Home | Feature | The police in politics

The police in politics

04/08/2013 04:19:00 By Jan Sithole

Font size:

Police Commi-ssioner Isaac Magagula.

It is unprecedented that over 40 policemen will contest general elections as it will be happening this year.

However, let me hasten to say there is nothing wrong with that, at least on the surface of it. Everyone is entitled to exercise their constitutional right to stand for elections or to vote for someone of their own choice.

It is our civic duty to do so and - I daresay - an obligation of citizenship.
Anyway, it is not the first time one or two officers from the police force had put themselves up for elections, except that in the past, these police officers had resigned from the force completely and handed over their police badges.

They cashed in their terminal benefits and walked away.
They used to make a clean break of it and the option of being reemployed by the force if one was unsuccessful in the elections was non-existent. However, this time around, things are different. Policemen are taking calculated risks, for want of a better expression.

We read from newspapers that instead of resigning from the force as expected most of these policemen have applied for, and have been granted, a leave of absence from their workstations. They have not resigned completely as governance rules would have directed.
If these reports are accurate, as they seem to be, this means these policemen, if successful in the elections, will become MPs who would still be enjoined to the payroll of the police force over and above an MP’s salary.

One would not want to read too much into something from which there is nothing much to be discerned and make a mountain out of a molehill.
Having said that, I will still not conceal my curiosity here.
I am curious to the point of being concerned for many reasons, which will become apparent as you read on.

As I have already said, this development is unprecedented on the one hand and alarming on the other. It is rare to see such a large number of policemen joining the political fray en masse, as though there is a mysterious agenda being pursued.

Maybe the first question which has to be raised would be if this arrangement has been carefully orchestrated within the police force itself or it is a mere coincidence.
My thinking points me to the former, solely based on circumstantial evidence and also because there are no coincidences in Swaziland.

To our credit as a country, we are very good forward planners, which is why it is a mystery how we are still failing dismally to revive the economy which remains restrained up to this day.
All too often, we deliberately forward-plan everything carefully, especially if there is a certain agenda to be served, then somewhat implement whatever we have been planning as if by coincidence.

I say this more so because the chances of 40 policemen agreeing to do the same thing in concert with one another and under the same conditions of a leave of absence are as good as being struck by lightning on a sunny day.

It is rare to see the police force act in concert unless of course there are peaceful demonstrators whose heads have to be bashed.

Reason

This leads me to another question which is: To what end will having 40 policemen infused into the halls of a political establishment like parliament achieve?
For what reason and for whose direct benefit is this being allowed, discounting the fact that taxpayers will have to foot the bill that comes with people taking leave of absence from their substantive jobs?

I repeat, policemen have a right to contest the general elections like everyone else and I hope I am perfectly being understood on that score.
I therefore pose the above questions with this full appreciation still in mind.
As citizens of this country, regardless of colour, creed, religion, profession, vocation or association, we all have a role to play in nation-building and development.
The police force is no exception to the rule.

However, all our intentions and the roles we wish to play must be made clear especially if they will impact the political space. Everything must be a matter of public record. We should be completely transparent and sincere about everything.

After all, we owe it to society, and indeed to the prospective voters, to divulge to them our full intentions for pursuing a particular role so that they can make their own minds as to which way to vote based on accurate data.

The days of clandestine secrecy are long gone; so are the days of blind patronage.
This is the 21st century and it demands all of us to act above board, especially when it comes to public office. It demands that we reveal our aspirations and to stand firm on our principles.

Hope

We cannot hope to achieve the vision of a First World until politicians espouse the principles of transparency and announce what they stand for without reservation.
Some will say these statements are being made out of political naivety on my part because, as everybody knows, politics is a dirty game.

I would like to differ slightly on this one because my take is that politics has never been, nor will it ever be, a dirty game.
Politicians are the dirty ones and not politics per se.
We should not blame the game for being ugly but we should blame the players for making it so. Equally, we should not blame politics for its absence of integrity and honesty but we should blame the politicians who ultimately determine, or undermine as the case may often be, the ethics of politics.

If there is an agenda the police are pursuing they owe it to everyone to come out and state it in no uncertain terms. It is not just the huge number of policemen who will hit the campaign trail in the next few days but it is the fact that the ballot box will be handed over to the police force after the elections, presumably for safe-keeping.

It is given to the police, and rightly so, because it is assumed the police have no interest in any political outcome except their mandate to ‘serve and protect’.
In this case, they protect votes from being rigged.

Everything being equal, there is nothing wrong with the police doing just that.
Then again, the small matter of a conflict of interest emerges here.
If policemen are interested parties in the outcome of the elections, seeing as we do, that they are contesting it in their numbers, doesn’t this disqualify or even preclude them from performing any custodial duties over people’s votes?

If ethical governance rules were to be applied in their strictest sense, the principle of conflict of interest would immediately disqualify the police force from thinking about coming any closer to any voting station; unless they are going there as private citizens to vote or be voted in.
They cannot go there even as police officers on leave of absence.

The mere fact that these officers are on leave of absence means that, for all intents and purposes and regardless of the outcome in the polls, they are still employed as police officers.
And they are still eligible for most of their police benefits including pension which makes one wonder which master they will serve more if there is this competition over their allegiance, the people or the police force?
I think the question is a no-brainer really and this should make everyone afraid – very afraid.