Wednesday, December 25, 2013


What has, over the years, somehow eluded public scrutiny is the difference between the Institution of the Monarchy and the Monarch. To adequately understand the difference between the two would maybe help people like the “representative” of the ANC who was in Swaziland and apparently was talking on behalf of the ANC. Articulation of the said gentleman as reported by the times of Swaziland exposes his ignorance on the Swazi matter and ignorance on the stand that the ANC has taken in regard to the Swazi issue.

Wise royals who chose to exit the political space to preserve
dignity of the Institution of the Monarchy 
Had the gentleman appreciated that the ANC does not regard Swaziland as democratic, he wouldn’t have uttered the words that, “You have elected your choice of MPs and some are ministers. If there are any problems one feels need to be addressed, these are the people who need to be confronted not the royal family. People should just learn to leave the King alone.”

If the ANC, in one of its resolutions, is calling for the democratisation of Swaziland, then it means that it does not recognise the government which part of is elected through sham elections and most of, through appointment by Mswati III. For Johannes Sibiya - who according to the times of Swaziland was representing the ANC - to refer the people of Swaziland to a government that is undemocratic as a solution, is clearly in contradiction of the ideals of the organisation he claims to represent. If Mr Johannes Sibiya would like to comment on the Swazi issue, he is very welcome, but should appreciate the facts of the matter, and familiarise himself with the Swazi narrative because he might end up embarrassing his political party by contradicting its views on the its official stand on Swaziland.

But to bring clarity on the issue of discussing issues of the monarch in public and how it has come about that the Monarch and even the Institution of the monarchy has become content for public discourse and at times even inexcusable vulgar public discourse.

Sobhuza II against counsel to the contrary, submerged both the Monarch and the Institution of the Monarchy into active politics. It is a given that politics are an undertaking of mudslinging and name-calling. In showing his back to culture of the Monarch taking counsel from the people, Sobhuza II decided to rather take the advice of an individual who was part and parcel of the South African Apartheid State, hence we find the Monarch of Swaziland and the people of Swaziland in the public domain exchanging insults, mudslinging, and name-calling, where Mswati III has gone as far as uttering threats of “choking” some Swazis, and his police officers have taken his advice and standardised the use of “the tube” in interrogation, especially interrogations of political activists.

One of the major requests of pro-democratic forces has been to ask the royal family as a whole to remove the Monarch and the Institution of the Monarchy from active politics. That it was a big mistake that Sobhuza II should have exposed the Monarch and the Institution of the Monarchy to the ridicule of public politics, because, either we like it or not, politics do get  slimy, slippery and at times vulgar. What is considered as heritage and dear to the people should be removed from the political space because it might end up losing value and become a thing of international ridicule as the Swazi Monarch has become.

Judging from Sobhuza II’s undertakings from the early 1920’s it becomes clear that when he finally decided to offer the head of the Monarch to the gallows of politics when he insisted on installing it as head of a political party, the prime motive was to control both the governing tool and the purse strings, as is evidenced on how the royal family controls the majority of business in Swaziland and how on top of that it further places an extra burden on the taxpayer by demanding that the latter must provide for the upkeep of the entire royal family.

Quoting the observation of an academic from the book When the Sleeping Grass Awakens by Richard Levine that, “In Swaziland extra-economic coercion takes the form of forced labour, forced contributions and forced removals. These lie at the heart of a repressive regime of accumulation which characterises comprador bourgeois power. Furthermore, these forms of repression are inconsistent with democracy and are central to an understanding of why there can be no democracy under the royal regime in Swaziland. Accumulation by the royal ruling class is dependent on state control and/or state connection, so that an attack on royal state power becomes an assault on the mechanisms of accumulation itself. At the same time, it must be asserted that there can be no democratic organisation of the state where direct producers are subject to extra-economic forms of coercion.”

It becomes clear that while the royal family remains within the political space, and not the ceremonial one, where the people contest for the provision of goods and services which the royal family is working day and night to monopolise, the Monarch and the Institution of the Monarchy will continue to be subjected to extensive scrutiny and ridicule, and at times to the point of emotional outbursts and rightfully so.

It is not hard to imagine how the Monarch and the Institution of the Monarchy is portrayed when it has removed itself or has been removed from politics. King Zwelithini of the Zulu rarely becomes the content for harsh political wrangling because he is not involved in politics, but only serves as a ceremonial figure. The only time when his name has been portrayed negatively was when he intended marrying an underage girl of fourteen, his habit of excessive spending, and the issue concerning the cruelty to the ritual bull during one of the annual Zulu rituals, otherwise king Zwelithini cannot claim to be subject to the extensive name-calling that king Mswati III has to endure, because he is not involved in day-to-day-politics.

 The sooner we have Mswati III remove himself or be removed from day-to-day politics, the sooner we will have an Institution of the Monarchy with integrity where people like Johannes Sibiya won’t need to make uninformed pleas for respect of the Institution of the Monarchy or the Monarch. Otherwise, in all honesty it is Sobhuza II that opened the prevailing ridicule on the Swazi Institution of the Monarchy, and it is like Mswati III is in full agreement with his father that it should be dragged in the mud until it loses even the last titbits of the remaining cultural credibility that Mswati’s traditionalists are trying to obliterate by involving the reed maidens in name-calling politics and by hurling the regular insult at the nation.

But to finally mention that, that which is the tool of the people is the Institution of the Monarchy, and that the Monarch is like a chief representative of this Institution and that his task is to serve as an errand boy for the nation, hence the king being referred to as a child because a child can be sent anywhere the parent feels is appropriate. That, “the king is the sun”, and all the other butt kissing that the praise singers embark on is just that, butt-kissing and has nothing to do on how the king is supposed to be culturally viewed.

That Mr Sibiya should appreciate that we say, “a king is a king because of the people”, and NOT that, “the people are people because of the king”. Maybe on digesting that Swazi expression he might appreciate that the people are never wrong even if the people are wrong. It is the people that are “the sun”, and the king derives his rays from the shine of the people. Actually the king is like the moon which reflects the shine of the sun; when there is no sun the moon is as cold and dark as non-existence itself. So it is quite unwise to ask the sun to stop scrutinising the moon because it is the sun’s shine that the moon becomes visible, otherwise it would be as invisible as a microscopic organism.  And to enlighten Mr Sibiya that the Swazi Nation as a collective is considered a thing sacred, and not a prop to stabilise the podium.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013


The misconception is to think that Incwala is uniquely Swazi when this ritual is practiced by a good number of organisations of the Satanic Order. The difference is that other organisations are secretive as this practice is not tolerated and mostly feared by citizens of the world.  In Swaziland the ruling order sells this ill as culture and the people follow like sheep to the slaughter because culture has been uniquely defined in order to sell the sick ideology that power can be maintained through cruelty and indecency when it is dominance and not power that is manufactured through such means.
Swazi Warriors dancing Incwala

It is well known that that those whose goal is to accumulate as much negative polarity as possible use sexual rituals and at times rituals of bestiality to achieve that end. Especially in the satanic circles, it is known that energy can be harvested if it is performed at particular lunar cycles and that the harvesting party should embark on such sexual rituals in a dominating manner in order to maximize the harvest.  Not that it is an alien practice really because all human being mostly unconsciously harvest energy either out of the self or into the self.  The difference is that in the negative world the knowledge of harvesting energy is shared and energy harvesting is practiced in order to sharpen the skill. 

As the topic of energy harvesting is not a common topic maybe to give an idea of energy harvesting. A typical energy harvest would be a man of the house finding the family in a happy mood when coming back from work and because he is bursting at the seams with fury soon the family will be in a bitter mood because the latter has harvested the negative energy, especially because humankind has unconsciously mastered the harvesting of anger. The antithesis of that would be for the same bitter man to walk into a church of singing born-again Christians, the possibility is that he will come out of that church in a much happier mood than he entered; the same concept applies in the negative world but it is a conscious, intentional, and informed harvesting. Of cause as the need for dominance grows, murder rituals and indiscriminate murder become the tools of choice to accumulate negative energy of even higher quality and quantity.

Christianity being the dominant global religion and having shut itself from knowing and understanding Satanism and similar practices because of preaching fear of this aspect of human life, has contributed to the prevailing global ignorance on this subject. To be more correct, this subject falls more under the heading "Negative Polarity" and less on the heading "Satanism" as is widely believed.

There are those whose purpose is to accumulate negative energy and it is those people that gravitate towards the practice of these sick rituals. The fact that Christianity has packaged sex and put it under lock and key in the holy of holies has prevented most of the knowledge that sex can also be used to increase positive polarity if embarked on in a non-dominating and harmonised manner, hence the strategy by the Negatives has always been to keep the feminine energy supressed in order to maintain the imbalance that they need in order to maximise dominance hence a negative energy harvest of a higher quality.

The irony is that a good number of the males secretly support patriarchy when patriarchies only benefit those whose purpose is to harvest negatively. If a male’s purpose is to harvest positively, he is just an equal looser as the female because patriarchy reinforces dominance and the exploits of dominance manufacture negative energy.

Even though we now know that civilisation was not imported from Europe but that there has been rises and falls of civilisations all over the globe, we still secretly and not so secretly believe that civilisation is a European import. Such beliefs are what makes us Swazis staunch believers that the Ndwandwe are the originators of Incwala and that there is no way that there could have been global network in previous generations where the knowledge of such rituals was shared because the prevalence of sex rituals in the negative world suggest a global commonality in these practices.

So we can claim that Incwala is not as African as we would have liked to believe because the signature rituals are practiced in Europe and other parts of the world too. But what we are clear about is that these rituals are practiced by negative entities and benefit mostly them and the royal family wants to delude us into thinking that there is something positive concerning the dark rituals of incwala by tagging the “first fruit” gimmick in the dark contraption because they know the sentiments we hold where livelihood and survival is concerned.

For a while we have been willing to play willing audience to this dark ritual. Maybe out of ignorance or the yearning to somehow belong to the “uniquely” medieval brand called “being Swazi”, or maybe we were even compelled by the wellbeing of the “first fruit”, but as time passes it becomes clear that Lozithe’hlezi  is a midday horror show  that more and more of us are realising that we do not wish to be a willing audience anymore; and that there are more constructive things to be achieved than the an annual cruel beating up of a black bull. That, coming to think of it, we do not know the origins of this ritual; maybe it was imported from elsewhere, generations ago, because it is not a culture born of either climate or geography, or any other norms of everyday living.

All we know is that we have watched the show and all its rituals which have all the signs of the dark negative world and we are refusing to buy any more tickets to this freak show and advise those that are still spellbound by it to take a much closer look and do some reflective thinking because a culture of a people is normally practiced by the people and not a few individuals while the rest of the people serve as cheerleaders to a ritual which is shrouded in secrecy where the people, like mindless livestock, sing and dance to entities they know not of. And the reality that Mswati and his inner circle cannot absorb all the energy generated in that setting so those in attendance will actually absorb the residue energy, because as surely as the body absorbs lightning, in like manner will it absorb any other energy, even though invisible to the naked eye.
Most of us have been caught up in the legitimacy of fact, science, reason, and logic that we have totally forgotten to be simply rational. Where has ever the cruel beating up of an animal resulted in anything positive? Why do the “ancestors” always insist on secrecy; what is there to hide?

What doesn’t make sense will always stick out like a sore thumb but our affinity to gullibility always insists that we stick around as the fool’s audience. It is not hard to find positives in the reed dance. As much as this pure culture has been hijacked by the royal family and its traditionalists by turning it into an anti-multi-party parade and a tourist’s freak show, its place as a means to safeguard and maintain the virginity of the girl-child is invaluable. It is not hard to imagine that even in a new Swaziland it can be revived to its pure intentions and it would serve the people well.  On the other hand though, to see the harassment and terrorism of the Bemanti (water-party) meted on the people just shows that it is an entourage of dominance. They are sent by the royal family to collect energy frequencies that are recorded within the items they collect, all over the country, so that the traditional scientists can ascertain the quality and the quantity of the energy levels in the country and while at it they remind the nation “who dominates” by instilling the fear of hell in especially the women who are rudely reminded of “cultural codes” that they are supposed to adhere to.

The intention is not to advice against attending Incwala; by all means do attend in numbers so that the residue negative energy can have enough hosts. The intention is to again catalyse reflective thinking and independent questioning. How does Incwala help in the development of Swaziland? Why does there have to be a beating of an animal if it is such a good thing? Is a beating a good thing? What has the black bull done that it should be subjected to such a harsh beating? Does the king really indulge in sexual dominance over the bull after it has been beaten into submission by young men who transfer their youthful pure energy into the bull when beating it? If the king does really have sex with the bull after it has been beaten, is he really having sex with the bull or harvesting the pure youthful energy of the young men? If the king doesn’t have sex with the bull, what does he really do and why? If the king doesn’t have sex with the bull, why is the praise singing of, “ejaculating into a human being and ejaculating into a cow” given to him?

If we are to be a self-determining people who will be equal caretakers of the Swazi Nation surely it is time we ask ourselves hard questions, even those that “trespass” into the domain of the ancestors that we are “supposed to fear”. Why do we have to fear the ancestor if they have our best interests at heart? The plea is that now is the time more than ever that every Swazi need to think independently of the stigmas, the prejudices and the stereotypes. It is time to think beyond tradition and culture; because surely, the country is burning under the present leadership whose other tasks are to serve other powers that we know not of. 

Saturday, November 16, 2013


welfare-state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

Transportation in Norway
Modern welfare states include the Nordic countries, such as IcelandSwedenNorwayDenmark, and Finland which employ a system known as the Nordic model.

A friend recently asked me how “workable” is the idea of a welfare state because in his understanding you can’t empower anybody by giving him the fish. Since he is a believer in the “fishing rod” way of doing things, I told him that what welfare states do is to avail a huge fishing boat that hauls in thousands of fish at a time. In the meanwhile the state keeps giving the individual the fish with the knowledge that sooner rather than later s/he will jump in the boat to go fishing because the temptation of enjoying the fruits of the boat load are much more compelling than the incentives of sitting around and enjoying the benefits of rationed fish. The boat in this instance signifying the high quality education and all the social well-being benefits offered in Nordic welfare states which rank as one of the best in the world.

Vito Laterza in his article written for Al Jazeera argues that the indigenous economies and social systems of Southern Africa in general and Swaziland in particular haven’t been given enough space and time to prove their case as tangible economies and social structures that could actually serve as alternative economies especially for the areas in question. He later argues in a Blog that such suppression of the local way of doing things is partly due to the democracy imported from the north. He further argues that the reason that people in Swaziland are not decisively calling for multi-party democracy is because they have seen the unworkability of the system and they feel safer with the, “old time religion”.

The structuring of democratic institutions might differ and also it might be a product of academia, but democracy in its essence is contained within the idea of fairness, so it is not unequivocally true that it can be imported. The fact that the call for multi-party democracy has been long in coming is because there has been a state sponsored campaign since the time of king Sobhuza II, which has worked day and night to demonise plurality, the schools have been used as propaganda institutions, and all the media in Swaziland is state controlled. So to say Swazis have not been heeding the call for democracy because they see value in the present Tinkhundla system is not an honest assertion.

However much I have tried to look at it, I have never really understood the concept of, “African solutions for African problems”. But such a statement has come to enjoy more legitimacy as the witch-hunt for the “imperialist” intensifies, and multinational corporations are trotting the globe under the protection of sovereign flags. We have been divided and ruled so many times that we too advocate for division as a way of dealing with the colonial post traumatic side effects that present themselves as hate rhetoric that is sold as self-assertion when in reality it is the lessons that  we have learned from master that, “the only way to gain control is by setting up, racial, religious, national, continental, and sexual groups”, which can then be asserted as exceptional entities thereafter the philosophy  that hold one man superior and another inferior rages like wild fire. When will we ever identify and assert ourselves as purely human beings and not the schisms that we have limited ourselves to? We have been hijacked and exploited by the global industrial complex and our search and rescue efforts have been almost exclusively focused on Western governments and not the multinational corporations that, in ignorant support we have - on our way to the witch hunt - bought one commodity or the other sold by one or the other of their myriad appendages.

The article by Vito Laterza seems to suggest that there must be, “Swazi solutions for Swazi problem”.  Not to isolate the article because there are those who believe that Swaziland will be liberated in a bubble, oblivious of the global context, some of which being well-meaning political activists. I am sure that Vito enjoys the security of a title deed or the comfort of a lease agreement wherever he is dwelling, but he then suggests that such comfort should not be enjoyed by Swazi people but that the latter should be grateful for the privilege of occupying space at a “minimal” fee.  It is clear that this twisted “freedom for the Nobles” and “freedom for the commoners” still lays latent within collective thought, and now and again it presents itself as the, “more equal, and less equal”, commodity that it is.

The article, at arriving at this “gratitude” that Swazis should feel, bypasses an integral part of the debate, which is that of Swazis being given back the land they were disposed of by the royal family, the colonial administration and foreign capital. As there is no credible documentation of who was disposed of what, that an equal redistribution of certain portions of land to those willing to work the land should be the first order of business. After such redress and an informed stocktaking, after which it is then that the issue of welfare and the extent thereof can be debated. The misconception has always been the assumption that throwing wholesale charity at the problem will solve it. Well, it has been done from the sixties by the West and clearly it is not working so the idea that direct involvement in the economy must be the solution must be a correct one because the throwing of the scraps in the direction of “the poor” is obviously having an opposite effect of the desired result.

Having commented on the article previously, I’m again compelled - by the author’s blog which still maintains  the claim that kukhonta (land tenure where the chief gives of land in exchange for a lifetime of unquestioning loyal indenture) has legitimacy in the future of Swaziland. To argue that kukhonta system is not only not similar to a welfare-state system but that it is an antithesis of the system, especially the Nordic Model.

Even though the article goes a long way into outlining the state of affairs in Swaziland, it falls short of selling its thrust point which is that of presenting the kukhonta tenure system as some form of welfare-state system. What the article misses is that the welfare state system ‘s main selling point is not grounded in charity but providing means to fall back onto before, in between, and after productive involvement in the economy of any given individual and how the social structures ensures that such an individual does not disintegrate into a statistic. The fact that the kukhonta system with its allocation of limited land barely addresses sustenance production which is not even a whisper of the real welfare-state system which goes beyond the economical need and addresses the myriad aspects of social well-being.

Actually to insinuate that any aspect of the Tinkhundla system somehow resembles a welfare-state system, especially the Nordic Model, comes across as an insult to real welfare if we consider that even the meagre elderly grant was historically founded as a tool to enforce loyalty and not a genuine means to address the plight of the elderly, which is evidenced in uncaring manner in which the initiative has been handled by the Tinkhundla regime where the initial value of the grant has drastically decreased even after an increase of 10%.

In my opinion Finland is one of the countries that serve as an example of a welfare system gone fantastically right, or rather a welfare state system that has been excellently managed and administered. The Finns make sure that all children get fed by providing free meals at school. They subsidize student travel, which they feel is a major part of the education process. 93% of Finns graduate from high school. All teachers in Finland must have a masters degree, which is fully subsidized. The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption, and generosity.

For the author of the article to put the Tinkhundla regime and the word “welfare” in one sentence took me aback, and for him to further rally on a claim he hasn’t conclusively argued, is in my opinion irresponsible because the reality is that we are dealing with the livelihoods of people who on a daily basis have to undergo one of the most poor living conditions seen on the globe today. It is my hope that the author of the article can write a paper that conclusively argues the claim that the kukhonta system carries any qualities of a welfare system or retract his claims. Having grown up under the system and having endured the nuances of its cruelty,  it is my opinion that his claims that the kukhonta system resembles a welfare-state system are unfounded and cannot be substantiated but as debate is such a free commodity, the author is more than welcome to argue his beliefs.

Just to state the obvious that if the article written by Vito for Al Jazeera was to be written by a Swazi activist and if such an activist were to find himself at arm’s length of the Royal Swaziland Police, surely that wretched soul would be strapped with handcuffs, slapped with a sedition charge and thrown into a filthy holding cell; and that is a fact which is a regular occurrence in Swaziland, and the only “welfare” given in Swazi prisons is meagre food rations, intimidation and torture.

Monday, November 11, 2013


Not so long ago in the Africa I grew up in it was quite a common phenomenon that a father of a home would pull in at 04h30 in the crack of dawn with parts of his face doused in white ash while reciting a tall tale of being abducted by ghosts for the whole night. Normally what would have delayed the fairy-tale husband would be the warm bosom of another woman.  The women saw through the idiocy but could only suffer in silence because contradicting a husband was one of many punishable offences in a number of traditional-codes where patriarchy was not only tolerated but promoted. This phenomenon still persists in present day but the excuses have become modern yet the idiocy inherent is still the same.

One can only watch in shock how the sustainable expose of Edward Snowden has invoked the very demons of idiocy in the NSA of America. It is a subject that does not need much study to figure out why idiocy and secrecy are peas in a pod. It has been proven time and again that an idiotic state of mind is not an innovative one because to, “blame it on the ghost” is as lame an excuse as, “blame it on the alcohol”. Idiocy is just a cheap trick juggler and wisdom never forms part of its “clever” passing show.

One of the main reasons why idiocy is prevalent in third world Africa as it is in allegedly first world America is the need for secrecy  in order to facilitate the unscrupulous accumulation of the influential few. Where there is a need for secrecy, idiocy will always rear its dumb head. It does no matter if such secrecy is required in "medieval" Africa where the burning loin is covered with a mere piece of cowhide, or in twenty first century America where  officials are dressed in well-tailored Armani suits and where manufacturing of terrorists has become a “logical” industrial necessity to justify the perpetration of the American war machine that serves as solid business base for corporations that have made it their business to profit from the spilling of blood of innocent people.

Having a low embarrassment threshold, it was with a flushed face that I had to watch Guantanamo Prison officials on Russia Today news channel, trying to idiotically  justify certain inhumane procedures employed on the prisoners. One official in a matter-of-factly tone mentioned that the force-feeding by using a tube on the prisoners is actually a painless procedure and that it only feels “strange” when inserted in the nostril. In furthering the idiocy, the official “proved” his theory by pointing out that the reason he ascertained that it is not painful is because the prisoners, “choose” the nostril they prefer.

Had I had been under the care of Guantanamo when I had to take successive painful injections for a serious infection, I would have been passed off as an enjoyer of the needle, it may seem. When the doctor started to tap-tap on the syringe to dispel the air bubbles I would hastily direct him to the butt chick that was less painful. The reason I would choose a particular butt-chick was because the injection was painful and not because I was enjoying it.

The expectation is that when moving thousands of miles away from GTMO (Guantanamo) which is a first world torture facility to Swaziland which is more or less a third world dictatorship, there would be fluctuation in the levels of idiocy, but such is not the case; catching idiocy is as similar as catching the flue. When looking at the parallels you find that the idiocy is literally verbatim regardless of geographical area, race, religion, or social status.

Recently when king Mswati III of Swaziland announced the name change of the oppressive Tinkhundla regime and that the name change was an instruction from God who spoke to him through stormy weather, the average reaction was that of shock at the level of idiocy contained within the announcement. Even though the ruler of the tiny African dictatorship is not known for his eloquence, he is not what could be termed as a complete idiot. As much as the “name from God” is a contradictory “Monarchical Democracy”, it is known that Swazi officials, including the king do get quizzed now and again on the plurality of the undemocratic Tinkhundla system and i guess the king thought he could finally-put-the-matter-to-bed and quash all the yapping that was going on. But the laws of idiocy maintained that from then onward he was not only required to explain what Tinkhundla is, but he now has to explain to English speaking people what Monarchical Democracy is.

From its inception in 1978 the Tinkhundla governing system of Swaziland was supposed to serve as a tool to maintain some level of secrecy in order that the different types of accumulation for the royal family could be perpetrated without the greater population being the wiser, hence the the populace funded Tibiyo Takangwane still being "held in trust for the nation" by Mswati III with the clarity of its legal ownership being a question considered seditious ramblings by the powers that be.

There are a number of idiotic statements that have been uttered by Tinkhundla officials in order to maintain the secrecy and to keep the secret out of public debate. A recent being the dangerous statement by finance minister Majozi Sithole when he misled all involved that Swaziland was out of the financial crisis when it got the allowance from Southern African Customs Union (SACU).  Sithole knew better than most people that Swaziland was in a financial crisis before Swaziland got into the present financial crisis but he uttered the statement as a form of sleeping pill to the populace so that the issue that had become less secretive could get out of public scrutiny, and they, as employees of the regime could get on with the job of siphoning state funds for themselves, the royal family and the elite.

So regardless if it is an idiotic statement issued by a US GTMO official that there is transparency when GTMO radio station is not even allowed to broadcast GTMO news, or if it is issued by Swaziland government spokesperson Percy Simelane saying that South Africa thinks it has a better democracy because it is better at soccer; it doesn't matter; idiocy is idiocy. The idiocy and the quality thereof is usually, most times than not, brought about by the level of secrecy needed in order that a few can benefit at the expense of the many.

The stooges of profit will sell Privacy and Secrecy as the same difference while their real definitions are miles apart from the hypnosis flashed on the silver screens. The point is that GTMO is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the Cuban soil which is being held at sanction-point by America, but that GTMO is a cruel enterprise that can be easily exported as Iraq has learned the hard way.

America is presently constructing a costly embassy in Swaziland which has brought confusion to some of us as the investment does not seem to be complimenting the strategic potential. Instead of America decreasing its mission to dictatorship Swaziland, it looks like it has just begun arriving and the intentions can only be content for speculation while we contemplate the future of the headquarters of AFRICOM which is at present located in grumpy spied-upon Germany.

The second point is that when the shit hits the fan, it is not only Swazis that will be abducted by ghosts, but a good number of Americans will come along for the paranormal ride if the unhealthy tendency of America of playing forked tongued snakes and sliding ladders with known dictatorships is not brought to a screeching halt by the American people. It has also become public discourse that it is not the American people that are perpetrating atrocities around the world but that the American governing tool is held hostage by corporations that are using it for profiteering, and that the American people are just as victims as the rest of us.

 So when king Mswati III and his wives visit Las Vegas to splurge, it would be prudent of Americans to take part of the responsibility for indiscriminately distributing AID to known dictatorships like Swaziland, claiming to have oversight on the matter while escalating corruption of the government has proved otherwise. This practice of cushioning dictatorships by propping up state affairs through funding parts of the economy, has been part of the problem that has sustained the abuse of human rights, especially in Africa. It is fact that now we do speak English in Africa, which part of is thanks to financial AID, but the multi lingual trick hasn't resulted in reduced poverty and there is no need for algebra to figure that out because hunger has a distinct smell. 

The fact is that the globe is becoming smaller with advancement in communication and transportation, and what was once a physical border can easily be turned into one country with a click of a button. So my problem in seemingly insignificant Swaziland can easily turn itself into a walking-talking-and-asking-embarrassing-questions-in-Washington-DC, like the Pakistani family which was in America recently to ask the reason why their grandmother and mother had to be bombed by a drone.

It is also clear that beyond Edward Snowden’s expose, the spying/secrecy machinery would have come up with more secure measures to prevent being found out in the future and that under such wolf tendencies, it does not matter if one comes from Lesotho or America, and that in the eyes of the wolves all is prey regardless of nationality, religious or ethnic background. So it looks like the cruel idiocy is about to reproduce abundantly and while we continue to define ourselves as this and that and not as human beings, the wolves will gorge themselves to obesity. 

It is clear that it is not about nationality or any other label anymore, but about those that want to serve themselves at the death of many and those that see value in the selfless service to others. To reiterate that American exceptionalism is just a hoax sold by the agents of big industry to create a cult like atmosphere so that Americans can think that they are different from other human being when the reality is that we are equal with different talents; the prime law of these bloodsuckers has always been divide and rule, and it will be always be divide and kill even if it comes dressed in the church cloth.

 It would serve as some sort of comedy to mention that Swaziland, a country with 69% of the population living in poverty, with the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in the whole world, also has been sold the idea of exceptionalism, and there is a good number of Swazi people that believe the delusion that they are exceptional in comparison to other human beings. In my opinion Swazi people that believe in the delusion called Swazi-Exceptionalism feel stronger about their exceptionalism that Americans who believe in American-Exceptionalism. With the Swazi people, exceptionalism is a thing of deep emotion that has been sold as tradition and culture by those that serve themselves at the suffering of others because bloodsuckers are all over the globe.

 The only thing that seems to be American-Exceptionalism is the "Lone-gunman" phenomenon that has defied science's scrutiny, which only leaves the conclusion that it is a product "made in America", which should have Americans asking who the target market is supposed to be for this sick product and who is manufacturing it because nobody just ups and starts shooting up the neighborhood. The reason for Muslim extremism is known and the sicko in Norway was clearly trying to set up a NAZI franchise. What beats me is why Americans are not asking themselves why the lone-gunmen phenomenon is only happening in America on such a regular basis.  

I guess the whole point is to inspire reflective thinking on the division and that most of the schisms are a decoy from the fact that we are all human beings and the only difference is that there are those that are hard at work to bring suffering to fellow human beings and there are those that are working towards their fellow human being’s positive evolution. So when Mswati III's  wives are spotted in Las Vegas spending like there is no tomorrow, Americans must know that the joke is on them too because American taxpayer’s money does indirectly fund the lifestyle of Mswati III who has  to finance the expensive taste of more than ten wives who have acquired the taste for the Gucci look.  We are all being taken for a ride by these Takers and people of the first world think the joke is on the people of the third world when the joke is on all of us.

Friday, October 11, 2013


Twice the youth of koNtshingila have marched in protest against an injustice to be denied the right to be ruled by their own chief. They even had to climb a mountain to reach Hlatikhulu town where some of theirs had been incarcerated by the police for the protest. Apparently the youth were made aware that police were blocking the entrance routes to Hlatikhulu, hence the choice of using the less travelled paths.

A protest in London against Human Rights abuses in
Now that a few of the dissenters have been charged with Sedition, it is unclear who the ringleaders are. Knowing the judicial system of Swaziland it is doubtful if this case’s conclusion would have fingered the real “perpetrators”.

It has almost become common practice that police investigators must use torture as a means of probing a case, especially cases of the sedition that have become a default charge for whoever disapproves or complains about the authorities. It is doubtful if motive will form part of the argument for Tinkhundla regime, because “confession statements” have become the gold standard within the Swazi Judicial system.

This case is likely to drag for a few more months, and there is a high possibility that the evidence brought in court will be so flimsy that it will boil down to the magistrate giving the alleged seditionists a sentence for arson and the censored publications selling the final story as nothing but a bunch of disgruntled youth who set the grass on fire.

The first appropriate question would pertain to ascertaining what the youth of koNtshingila stand to gain from the protest. Judging from their number one demand of wanting the enthronement of their own chief, it becomes clear that they would not be the prime benefactors of the spoils of the protest. They might find favour with the newly enthroned chief, but their benefits would more or less be restricted to being borrowed more pieces of land and being the starring-extras in a feast prepared by the chief in honour of the “protest heroes”. The rest of the bounty would be enjoyed by the chief with family and friends.

Normally spoils of chiefdom are a stretch of land that the chief can borrow to whoever they find worthy to be a resident of the chiefdom. Together with the right of apportioning the land, the chief also earns the right to extract tribute from the subjects, and crimes that fall under local jurisdiction also come with fines in the form of cows, goats and cash, which also form part of the Chief’s accumulation structure, which is outside of the special tribute extracted strictly to be surrendered to the king.  

It is doubtful that the youth of koNtshingila could be the chief architects of the protest in the light that they stand to gain so little from a favourable aftermath. But their bravery and resilience is proof enough that the ringleaders correctly identified a youth in need of an answer. Arming the youth with the wrong question, the ring leaders must have watched in amusement as the youth eagerly earned themselves prison time while they (ringleaders) earned themselves the audience of the royal family to again raise a discussion that seemed to have been dying a permanent death through neglect.

The second appropriate question would pertain to ascertaining if the youth will receive a fair trial, or maybe that the whole affair will be dismissed with a superficial explanation that, a traditionally oriented group of young people who defied the norm of questioning their elders and by default committed a taboo of infuriating the “ancestors”, will be found guilty for a simplistic offence as calling for an allegedly overdue enthronement of a chief. 

As things stand, a traditional matter is being tried through modern courts, while at the same time being mediated at a traditional level. Once again progress will be stalled as two governing systems compete for authority. It is almost a given that this will also end up twenty one shades of indecision as modern law tries to accommodate traditional norms that are stubborn to conform to the norm of human rights and a modern law that has now and again not been adhered to by traditional authorities because Swazi customary law still holds sway over an authority at pains to justify and maintain a system that has served as a perfect camouflage for illegal accumulation.

With little chance of forcing surrogacy of the youth’s “delinquency” onto the pro-democracy camp by the Tinkhundla regime, as has always has been the practice, it then opens up an opportunity for it (the Tinkhundla regime) to finally concede that what has been asserted by pro-democratic organisations for all these years is in effect true; that there is a an overwhelming element of counter productiveness with these contradicting governing systems, and that maybe to look for an alternative coherent system would be the best solution.

A case of striking teachers where the king intervened without consulting with the executive and the judicial arms of the government remains to this day unresolved and is an enduring ticking time bomb because of the disjointedness of these two systems.
In a 2013 discussion paper on Justice Sector and the Rule of Law, Maxine Langwenya observes that, “Inconsistencies between Swazi law and international human rights standards also exist with regard to the right to a fair trial. There are many other statutory and customary laws which are currently in force in Swaziland, despite being inconsistent with international norms on human rights, the rule of law and the delivery of justice.”

Almost ten years earlier when the IBA (International Bar Association) sent a mission to Swaziland in January 2003, led by Dr Phillip Tahmindjis, IBA Programme Lawyer, one of their recommendations was that, “There should be a clear constitutional or statutory provision acknowledging and clarifying the relationship between, and the status of, Roman-Dutch common law and customary law in Swaziland.”

It seems like once again the two judicial authorities are heading for another convenient clash where the collateral will be the youth  or the "citizens" of koNtshingila. It is doubtful if the youth will even taste the scraps of victory considering that the no-nonsense Gelani accused of being an acting chief for more than two decades enjoys connections in the highest of places.

It is not obvious if the Tinkhundla judicial system will use the youth of koNtshingila as an example to aspiring “revolutionaries” who want to stage uprisings within the feudal system, that such will be met with stiff sentences equal to those of the “terrorists” that are presently languishing in jail without being given decent trials, or maybe that it might sell it as a case of a bunch of delinquent youth who smoked one too many joints of the home-grown, and dismiss the youth’s uprising as, Buntfwana (Childishness). 

The regime can also choose to be forward thinking and use this case as a landmark case to stop and think of the orientation of the population’s support; to really ascertain if the winds of change are not nippy enough to initiate meaningful change other than a constitution authored in the royal court.

Cases like these cannot be sold as “unSwazi” influence of the pro-democratic movement. These youth have shown that there is discontent as strong as a raging grass fire within the population.  The statistics are that, around 80% of the eligible voters - according to government figures and estimations of pro-democracy observer missions - either boycotted the election or were uninterested. Those that voted inexplicably signified the need for change as they voted for an almost entirely new House of Assembly, while giving an effective vote of no confidence to some of the individuals that were evidently favoured by the system during their time in office.

 But again with the system having acquired the bad habit of laughing in the face of inevitable change, the king confidently decided he was not going to complement even the overwhelming vote of the minority, but by sticking to mostly family members when appointing the rest of the unelected legislators. In his way he again braved nature and its inevitable change, and once more he has had another laugh at the expense of the inevitable in continuation with the perpetration of nepotism.

Saturday, September 21, 2013


How to democratically vote for a dictatorship
The year  2013 did not begin like other years in Swaziland. It was a year known as election year and there were no prices for guessing that there would be a tense standoff between the government and pro-democracy movement.

The government did not speak in words but in action as there was a clear stepping up of security alertness and clamp down on dissent. Democracy activists were arrested for the weakest of dissenting views and activities, and even religious gatherings were abruptly dispersed if there was so much as a whiff of the gathering being associated with the democracy movement.

The zero-tolerance-to-election-disturbances brief given to the Swazi security forces was regarded as so important that in over-eagerness the police banned a march of women who's intention was to protest against the ill of a man who had paraded his partner naked for three kilometers. The police later apologised for the blunder but not after it had generated negative publicity in international media for a Tinkhundla system that was clearly bending over backward to put its best foot forward.

The content of the "classified" brief was also to leak through the stepped-up blatant propaganda which saw the independent Times of Swaziland competing on an almost equal footing with the royally owned Swazi Observer, with the times going as far as labeling the pro-democracy campaign called Global Week of Action ON Swaziland, as Global Week of Action AGAINST Swaziland.  It was clear to even the least attentive of observers that Tinkhundla regime under the leadership of Mswati 111 had dictated a no-nonsense brief that left no doubts as to the liberty to disobey to the briefed.

For obvious reasons it was also clear that the flagship promotion tool for the government in 2013 was to be the elections. From as early as the last months of 2012 almost every government official who had something to say about anything had to incorporate the “values” of the elections in his/her speech. The king regularly urged his subjects  to go out in numbers to vote for their representatives, and advising on “only” Christian candidates as the preferred religious orientation.

The Democratic movement  not only intensified it campaign on boycotting the election inside Swaziland in 2013 but it  also formulated common demands which the umbrella bodies were mandated as the coordinating bodies to package the demands and distribute them for public consumption on behalf of the pro-democracy organisations. One of the strategies identified as important in the planning meeting was the need to step-up the pro-democracy campaign regionally and internationally.

2013 also saw very successful attempts at unifying the pro-democracy movement. PUDEMO, NNLC and TUCOSWA embarked on a campaigning trip to Germany as a unit to speak in one voice on the lack of democracy and the respect of Human Rights in Swaziland. PUDEMO further took the campaign to some of the Nordic countries. Political parties and civic organisations from all walks of Swazi life gathered together to formulate a common campaign that will serve as a single voice of a united pro-democracy movement of Swaziland.

Within the Swazi political labyrinths, there are those that feel that boycotting the elections is tantamount to letting the Tinkhundla regime rule undemocratically without a challenge, and they feel that this challenge would have better traction if it was to be exercised from within the government structures, hence their choice of partaking in the elections that critics refer to as selections.

Most of democracy activists feel that the idea of “fighting from within”, is unlike lending one’s efforts to strengthening and legitimising a system that is undemocratic, and repressive. Sive Siyinqaba; Sibahle Sinje a registered-cultural-group-come-unregistered-political-party, and an unapologetic supporter of  monarchism is a leading proponent in the strategy of fighting from within.

 Pro-democracy activists have on several occasions called  Sive Siyinqaba to task on the change that they have effected in the well over fifteen years that they have fought the Tinkhundla system from within, but the only tangible evidence is that they - according to Musa Hlophe, who is a leader of SCCCO (Swazi Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations) - in coalition with SCCCO were able to stop the purchasing of a plane for king Mswati 111. But what puts a damper to this achievement is that thereafter Mswati 111 did acquire a private jet under mysterious trade manoeuvres, and that a strategy whose single achievement was to only stop the purchase of an aeroplane in over fifteen years is not a strategy that imbues confidence, when the expected progress is a change in legislation and policy in the direction of democracy.

The fight from within has always been disregarded as an indulgence for pro-monarch “activists”, but when Jan Sithole, a former unionist, with the financial backing from a Danish political party,  entered the political scene advocating for the “within” strategy, the fight from within earned itself the right to be debated as a legitimate subject. The debate continues, maybe with the hope of a conclusion now that Jan Sithole, a President of SWADEPA which is a known political party, has been elected to parliament. The joke is that Mswati 111 might appoint him as the minister of labour as a way of teaching unions the lesson of irony.

During the time that Sibahle Sinje has been fighting from within, there has been almost nothing, if not nothing at all, to show that the fight from within has had any impact; besides if Sibahle sinje is yet to divulge, but that too is doubtful considering that overall there hasn’t been change within the Tinkhundla regime that would suggest that there has been some covert advocacy for legislation and policy change.

So it becomes clear that the real opposition continues to be the pro-democracy activists that are advocating for democracy from without, and the clamp down from government security forces on organisations that are fighting from without is a credible pointer as to the opposition that is really opposing.

The Tinkhundla Regime’s fortification of the the political space is a credible pointer that pro-democracy activism has grown in leaps and bounds in Swaziland, because it is common sense that the strength of the clamp-down on dissent is more or less directly proportional to the strength of the dissent.

So as Swaziland watches on of what will become of the “fight from within” experiment, where Jan Sithole has volunteered as the prominant guinea pig, it is indisputable that real dissent will only come from outside, as it has been this very outside dissent that has educated Swazis, that now, the word democracy is spoken in abundance even though at times it may not yet be fully  understood.

 It is also indisputable that it is the "fight from without" that has created an environment where some Swazis have found it possible to "fight from within", but it may then seem that new politics are suggesting that the child called "fight from within" is now suggesting to its mother, "fight from without" to abandon the strategy that brought it into existence to pursue a strategy that seems to be permanently arrested in infancy.

In 1982, one would talk about democracy and people would think of anything from a kind of high end coffin to speculating that it might be a name of an organisation that deals in food aid. Gradual direct and indirect political education has ensured that the people are gradually exposed to lessons in politics, even if it may be elementary and informal lessons in quality, but the reality is that there is progress even if at times it seems like the progress is travelling at a snail's pace.

The results of the final 2013 elections have helped in proving that Swazi people are not the submissive ignorant subjects that they have been modeled as, but that they are an intelligent, assertive and a people very much ready to determine their destinies. Most MPs, especially those that had clearly shown to have developed swollen heads and had embarked on self-gratification sprees were not reelected, even though it is not known how the king might deprive the people even the scraps of freedom that fell off the master's table by appointing those that the people rejected. The final voting of 2013 has proved that were the Swazi Nation to be given total democracy, they would choose well, especially if they were allowed to choose their own Prime Minister.

That democracy that incorporates a people's government will exist in Swaziland is not a matter of debate because in appreciating recent history, the logical conclusion is that what progresses, regardless of the speed, will in time reach its destination, even if the destination is the beginning of further progress. The fact that Mswati 111 is presenting a half and half of a name, regardless if it was a product of a vision, a dream or a nightmare, is significant enough to give confidence to foresight that democracy is the future regardless if such will be achieved through removing Monarchical from the king's version, or coining it as the democracy that is practiced in almost all first world countries.

Thursday, September 19, 2013


Enter the Matrix
It has become clear that due to the international pressure and the general busyness of the task of running an absolute monarchy, we have volunteered to draft the foreword for the much anticipated Monarchical Democracy textbook. We know that his majesty is kept very busy through explaining the ideology of Tinkhundla, but that is just about to become a thing of the past as the Monarchical Democracy textbook will be handed out to all those forward people asking too many questions about our Traditional System of government.

I think i don’t need to repeat that Monarchical Democracy, first and foremost, is the marriage of the Ballot box and the Monarch, as his majesty has so elaborated on a couple of occasions. To those pessimists that are foreseeing a divorce, please do not bother yourselves because his majesty clarified that Issue not so long ago that our traditional structures do no permit divorces. So this marriage between the monarch and the ballot box is forever. Yes, it is very different from the western marriage.

There might seem like there is confusion on the ownership of Swaziland, but let us make it clear that our forefathers spilled a lot of blood for our clan to own Swaziland. That is the very reason that we will not attend the incwala that will be held by the recently crowned Maseko clan in South Africa. Those idiots have taken advantage of the border issue and through the idiocy of Nhlavana, they have declared themselves royal. Have they ever spilled any blood to deserve such?

But this foreword is not about the Maseko, so we will head back to the main issue. When looking at the two words which are “monarchical” and “democracy”, you will realise that the dictionary clarifies them as two words that mean two opposing things. It is like saying, “I am going Up down.” The beauty is normally in the confusion. It creates a more or less mythical atmosphere. We didn’t call ourselves Siyinqaba for nothing. The whole thing is like poetry. You know like, “the silence is too loud.” Monarchical means an absolute rule by a Monarch, and democracy means representative rule or rule by the people. The trick is that after everything has been explained the audience must remain none the wiser.

In effect the system does not allow any interference from the people. We rule absolutely. Yes, due to these constant noises from inside and the international community we have created structures that might seem like they are a full democracy, but the beauty is that after we create such dummy structures, we then create structures above them to veto any decision that comes from below that we do not like. As you know that at the apex then sits his majesty with full power to veto everything below.   If academics and the other buffoons were clever they would use the point that the system is “fully undemocratic” because his majesty sits at the apex with power to veto anything and everything. But no, they take the bait of proceeding into the maze that we have created trying to sound academic about everything as they analyse this and that.

You should see the confusion, especially with the academics as they analyse the “democratic” structures. Now it is almost official that the system is “not completely undemocratic”. One valuable lesson we have learned is that academics fear to sound ridiculous, so we make the whole thing so ridiculous that they have no choice but to declare us “not undemocratic”, or stand the risk to sound as ridiculous as we have made the system to be. Funny isn’t it?

So basically with the Monarchical Democracy book we are trying acquire as sort of a default “no comment”. From now onwards to whoever wants to know about out governing system, we will assign an individual who will travel with his majesty everywhere so that he can hand out a booklet to all the curious minds out there. Yes we will have it in a textbook form and a compressed version which will be packaged in a hand size booklet that will be used for propaganda purposes.

Im sure you are asking why the foreword is not getting to the point where it clarifies Monarchical Democracy. Well my friend, as mentioned earlier the trick is that after you have read everything you remain as ignorant as when you began reading.

But because we can be generous, we will just give you a teaser on what a Monarchical Democracy is. Especially because we know you enjoy reading the foolish stuff hence a post that has enjoyed over thirty thousand comments on Facebook is a post that talks about pastors, snakes and the underworld. Yes, we do monitor that because we like it when the people focus on the useless stuff while we enjoy their taxes without any interference.

If we can jerk your submissive mind back to reality we could remind the reader that just now in this foreword we promised to give a teaser on explaining the Monarchical Democracy, but I am very sure the reader’s mind was already drooling on what we would further say  in relation to the post on Facebook, and had already forgotten of the real issue which is thee clarity on the Monarchical Democracy.

We know you are very curious, and we know you want to know what a Monarchical Democracy is. But my friends, no one can tell you what a Monarchical Democracy is; you have to experience  for yourself to know it. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013


Prince Masitsela: One of the main achitects of the
undemocratic Tinkhundla Regime
Swazi people have never been given an opportunity to independently decide if they want to be ruled through a multi-party democratic system. On the run-up to the 1964 elections king Sobhuza 11 had already voiced his reservations concerning political parties. The reason that there were three elections conducted under multi-party democracy was because the first two elections were conducted under the threat of an independence that hadn’t been officially granted by the British administration.

The reason that in 1973 Sobhuza 11 had to finally undemocratically steal all ruling power was because the campaigning for the 1972 elections had proven to be a nightmare for the Imbokodvo National Movement (INM).

 One Swazi woman recalls on how Price Masitsela would appear at all manner of ungodly hour at her homestead to request services of her husband who was known for his oratory skills. Apparently NNLC’s education on the benefits of multi-party democracy had more than taken root but were flourishing in spite of a barrage of state funded propaganda that multi-democracy was an equivalent to bloodshed. What terrified the living daylights out of the woman was that her husband had been a member of the NNLC previously, and was viewed as a traitor by members of the NNLC.

Competition for votes was so intense that the woman felt very unsafe when her husband had to leave with Prince Masitsela on many occasions. She said times of Masitsela’s arrival at her homestead ranged from 11 PM to 3 AM, because later than that another, Prince or another INM campaigner would have already arrived to whisk  her husband away to wherever area the NNLC  had gained popularity. Apparently Masitsela was the early riser or non-sleeper as he was the one that acquired the services of the orator most of the times as the elections campaign turned him into a nocturnal creature.

She said that at times the situation would get so terrifying that, “At one time I had to ask Masitsela to drop me off at my sister’s place because as soon as he had left with my husband, I wouldn’t be able to sleep thinking the NNLC members would break into our house”

She said the reason that she feared for her life was because some NNLC members would talk about killing her husband when they were aware that she was within hearing distance. She said her husband would shrug it off as propaganda tactics of which he was well aware of, but she said that to her it was a time of heightened fear.

It was not only the woman that was terrified but Sobhuza 11 and most of the aristocracy were at pains to contain an NNLC which had made inroads into areas that the aristocracy wouldn’t have dreamt that it (NNLC) would penetrate.

According to the woman almost every area that her husband would visit with Masitsela or one of the princes, would convert from being an NNLC area to an INM area. She says her husband was so gifted with his oratory skills that king Sobhuza 11 gave him the name, MdumbadumbanePresumably the other enhancer of the oration was that it was based on a lie that instilled fear in the audience, which made it easy for the people to change their minds.
 Funny enough Swaziland was to be later subjected to a State indoctrination radio show called Khala Mdumbadumbane.

The INM based its 1972 campaign on a lie that political parties brought violence. When I asked the woman on what else she could remember about the wording of the INM’s 1972 elections campaign besides that political parties brought violence, she said, “Angitsi nguloko lokwakumcoka kutsi batfu bavele basabe ema-party.” (What was important was that people should fear political parties.)

The fact that Sobhuza 11 had his preconceived fear of political parties was the reason that the INM’s 1972 election campaign was based on a lie. Sobhuza 11 made his reservations  on political party democracy known to the British Administration prior to the 1964 elections by mentioning that he did not think that it would work well with the Swazi way of life.

But on the backdrop of two successive defeats, and a mildly restricted political campaigning, the NNLC proved that multi-party democracy might after-all, contrary to Sobhuza’s beliefs, work quite brilliantly with the Swazi way of life when it won three seats in parliament.  The Mpumalanga constituency had given a king an effective thumbs-down. Three seats might have seemed like a humble representation to a regular person, but it was more or less a massacre to the INM and the aristocracy at the time.  Sobhuza 11could not let the people catch on like that and disturb the accumulation machinery, so, “walugoba lusemanti” (struck the iron while it was still hot) through a decree that from that day on, all power was vested in him. He went on and even banned political parties. 

Not only was the control of the governing tool important for the sake of comprador  accumulation, but it  insured that  it was complemented by state controlled accumulation. With winning three seats, the NNLC had shown potential to be a ruling party. With the NNLC in the driving seat, the possibility of clamping down even on the compador accumulation was very high. So Sobhuza was not going to take chances by letting a bunch of "wannabes" take control of government. Actually for the fact the all the wealth held by the king was held under the claim of holding it "in trust of the nation" required that Sobhuza stay in power, otherwise on securing power the NNLC could say that it was then the representative of the people and could demand that Sobhuza hand over all the wealth.

It would have been prudent for the king that came after Sobhuza 11 to backtrack to his father’s mistake of violating the sacred Swati saying that, “Inkhosi yinkhosi ngebantfu” ( A king is a king because of the people). But king Mswati 111 was not to do that. He was to use his father’s blunder as a stepping stone to deviate further from the Swazi way of life.  In 1989 on the backdrop of people’s demands, he uttered the first public insult to the Swazi people that was to serve as a starting point for more blatant insults directed at the nation. That insult was also to serve a starting point to stepped-up arbitrary arrests enforced through the Apartheid style, 60 day detention.

It is on this knowledge that we stand confident that until Tinkhundla Regime backtracks to 1973 and take lessons from that point, it will continue to be asked to continuously clarify what Tinkhundla system is, and it will continue to give an incoherent answer because was the system to be defined for the repressive tool that it is, it would appear like the wolf that it is and not the sheep that it is being sold as by those that accumulate through it. It will continue to have its supporters clutching at straws trying to find adequate definitions even to the point of seeing visions through bad weather,  but beyond the dilly-dallying it will remain a tool of accumulation which has submerged over two thirds of the population in poverty, has created the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the world, and according to Forbes magazine it has left Mswati 111 with an estimated 200 million dollar as his personal fortune, besides the billions generated by Tibiyo Takangwane which is supposed to be a national fund but is used as the aristocracy’s personal bank account.  

Even if the supporters of Tinkhundla could write a book thicker than two leather-bound king James version of the bible, they still wouldnt be able to explain Monarchical Democracy which is a confusion of two opposing words. Actually it would be wiser for king Mswati 111 to write a document responding to the 2012 Sibaya recommendations because it is almost a given that writing a book explaining a Monarchical Democracy would only be of interest to Trevor Noah, and would do nothing to address the economic crisis that is still hanging over Swaziland like a thunderstorm that brings no visions, and the continued demonisation of political parties. 

The people will continue to educate one another on multi-party democracy up to the point that they will be so aware that they will stand up at Sibaya and demand multi-party democracy as they did at the 2012 Sibaya. But if the regime continues the culture of 1973, it will come to the point that the people will not even attend Sibaya because recommendations made in that forum are nothing more than kutihhamula (chit-chatting).

At the 2012 Sibaya it was the “ordinary” people that stood up to demand multi-party democracy, and at the 2013 Sibaya T.V Mtseftwa, the Traditional Prime Minister called the people timfucuta (filth). It is quite clear that as the people continue to be more aware of their plight and the cause, the aristocracy continues to be more arrogant and uncaring.

Many have been the lessons but too little has been the will to learn by the aristocracy and all its arms. The clock is ticking and the people’s conscious on self-determination continues to rise, in spite of the clamp down on some of the lessons. The word sedition which is used to torture and imprison democracy activists will not prevent the people’s conscious from rising and will not prevent the activists from advocating for democracy. Much has been the brutality on the people and still they advocate for democracy. Even if the Tinkhundla regime can spill more innocent blood like the apartheid regime did to the Soweto students in 1976, still the people will continue to advocate for democracy and Human Rights as the people of South Africa so resiliently did not so long ago. History in all its gory tells us that once a people begin a campaign for the freedom, they will not let -up until they attain that Freedom. But history also tells us that there is no dictatorship that had common sense enough to figure out that the inevitable fall of previous dictators might just apply to his dictatorship.

It is now time for the Tinkhundla Regime to swallow its pride, cut its losses and humbly allow the free flow of information in Swaziland. It is time to unclasp that cold hand of fear that is clutching the door handle to free expression. It is time to allow the people to assemble in peace without the fear of the security forces. But mostly it is time to let go of Sobhuza’s fear that political parties are a prelude to violence. We have seen South Africa expand out of the clutches of apartheid. When all inclusive multi-party democracy was introduced in South Africa, it was then that children of the Swazi elite were taken to South Africa in droves, and the king’s children now go to South Africa to get medical attention. If multi-party democracy is so violent and unworkable, then why are the king of Swaziland and the elite the first in line to reap the fruits of multi-party democracy in South Africa and other countries of the world?