Home | Feature | DRIVING A FALSE POLITICAL NARRATIVE

DRIVING A FALSE POLITICAL NARRATIVE

25/07/2022 06:46:00 Emmanuel Ndlangamandla

Font size:

THE lack of profundity by sections of Eswatini society has been laid bare by the false narrative being driven and perpetuating apropos South Africa inching towards embracing a tinkhundla-styled dispensation in the face of a Constitutional Court ruling calling for the amendment of that country’s electoral laws to include independent candidates who wish to stand for elections. With research having been simplified by new technologies, it is stupefying why sections of our society lack the basic appreciation that not all multi-party dispensations are cut from the same cloth and consequently, that they are not uniform in form and design, especially when it comes to their electoral codes.

Consequently, the questions begging for answers are; are such apparent falsehoods attributable to a lack of scholarship and comprehension on the varieties of multi-party democratic dispensation, especially with reference to electoral systems or; is this wrong narrative being driven by the overbearing and zealous desire for political correctness to curry the favour of the political establishment or; is this a consequence of the absence of freedom of speech and expression is in total control of what can and cannot be published or broadcast or better still; is this a genuine error by a section of society mothered by ignorance of the various electoral systems obtaining in multi-party democracies?

Tendency

There is a noticeable tendency by loyalists of the Tinkhundla Political System to use the South African version of multi-party democracy as representative of a universal barometer of the pros and cons of this system of governance. And given its infancy, the South African version of multi-party democracy can easily be likened to an airline at cruising altitude hitting turbulence, which loyalists of the Tinkhundla System readily pick up and use to demonise this political system as worse than their beloved tinkhundla.

As it turns out, the South African version of multi-party democracy is different in respect of the electoral code from a majority of older democracies. Where a majority of older multi-party democracies electoral systems are direct constituency-rooted, the South African system is indirect in that it is the political parties that are voted in place of individual candidates. Instead of fielding candidates in constituencies, political parties prepare lists of candidates to represent them in parliament as well as in the provincial and local governments dependent on the percentage of the votes each political party is able to muster in national, provincial and local government elections. Also factored in this scheme of things is the proportional representation that is decided based on an agreed minimum number of votes each party must garner at the polls.

Challenge

While a majority of multi-party democracies elsewhere provide for individuals to participate as independent candidates, the South African dispensation does not accommodate independent candidates, hence the challenge to the constitutionality of the electoral law to the apex court, which was inevitably found to be unconstitutional, with the Constitutional Court ruling that the electoral code should be amended accordingly to allow for independent candidates to canvass for and be elected in their respective constituencies. This leads to the question of, if the ruling is in favour of allowing independent candidates participating in elections at constituency level can be equated to embracing the tinkhundla system. The answer would be a firm no! Firstly, because the South African system is not necessarily universal but peculiar in that it embraces the popular vote as well as proportional representation and voting is indirect in that it is the political party, and not a candidate, that is voted for.

Secondly, the South African system is not reflective and representative of universal multi-party democracy electoral systems. Thirdly, a majority of older multi-party democracies elsewhere, including the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK)for example, have always had independent candidates standing for elections in their respective constituencies long before the tinkhundla experiment was conceived. Furthermore, candidates, whether representing their parties or standing as independents, are elected directly from their constituencies in the majority of countries under multi-party democracy.

As I see it, the notion ought to be dispelled that tinkhundla experiment is lodestar of democracy ostensibly because, unlike in a majority of multi-party democracies where power resides with the people, power – executive, legislative and judiciary – is centralised on and exclusively exercised by the King. Talk of consultation and consensus is nothing but empty talk, devoid of any truth. Not surprisingly, the foundation upon which the Eswatini polity is constructed is the nemesis of the truth hence those who speak the truth to power are nemesis of the State.

Competing for a pride of place for enacting false and misleading narratives about the tinkhundla political system with its concomitant baggage of immoral and unethical leadership that has birthed sub-cultures of institutional corruption, nepotism and cronyism and capture of all institutions of State, that has torn this country apart is the mentality with which the leadership and its proxies, as fronted by spokesman Alpheous Nxumalo, deal with critical national issues. The latest instalment of the tendency of trivialising critical issues was over snubbing the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation – Organ Troika - emergency summit in the same vein that the State has been indifferent to the unknown number of emaSwati murdered and maimed by the state’s security apparatus last year for demanding multi-party democracy.

As I see it, the collapse of the scheduled Organ Troika Emergency Summit was a non-issue to the government which, since last year, has been ducking and diving over convening a national political dialogue. While condemning the random killing of its security agents as cowardly, government has to date failed and neglected to launch investigations into the wanton murder and maiming of emaSwati last year. But I shed no tear for SADC over the abortive summit but shed oceans of tears for compatriots cowardly murdered and maimed for demanding their inalienable rights and freedoms.