The ultimate yardstick for democracy and multi-party politics in Swaziland, once ushered in, will not be the ousting of an undemocratic government. Rather, it will be the strides taken to liberate the people from grinding poverty and deprivation. Take a casual glance at the rest of the African continent and you will see that this is easier said than done. Many promises have been made, but actions fall short.
To extricate a country from deprivation and hunger does not require the paternalism that most African governments have adopted. Instead, an open political system, where all individuals and groups can participate freely in governmental processes, becomes imperative. I must emphasise, though, that this does not happen with the wave of a magic wand. It requires the existence of class-conscious politics within a country. The people and their leaders must understand that, as Mukoma wa Ngugi noted, ‘there is an inherent contradiction in a wealthy elite subsisting on the majority poor’. This state of affairs – though prevalent in Africa and in present day Swaziland—endangers the stability of a society, and further accents socio-economic inequality.
I think that nearly everyone understands that there isn’t, necessarily, a direct correlation between multi-party politics and an improvement in the lives of people. But a pluralistic society gives people a better chance to impact on policies that affect their lives, and in the process, better their lives. Therefore, what is needed in a “new” Swaziland is not only the peoples’ right to elect different political parties into government after a fixed period. That will not be enough.
A desirable new politics in this country will be one where both the government and its people understand that the democracy needed is not only that of the ballot box. Instead, conscious moves must be made to alleviate poverty among the masses, encourage creativity and foster debate on all issues that affect the people, without fear of intimidation. We have had enough of unique democracies, and those that serve certain cliques. As Mahmoud Mamdani asserts, ‘So long as democratisation drives are dominated by urban lawyers and churchmen and do not engage with the rural patrimonial structures that remain intact, they are unlikely to alter the political basis of the African state significantly.’ This quote begs an important question applicable throughout almost the whole continent: is the lack of development in Africa a failure of democracy, or the failure of the state? I digress.
Any politics—regardless of its hue and proffered ideas – that will still have people cast in chains of deprivation will not be acceptable.
About the Author
