50 YEARS OF UHURU YET FREEDOM STILL ELUSIVE (1)

THIS the year of our Lord 2018 is a milestone in the history of this the Kingdom of eSwatini and the Swazi nation at large in more ways than one, as it is half a century since independence from the British in 1968 and, similarly, the 50th birthday anniversary of the Sovereign, His Majesty King Mswati III – ably termed 50/50 anniversary.

Besides the expected 50/50 mother of all parties – the leadership’s fondness for partying even at the worst economic times precedes it - the nation shall also be going to the Hastings ostensibly to elect a new government to spearhead the country’s trajectory into the second half of the century since the kingdom’s independence.  

As I see it, this ought to be a year of serious, sober and robust reflections on the achievements and failures of the five decades of self-rule and determination of the State and the people. Ordinarily, among others, the year should be underwritten by national discourse in debates, discussions in symposia, workshops and other spaces.

But alas, there is no freedom of speech for people to interact in order to reflect on the past, while planning ahead for the trajectory into the next five decades ostensibly because independence did not deliver freedom to the people.
Typically, no expense shall be spared by the State in preparing for the pomp, pageantry and ceremony – as if to showcase wealth to the rest of the world - in celebration of this epoch that will undoubtedly be preceded by plane-loads of shopping trips for gold and diamond crested gowns and suits by the well-heeled to some of the most exotic and expensive locations on the globe. Consequently, the expenditure for the so-called 40/40 celebrations a decade earlier might pale into insignificance.

Taking stock of the five decades of independence from the colonial stranglehold, even though the Kingdom of eSwatini was never colonised per se but sought for and was provided protection by the British that later bequeathed this task to the Afrikaners, is crucial in planning for a future trajectory that will deliver an equitable dispensation for a better life for all.
Thus far only a small minority has benefitted from the kingdom’s economic trappings while the rest have been left to starve to death. In terms, looking at the developments and progress since 1968 ought to be balanced with and against the resources and capital employed that would in turn be instructive on a number of issues, such as the calibre of men and women charged with the tasks, as well as the quality of governance and leadership provided.

At the end of it all we should be able to determine if the resources and capital were employed productively by an able and moral leadership or if kwahamba neMtilane owing to poor and immoral governance.
Obviously, it is in the nature of governments and the leadership, especially in an environment hostile to democratic values and the enjoyment of full human rights and liberties, to demand of the people in general, but specifically of the media, to sing their praises. This is often manifested by raining fear on the people coupled to a clampdown on freedom of expression and, by progression, of the media that inevitable culminates in the wholesale capture of the people and, indeed, the media.    

As I see it, if the United Nations categorisation of the kingdom as a medium income country were used as a yardstick in measuring the success or otherwise, of successive governments – not necessarily different as they all came from the same stock that monopolised political and socio-economic power post-April 12, 1973 – in the last 50 years, then the picture is abysmal. In tandem with the UN classification, the Kingdom of eSwatini would be flourishing - a typical land of milk and honey - and poverty not on the national vocabulary. Like Qatar in the Middle East, this country should be an example of endless opportunities derived from the equitable distribution of national resources, including minerals, for the benefit of the people and not just the elite.

Yes, I am talking about a textbook success story in which everyone would have had a place in the sun, thus creating an oyster that is the envy of the continent and beyond.  
In perspective, the UN medium income categorisation assumes that the majority of the people are in the middle income bracket with negligible numbers in the higher and lower income brackets. This has been determined through a scientific methodology that looks at a country’s features; physical size, size of the population, literacy rate/human capital, and available mineral and other resources, etc.

The UN perspective depicts an evenly distributed economic cake in which the majority is beneficiaries with small minorities on either end. As it were an expert on the subject once suggested that considering the kingdom’s features, it was perhaps the only country that could gift its citizens a million Emalangeni every budgeting cycle without sacrificing its budgetary objectives. This essentially means just about every service, including education from cradle to the grave, should be universal and free.
Continues next week.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: