Home | Feature | THE POWER OF RECALL RETURNS

THE POWER OF RECALL RETURNS

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

ONCE upon a time when the Kingdom of eSwatini embarked on a constitutional development exercise the people unanimously recommended that there should be a provision for the power to recall the Member of Parliament elected by constituencies to improve accountability and service delivery.


Well it is now history that the people who rejected this were the Members of Parliament (MPs) but they made sure that they had the power to pass a vote of no confidence on the prime minister of the country.


We also do recall that this vote of no confidence was tried but failed the test on two occasions because MPs did not have the guts to stand their ground. Fast forward to the past few days and we have the matter raised once again, this time by another MP from Matsanjeni North, Phila Buthelezi, who criticised the Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini’s style of leadership, accusing him of stifling development in this country. The MP said it was probably time people were given an opportunity to elect and recall a prime minister.


The MP had accused the PM last week of suppressing the capabilities of Cabinet ministers, which he cited as the reason for their inability to effectively carry out their duties in ensuring proper service delivery in the 55 constituencies countrywide.  The PM was not present at the time and some were quick to dismiss Buthelezi’s submissions as mere grandstanding ahead of the upcoming national elections. There was doubt he could repeat these utterances in the presence of the head of government, who has a well documented reputation of dealing harshly with his critics.


The MP received public support from those who felt he was representing their interests in as far as the country was governed politically. Some MPs also gave moral support to their colleague who promised to maintain his stance in the presence of the PM on Monday.
The PM was quick to respond via a press statement, albeit violating Parliament procedure, accusing the MP of attacking the Constitution and undermining the King and country. The PM expanded on this in Parliament on Monday but the MP dismissed this reaction with a declaration of love for the monarchy and respect for the country’s Constitution.


Well Monday has come and gone and the debate was to continue on Thursday but the PM had to leave the country to represent the King in Iran.
As we assess the outcome of the week’s events on the political scene, it is safe to say the public and the country are more the poorer. The only beneficiaries are the MP who has raised his public profile and the PM who can afford to add another feather to his cap of victories.
There was an expectation that the MP would initiate the amendment process as provided for in the Constitution. So far nothing has come of it, leaving the PM smiling ear to ear as he probably contemplates adding another chapter of political victories to his ongoing book writing project.


MP Buthelezi will, however, feel vindicated on some of his accusations following the State media’s handling of the entire debacle. Swazi TV never bothered to broadcast his response to the PM but gave full flight to the PM’s submission while the national radio station gave Buthelezi no more than a sentence. Ironically, the Minister of ICT Dumsane Ndlangamandla had been quoted accusing the MP of insulting the integrity of the ministers to suggest they were being bullied by the PM. The minister is yet to explain why the State media houses were not free to give a balanced report of the debate.


Then there is the issue of poor service delivery. This is an area where I also find hypocrisy in the MP’s submission for the simple reason that Parliament has also allowed itself to be bullied into what Cabinet wants it to do. MPs are just as scared of the PM as the ministers.
Many a time the legislators have stood up to protest funding of non-priority as well as non-viable projects, only to tuck their tails between their legs the following day. They (MPs) have failed to provide the nation with a pro-poor national budget and to hold the ministers to account. As a result we have a security budget for a country that is at peace.

To approve such a budget and expect to see development in communities is as good as building castles in the sky.
It is this group of MPs that allowed Dvuladvula at the worst possible period of government’s dire financial position.
The MPs knew very well that there was no money to fund constituency initiatives, let alone provide proper social services.

The legislators were too excited at the prospects of receiving a 32 per cent pay rise that they forgot it would come back to haunt them when all the money goes to salaries leaving very little for development. How does a country have a budget where 60 per cent of it goes to consumption? Who then is really to blame here?

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: