Home | Feature | POLITICAL TUG OF WAR ON

POLITICAL TUG OF WAR ON

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

The political tug of war is on and the nature of politics is very dirty.

We have seen its true nature in the South African political landscape, where political parties throw everything at their political opponents, including the kitchen sink. While His Majesty is scoring points on the international stage, his opponents are working hard to tarnish his image, at every opportunity, by linking him with the alleged assault on the two legislators, Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube. This comes amid allegations that about 20 warders invaded the cell of the two legislators they share with seven other inmates and assaulted them in the early hours of last Thursday morning.

The Correctional Services has come out to deny any such actions, stating that they acted within their legal mandate of searching the cells of inmates occasionally, acting in their own safety, ensuring that there are no contrabands and prohibited items such as knives, drugs and cellphones, to mention a few. The statement went on to say that naturally, such searches were met with resistance from the inmates. The statement added that in this particular case, the officers were able to carry out their search and applied all expected and acceptable standards and protocol, which at times permit the use of minimum force when necessary.

Protection

The Constitution is very clear on the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms in chapter three. I was old enough to see my father suffer unlawful incarceration under the detention without trial law prior to the enactment of the Constitution. Certain privileges for prisoners were deliberately taken away just to make life difficult for them. Ironically, a few months later, some people in power found themselves prisoners in the same jail without the privileges they had taken away. On October 4, 2005, we saw the introduction of the Constitution that guaranteed the protection of every liSwati from inhumane or and degrading treatment. The fact is that the Correctional Services Act states that a prisoner awaiting trial should appear in front of a magistrate or judge, in the case of High Court remands, physically every week or two (not sure) so that the magistrate or judge can see the prisoner’s condition and listen to his complaints before remanding them for another week or so.

We wait with anticipation for the next appearance of the two legislators in court, and we hope the Human Rights Commission will look into these allegations seriously as they are in the public interest and can potentially damage the country’s image on human rights. This is a critical human rights protection clause as we realised, as a people, that we must not allow torture or inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment to exist in our modern society. The reality is that one might be in power at any level of authority today, and tomorrow the tables might be turned, and be a prisoner in the same jail they once controlled with an iron fist. Or maybe a relative finds themselves on the wrong side of the law; one needs to know that the Constitution is applied equally without fear to protect our relatives behind bars. Unfortunately, citizens don’t take our Constitution seriously enough to use it and test the Judiciary.

King’s orders

I have made it very clear that I am not in favour of the incarceration of the two legislators, and I believe several emaSwati, including warders within the Correctional Services, think like I do but are duty-bound to carry out their duties to the best of their abilities. I find it very difficult to believe that the King would give orders to beat up two of the most prominent political prisoners just for spite. My question is, what would he gain? The general population’s negative publicity and sentiments towards him should be enough to realise that it would not be worth the effort. If fact, it would work very well in the interest of the progressives camp as they would have ammunition to portray the King as brutal.

Politics brutal, not fit for royalty

Our prime minister and his Cabinet are spared the true brutality of politics and the King has to take all the flack simply because he is seen as the centre of political power. Recently the Queen of England passed away, and there was an outpouring of love and genuine sympathy for the royal family that shocked the world. Before her demise the Queen had appointed 15 prime ministers during her reign and had seen numerous scandals, wars, colonialism, communism and political upheavals. She remained loved by her people enough to hand her crown to her son Prince Charles, who is now King Charles III. This is simply because the English royal family realised that politics is brutal and dirty, and they were unwilling to risk the monarchy wallowing in the mud of politics. This was profound wisdom born from hundreds of years of experience. On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was beheaded outside the Banqueting House at Whitehall by a Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell. It would take another 11 years to have another king; crowned King Charles II.  

Every president or prime minister leaves office scared and bruised because of the nature of politics. What is happening to our King is natural in the game of politics. Politics is divisive by nature because resources are never enough to go around; someone will always be left crying foul. Some people love power and will use all in their means to get it. Royalty must not compete but allow the democratic process to take its course, with royalty blessing the people’s choice. Unfortunately, this is the only way royalty will remain loved in this day and age.
Comment septembereswatini@gmail.com

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: