Home | Feature | TINKHUNDLA CO-EXISTING WITH POLITICAL PARTIES, HOW POSSIBLE?

TINKHUNDLA CO-EXISTING WITH POLITICAL PARTIES, HOW POSSIBLE?

03/03/2024 14:57:00 Mfanukhona Nkambule

Font size:

The principal and mind-boggling question I have to answer this week relates to probable coexistence of political parties and Tinkhundla System of Government.

My answer to it was philosophical and I know the students from the University of Eswatini (UNESWA) did not comprehend what I was trying to put across. I said to them that anyone who deprives people of their right to support either of the two political systems acts outside the ambit or confines of international law or rather in conflict with the “basic” principles of democracy, if not in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the country is a signatory. It is a human right to support multiparty democracy. It is also a fundamental human right to align oneself with the philosophy of the Tinkhundla System of Government. Therefore, people who believe that Tinkhundla System of Government is undemocratic should be afforded the opportunity to state why they are of the view that this political system is unworkable.

Likewise, there are people who have some reservations about multiparty democracy and these people deserve utmost respect and sufficient space to speak their minds. Politics is like religion. Personally, I am a traditional Christian, a very staunch one, extremely conservative, but I respect someone who worships a stone as his god. As I do so, I am religiously correct. It is a pity, let me say so, that we lack people who are politically correct. Regardless of my faith, I am politically correct because I do not discriminate against members of the LGBTQI. It is very important to know that whatever a political belief one holds, another person is opposed to it. As you are opposed to multiparty democracy, another person sees negatives in the Tinkhundla System of Government. This is happening in the United States as well. There are no official political parties within the Nebraska Parliament. Nebraska is one of the 50 states in the US.

equivalent

It is located in the Midwestern region of the United States, bordered by South Dakota to the North, Iowa to the East and Missouri to the Southeast. It has a population of 1. 964 million people and was one of the top 10 agriculture-producing States in the US in 2021. In 2021, the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Nebraska was E2.267 trillion, the equivalent of US$123.9 billion. The largest industries by revenue in Nebraska are corn, wheat and soybean wholesaling, meat, beef, poultry processing, health and medical insurances. In Nebraska, there is no indication of a candidate’s political party on the election ballot. Actually, this State celebrates George Norris, the man many consider as US greatest senator, who said parties in the legislature just got in the way of government by the people. “Why would we want to return to a system like that?” rhetorically asked Norris. He died in 1944 aged 83. He was labelled the democrat of democrats and often collaborated with former USA President Franklin Roosevelt. Since then, legislators in that state do not represent their political parties in Parliament.

Charlyne Berens said in her article published by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star: “We Nebraskans should hang on to our one-of-a-kind nonpartisan, one-house legislature, not because George Norris had all the answers or simply because we want to be unique or just because we want to honor history.” She is the professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Journalism and Mass Communications and author of two books about Nebraska’s unicameral legislature – One House and Power to the People. She added: “Far better than the traditional partisan, two-house structure, our system lets us the people, be the government – the ultimate goal in a democracy. We should hang onto the nonpartisan unicameral because it works – for all of us.” In short, Nebraska is a unicameral nonpartisan legislature. Unicameral is having a single legislative chamber.

Todd Watson, the Political Director of the Nebraska Republican Party, said the nonpartisan label masked an underlying reality. This was Nebraska Public Media. “Nonpartisan makes people all feel warm and fuzzy inside. It makes for a nice story. But if you look at the votes, how they’ve gone down, in the last, oh, probably a good five, 10 years, it’s been pretty partisan votes on a lot of issues,” Watson said as quoted by the public media. The Nebraska Republican Party has endorsed returning to a partisan legislative system, which Nebraska had until 1937. Jane Kleeb, Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said democrats were against making such a change. “We deeply believe in the nonpartisan nature of the Unicameral and think that the votes and legislation that come out of the Unicameral are representative of the bipartisan nature of the Unicameral,” Kleeb said.

complexity

For almost 90 years, it is said that Nebraska’s one-house, nonpartisan legislature has served this State and its people well. Those who believe in nonpartisanship said the current proposal, Legislative Resolution 2CA, to return to a two-house, partisan body would expand the size and complexity of the legislature with little or no benefit to the people. They said although far from perfect, their current system has done well, living up to its original and commendable goals. Published by Nebraska Examiner, George Norris and the other promoters of the small, one-house legislature promised it would facilitate good government. They said the new system would be more open and accessible, more efficient and accountable. Nebraska’s Unicameral Legislature is reportedly smaller and more streamlined than a large, two-house body would be. So it’s easier for the public to keep track of each representative’s positions and votes and to let them know what they think, according to the Nebraska Examiner.

I am aware of advantages of political parties, as much as I know their disadvantages, hence, Mlungisi Makhanya, the President of the People’s Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) raised numerous eyebrows when he openly declared at a press conference held at Mountain Inn two years ago that the “struggle is for liberation, not political parties.” Makhanya, my cousin, said: “We are not in a struggle for multiparty democracy but that of liberation from royal supremacy.” Putting it into perspective, he did mean, at that time, they were fighting for the abolition of the institution of the monarchy. He talked about 'supremacy'. “There are political parties in Uganda. Are the people there liberated?” asked Makhanya rhetorically. As much as political parties have limitations and shortcomings, they do have advantages, which include encouraging public participation. Louise Gaille, a revered political analyst and author, says political parties, when structured within a representative form of government, encourage the average person to be politically active. He says political parties create checks and balances.

In other systems of government with multiple major political parties, negotiations over power and leadership are required to form a majority government. The goal of forming political parties is to create a system of checks and balances to prevent one person or one group from grabbing too much power in representative governments. He believes that they help decisions to be made quicker and also create competition among themselves. They compete for governance. Supporters of tinkhundla would also list advantages of retaining this political system.
They say tinkhundla promotes peace and stability. They argue that the country has been a tourist destination because of its peace and stability. Under Tinkhundla System of Government, we did not have no-go areas as a result of regional or national strife. Under the Tinkhundla System, they say as long as one is a liSwati, he or she is eligible for a seat in Parliament. They say the country’s political system allows everyone to participate in the elections, something that is not happening in multiparty democracy. The community-based approach is another element that supporters of tinkhundla say it works for the country. The majority of emaSwati are living in the rural areas and the political system’s stronghold is in the rural areas where it derives its power, relevance and influence.

coexistence

I am left with no side to align myself with, except to advocate for a dialogue to evaluate the pros and cons of coexistence between the two political systems. If the majority in Parliament are in favour of independent politics, they will then represent their constituencies (tinkhundla centres). They will form a government. If a party wins the majority vote, it will also form the government. Brothers and sisters, we have to appreciate the fact that political differences in Eswatini do not have a common goal. As a result, our differences should be contextualised to find common ground. This is because our political differences do not stem from one line of political philosophy just as it was the case during South Africa’s apartheid era where the common goal was racial discrimination. Robert Sobukwe, one of the revered freedom fighters of his time, rejected the ANC’s alliance with the South African Communist Party. He later resigned from the ANC to form the Pan African Congress (PAC). He was an anticommunist. Despite Sobukwe’s differences with the ANC, they had a common goal, which was to eliminate racial discrimination at all costs. We lack a common goal in Eswatini.