How long will Tinkhundla govt remain in denial?

Parliament ceases to be a reputable institution if it is contaminated by politicians who are hell-bent of putting personal interest self and personal achievement before the nation’s needs, thus spending available time talking about trivial things, instead of issues affecting the electorate with the aim of drafting new laws and or amending the old ones, and finally compelling government to deliver according to the wishes of the populace.

Members of Parliament (MPs) are guided by the Standing Orders inside the chambers and are monitored by the presiding officer and themselves.
This means when a member has been given the floor to speak, the other members must pay attention that he / she does not violate the Standing Orders and if it is the opposite then, other members shoot up on a point of order, for clarification, correcting the member or asking for withdrawal of already uttered statements.

Members are expected to have mastered the clauses in the Standing Orders to be effective in debates, all deliberations in the chamber and Parliament work.
On the other hand, so much is being said about democracy.
A dictionary meaning says it is a government by all the people usually through elected representatives.
The word ‘all’ means various variables like the whole population, two-third (2/3) of those entitled to vote in the population or not less than 51 per cent of those who cast their votes to the winning candidate/political party.
This is used in order to avoid the number one figure being less than the sum of the subsequent numbers, thus strength-ening the all power.

Elected suggests that any government that is run by non-elected representatives cannot be declared democratic.
Let us now look at the Swaziland Government, Parliament and Cabinet composition scenario, where there are 55 members elected by the populace, 30 members appointed by the king and 11 members elected by the members themselves.
The ninth Parliament has 96 members. Then, Parliament composition is not democratically constituted because 41 members are not a product of the electorate process as seen from the meaning of democracy and the 51 per cent benchmark.

The composition of Cabinet has further reduced the power of the electorate and endorsed the undemocraticness of government because both the prime minister and the deputy prime minister do not come from the 55 elected members.
This is also true with the Speaker of the House and President of Senate. In fact, a bigger number of Cabinet ministers come from the 41 members, suggesting that even cabinet, the main componate of government, is not democratically formed.

These are the representatives of the appointing authority not the electorate but still govern without the proper democratic mandate. Furthermore, let us move on to unpack the programmed, twisted and domesticated meaning of democracy and note that these national self crafted meanings do not alter the dictionary meaning of democracy.
The leadership of these nations then decide on the crafting of the documented constitutions.

The constitutional content is mainly influenced by leadership, legal practitioners and the ruling elite who may be having pressure from the international communities to have a constitution which embraces the content of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Declaration of December 10, 1948.
It says a constitution must have the Bill of Rights which has enshrined freedoms and rights of the citizenry.
These freedoms and rights are later manipulated to give the leadership an upper hand to run the country with some immunity.

By the way, what percentage of the constitution content came from the submissions of the Swazis on the ground? In other words, was it people driven?
Due to the imposed clauses in the constitution, then people can claim that the country is democratic without analysing the constitutional formulation processes.
The content of some national constitutions leaves a lot to be desired.
These guarantee the rights on one hand and systematically take away the same on the other hand. In the case of Swaziland, the electorate is said to be free to politically associate and deprived the same during elections processes.
The national constitutions, UN Declarations, African Union Conventions and Protocols, Southern African Development Community Principles on Human Rights and Politics have endorsed multi party system as a political tool for good governance and rule of law.

Therefore, the quest for Swaziland to embrace multi-partism is not just a demand by certain Swazis but is a system that has been proved to promote good governance, accountability, transparency, rule of law, peace and discourages corruption by all means.
Who would not want these in a political system?
It must be noted too that multi-party system does not prevent independent candidates to contest elections because it is their democratic right.

But as soon as they do that, a political formation has emerged, hence undergoes registration.
Well, a Parliament that does not have an opposition cannot effectively defend the interests of the electorate or force the ruling elite to deliver services to the populace. Many government operations seem to favour multi-party strategies.
The winning political party has documented ideology and philosophy of governance not just for Inkhundla or region but the whole country. Because of this documentation, it becomes easy to monitor and evaluate the ruling political party’s performance.
The national budget does not budget for Inkhundla or region but for the national items countrywide to benefit the entire populace.

Since the national budget system is targeting the entire country, how then can an MP  from Inkhundla influence the Budgeting and Planning Committee to channel some allocation to his/her Inkhundla?
On the other hand, my dear reader should not be misled by the Regional Development Fund (RDF) which is issued in a subvention format, thus treating the Regional Administration and their Tinkhundla like non-governmental organisation.

The fund has had many problems associated with regulatory changes, home and political considerations.
For starters, this fund was introduced to buy the community support for the dysfunctional Tinkhundla.
Government handles its budget in two distinct forms; recurrent and capital. In addition, it subvents some organisations to carry out their work.

It remains a mystery why government decided to outsource the RDF, thus making it difficult to monitor and evaluate the usage of the fund?
This fund has helped and promoted the decentralisation of corruption to the rural areas.
Those who might have different views on this assertion are asked to read the Auditor General’s Report of any past year.
How long will the Tinkhundla government remain in denial of its true status?

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: