HAS PM DISCREDITED TINKHUNDLA SYSTEM?

IN his irascible but evidently misplaced attempt to politically pillory Matsanjeni North MP Phila Buthelezi on the altar of political expediency, PM Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini inadvertently shredded the little of the so-called democratic credentials the Tinkhundla political system has been parading.

The system has always boasted of its so-called grassroots democracy ostensibly because lawmakers are elected on so-called individual merit. But the question that has always begged for answers is the extent of the political muscle exercised by the Legislature. But the PM seems to have put that question to rest.

The PM’s diatribe in response to MP Buthelezi’s assertions on government’s poor service delivery in the House of Assembly previously, was an outright censor on the parameters within which lawmakers operate and exercise political authority and influence.

His posture is that MPs are restricted from engaging in real politics but only confined to the roles of extension development officers. That was the essence of the PM’s emotive reaction to MP Buthelezi; that lawmakers are limited in their functions and cannot freely discuss politics in the Legislature, which by design is or should be the nation’s political melting pot alongside Sibaya.

Legend has it that if and when you square up against the PM you get squashed because of the considerable arsenal, occasioned by his position, at his disposal.

Reflecting on the tone and slant of his vitriolic statement in Parliament last week, it seems to me the PM is now out of ammunition, of course excluding the socio-political persecution of MP Buthelezi that the PM sought to trigger. For in indirectly bringing in the institution of the Monarchy in his diatribe against MP Buthelezi was not accidental but a well calculated move by the PM to solicit the all-powerful shadowy labadzala to deck the Matsanjeni North legislator on the carpet for purportedly disrespecting the nation’s highest authority.

As I see it, the PM tried to set up MP Buthelezi against the kingdom’s highest authority with the accusation that he had undermined the ‘pillars that ensured peace, unity and stability of the country’, an indirect reference to the institution of the Monarchy. In fact the PM came short of openly accusing MP Buthelezi of committing treason, which would explain the unusual large police contingent the former, who is also Minister of Police, had in tow. As alluded to in last week’s column, this was in reference to MP Buthelezi’s position when he echoed Sibaya’s previous call for the position of PM to become elective to spur government service delivery.

The PM would have us believe that MP Buthelezi was undermining the Constitution as well as Sibaya. Initially, it is rather surprising for the PM to employ the two institutions in his defence of his failed government.

The PM should be the last to seek refuge from the Constitution. For if the Constitution was indeed the supreme law of the land, he would not be in office courtesy of a vote of no confidence passed by the 9th Parliament. As for Sibaya, it was the first to disown the PM before Parliament took up the cudgel. Consequently Sibaya, after the abortive no confidence vote in Parliament occasioned by the breach of the Constitution, resolved that the position of PM should become elective. 

Indeed the issues MP Buthelezi is being vilified for by the PM are political by their very nature and apparently Parliament is the natural and legitimate forum for discussing not just politics but just about any other issue affecting the country and the people. And all arms and institutions of government, including the Constitution as well as Sibaya, are not sacrosanct from being lobotomised by legislators.

MPs are after all not development extension officers of their various constituencies, of course the likes of the PM would like them to remain just that, but have an important oversight role over the Executive, while at the same time being responsible for creating an enabling legislative framework essential for the trajectory towards achieving Vision 2022 as spelt out in the National Development Strategy. Therefore, criticising the Constitution is not a crime but a legitimate part of political discourse. Indeed criticism of the Constitution is the foundation upon which to build a case for its amendment.
The Constitution does not just get amended out of the blue but is preluded by discourse.
What the PM is attempting to achieve, albeit without any success, especially to the discerning, is to whip up public emotions against and project MP Buthelezi as a renegade lawmaker with no respect for authority whatsoever. There is not a single untruth MP Buthelezi has said, either about the PM or the disposition of his Cabinet. In turn the PM’s emotional and unreasonable reaction to MP Buthelezi’s utterances put paid the myth of the obtaining political hegemony being democratic and the perception that the people enjoy freedom of expression.
Indeed any suggestion that the Tinkhundla political system is democratic is an affront to democratic values and principles. Tinkhundla simply can never be democratic as an ideological political system. As a political system Tinkhundla can best be defined as feudalistic and, therefore, antithesis of democracy.  

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: