Home | Feature | WHAT ARE SD’S CHANCES OF RECLAIMING LOST LAND? 1

WHAT ARE SD’S CHANCES OF RECLAIMING LOST LAND? 1

15/05/2017 02:24:00 By Vusi Sibisi

Font size:

THE Border Restoration Commission recently came out of the closet to parry the long-held perception that it was a fattening ranch as well as to defend its very existence in what appeared to be a calculated charm offensive.

The Border Restoration Commission (BRC) convened a breakfast briefing with the media at which it sought to bare its soul on its very existence, operations and accomplishments. But even before going into the core of its mandate, one cannot stop wondering about the underlying reasons the BRC advanced for coming out of the closet after so many years of a charmed secretive existence.

Could it be that the BRC suddenly grew a conscience and out of guilt its commissioners sought to justify the huge salaries and perks they were getting when the paymaster, the taxpayer, has no clue whatsoever what they are all about? After all the BRC’s operations are hardly publicly questioned even by elected representatives of the people in Parliament and as such is seemingly not accountable, at least publicly, to anyone.

For some of us the BRC is merely a halfway house for the privileged - whose existence from the cradle to the grave is bankrolled by the taxpayer – comprising, on one hand, those of the leadership elites on a trajectory to higher public office and, on the other hand, those on the decline awaiting the final roll call on the conveyor-belt of attrition after retiring from active public office.

As I see it, the perception of the BRC being a fattening ranch is further informed by the sceptisism over the practicality of ever achieving its mandate – that of reclaiming the land lost variously pre and during the colonial era to the two neighbouring countries, South Africa and Mozambique. To what extent the BRC’s breakfast interaction with the media was successful in swaying this perception is a matter of conjecture but is probably largely informed by one’s political hue and affiliation.

Predictably, the media was its usual compliant self and not useful in objectively interrogating the subject matter. Having heard the BRC it is a basic tenet of journalism to further establish the positions of the two neighbouring governments on this issue. To this end we have been left to wonder if indeed the BRC’s mandate was in these two countries’ governments’ respective national agendas and if so what is their respective positions on same. That is how useful these breakfast meetings have become apropos taming the media to the extent of leaving their publics ill-informed.

As it were, the media also failed to do a proper research of the subject matter before munching on the goodies at the BRC breakfast briefing. Prior research would have positioned the journalists in attendance to ask the right questions instead of being fed what the BRC wanted to be heard and read by the public. As such the whole breakfast briefing became a hugely successful PR exercise for the BRC owing to the servile disposition of the journalists in tow.

But if the success or otherwise of the BRC – including its justification for existence – were to be appreciated from a practical, principled, not to speak ethical, dimensions its chapter probably would have long been shut. With millions of the taxpayers’ money in salaries and other perks having been drained from the treasury over the years, there is very little the BRC has in terms of returns justifying the monetary input and other resources.

Had the BRC taken the public in its confidence by divulging its so-called strongest secret weapon – a diplomatic note from the British Government to the South African Government - as reported by the press, perhaps the verdict would be different. But can a diplomatic note deliver the lost territories at this juncture of history? It is possible that that diplomatic note has itself become obsolete and, therefore, a worthless piece of paper.

While the press carried extensive coverage of the BRC breakfast briefing – most of which was PR - there was a lot of incoherence and fractured historical facts from the so-called experts in its armour. For example, claiming a piece of land in Limpompo Province in South Africa while conceding that it was previously occupied by the Pedi could be misleading if not put in context and properly dated. The context is germane in establishing if this occurred during the wars of conquest and nation-building or if the land was stolen from the Pedi in peace times. Should the latter apply then the land in question rightly belongs to the Pedi.

Crucially too, is the sensitivity of the subject matter which has triggered wars on some parts of post-colonial Africa and elsewhere in the world. Consequently, it must be handled delicately to avoid muddying diplomatic relations with our two neighbouring countries from which we are dependent on many fronts. That is not to negate the fact that it is a historical fact that the Kingdom of eSwatini did indeed lose swathes of land at some stages in her history. Perhaps what is arguable is the extent of the losses considering that the losses occurred not all at once but in installments over a period of time. (To be continued next week).