any loans from financial institutions that usually need a letter of comfort from the IMF before providing loans to countries. At the moment, the government has not been able to see through this request, and unions are up in cudgels, and have vowed that this will not happen. Government has admitted herself that such a move would be catastrophic and as such, have seen the IMF’s request as unreasonable. It has since asked the IMF to review this request and come up with something that would suit both government and unions. It is not surprising that government and unions oppose this request from the IMF—albeit for different reasons. The former appreciates the political consequences that such mass-retrenchments would have; mostly social instability that may bolster the voice of those that have been clamouring for political change in the country. The latter appreciates the social consequences which include the potential escalation of poverty levels because rural and urban areas in the country are inextricably linked; in as far as economic gains are concerned. Urban dwellers remit money (used to buy seeds and other necessities) to the rural areas, and the rural send food crops to their relatives in towns.
Unfortunately, the problems are far from over. At the time of writing, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) is engaged in a strike action dubbed “Waya waya” (loosely translated as “Non-stop”). This union is demanding a 4.5 per cent salary increment, which they have said is only an inflation adjustment that is long overdue. Government has obviously seen red, and the Prime Minister, Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini, has declared that salary increase will only be contemplated after a lapse of another three years from now. The teachers have been on the streets for the past seven days or so, and have in the process disturbed those schools where some of their members were doing their job. Security forces have been deployed around many schools in the country, to guard and protect those teachers who want to continue to work and, confrontation between SNAT and the forces has not been uncommon. The government spokesperson, Percy Dlamini, has labelled the striking teachers as “criminals”. And, in response to this the President of SNAT, Sibongile Mazibuko, has said that the spokesperson has got it all wrong; “criminals” are those who have helped themselves on the public purse for years on end, with impunity. Tempers are flaring. It therefore remains to be seen whether the country will weather the financial storm unscathed, or there are yet to be serious consequences on the social and political front.
