The spokesman of South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), recently reaffirmed his party’s commitment to democratic reform in Swaziland. At a party conference Mr. Jackson Mthembu said that in principle they had no qualms with the monarchy of Swaziland. He asked why the monarchy of the country could not emulate that of the kingdom of Lesotho; where multi-party contestation for political power is exercised and the monarchy extricates itself from day-to-day politics. At the moment however, political parties are banned in Swaziland and some have even been proscribed as terrorist organizations.
This statement means that the ANC will continue to attach the condition of political reform to its fiscal-aid package. As things stand, the 2.5 billion rand loan has not been released to Swaziland because the condition of reform continues to stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. So controversial is this condition to senior figures within Swaziland’s higher echelons, a prince declared that Swaziland would not sell her birth right to South Africa.
Within the ranks of the pro-democracy camp in the country, the ANC’s discourse on reform has caused great joy and is hailed as a milestone in the fight for democratic rights in the country. Yet I have reason to take this pronouncement and its intended effects with a pinch of salt. Perhaps against this backdrop one may ask: What is the predetermining factor of socio-political change within a country? To rephrase the question: Which is the most formidable force of constructive change in a country: one engineered from outside or one in which the people are fully committed to and determine?
The reason for my skepticism regarding the position of the ANC – as well meaning as it may be -is that even though Swaziland may have such reform enshrined as policy in their elective conference later this year, it doesn’t guarantee an aggressive pursuit of such ends. In other words, interactions at the highest levels of governance in South Africa and Swaziland may not materialize as reform in the latter. If anything, the approach of the former may be lax and placating and might prove impotent over the long run. The occurrence of such an approach was clearly evident in South Africa’s handling of the Zimbabwean crisis. The result of these interactions left a superficial reconfiguration of a political system that left a government threatened by frequent divisions. It hasn’t brought much benefit for the ordinary man and with the exception of diminishing violence; poverty and stark inequality are still the grim daily realities.
Therefore, notwithstanding the important role that external factors may play in the process of social and political transformation in the Swaziland, the ball primarily falls in the court of the people of Swaziland. As the country goes through its current turbulences—protracted teachers’ and civil servants’ strikes and fiscal challenges—the people must stand up and voice their opinions appertaining to the future of their country. Civil society groups still face the herculean task of conscientising the people on the goings-on in our society and explain to them their causes.
The current protests of teachers and civil servants do not necessarily translate in to strife for democratic reform per se. So long as a tight iron lid remains on the most popular media—the radio—and the rural folks are kept ignorant of the rocking government boat and its iniquitous acts, the political elite and their cohort will consider themselves safe. The true power of democratic reform lies within purposeful efforts of educating the poor masses – 69 per cent according to the World Bank – on why they find themselves in such odious conditions of poverty and underdevelopment.
So long as the minds of the masses are held hostage under the masquerade of culture and traditions democratisation is only a distant mirage. People must know that debate and deliberation in political discourse is not taboo. If anything, it is a norm.
A culture of holding our leaders accountable ought to rise and be buttressed in our society. Gone are the days of governance through the unquestionable “wisdom of the right thigh”. We cannot be held ransom in a country we have every right to be in as our leaders. We must therefore all act to change such a pitiable state of affairs.
About the Author
