Wednesday, July 31, 2013


When a human being has been involved in an accident and loses a lot of blood, the most important thing that doctors try to ascertain in order to save her/his life is the blood type. Apparently you can’t just dump any type of blood on any given human being's vascular network, hence the importance of every individual to know their blood type in an era where cars are built for speed and a number  of drivers all over the world are smoking Swazi weed.

When gold surrounds the royals, know that
 poverty surrounds
the poor.
Science, in all its endeavors hasn’t been able to identify a blood type that could be called the “royal bloodline”. Every self-respecting scientist will tell you that a thing called royal blood type does not exist. They will tell you that a royal bloodline is a myth. When asked if maybe in the future it might be discovered within the vascular system of the human being, they say no, it is not possible. They even go as far as confidently declaring that there is nothing such as a royal gene. They say human beings are more or less built in a similar fashion hence the reason that a thing like flue attacks every human being in a similar manner, and that a bite from the relevant mosquito makes us all suffer from malaria-fever in a similar fashion.

 Actually that was ascertained while proving that there is no superiority of nature between the white and the black people. Actually it didn’t need to be proven that racism is just as absurd as the idea of royalism. They do say there is a possibility that one of the named blood types could be renamed royal blood type if the relevant decree could see the light of day but because no one chooses what bloodline they are to be born with, there is a high possibility that we might have all manner of character ascending the throne. These characters would have to come from different surnames as the blood type does not conform to last names, so the whole next-on-the-throne nonsensical romance would go out the window.

So in trying to establish the legitimacy for a thing called royalty, it becomes very hard to pinpoint a thing that renders a human being a royal person. After having failed scientifically, then assuming that maybe religiously we might find the bases for the thing. But as soon as we open the bible we are met by an angry God who is reprimanding the Israelites by telling them that, “yekelani lobunkhihlinga bekufuna emakhosi ngoba atonigcilata” (stop the foolishness of asking to be ruled by kings because kings will enslave you.) I will take the liberty of assuming that God was talking in siSwati because there is nowhere in the bible where the language of communication between God and the Israelites is mentioned. He could have been talking Russian or Swahili for all we know.  Some people claim that he might have been speaking Hebrew; very unlikely but possible.

 Jean Bodin, a French political philosopher, who couldn’t stomach the fact that the Pope could practice his authority even on political matters, decided to do something about the godlike powers of the papacy. He decided to formulate a theory called The Divine Right of Kings. It is not clear whether he dusted off an old document and did some creative editing or if he authored the theory from scratch, but the final piece he presented was so good that it would have prompted the monarch to reward him handsomely. Not to shift Bodin aside as a scammer because very few people can claim to have turned  human beings into Gods, but to say that nowhere in known history has there been a narrative that maybe some angel came from heaven and gave such a mandate to kings.

There is nowhere in history where it says Bodin either saw a burning bush or even a burning candle, he didn’t carry a stick, never mind turning the damn thing into a snake, but he walks right into public arena and makes these fantastic claims. The reason the people did not shave his head, give him ten and a quarter lashings, stick a pig’s tail between his buttocks and send him packing in a northerly direction is because the document he was carrying was from that day onward to render the Monarch as God on Earth.

The document was basically outlining the powers that the king could practice from then onward. It asserted that the king was answerable to no one but God.  Actually even members of the aristocracy would not dare question the king however unjust his conduct. In no uncertain terms, it was also saying, “hands off the king”, to the church.

The document condemned to the wrath of being charged with the offence of sacrilege to whoever tried to restrict the king’s powers or to dethrone him.  The offence of sacrilege would be better understood as an equivalent to the suppression of terrorism Act of Swaziland; as we continue to see movie-type-like sentences that ensures the incarceration and overall supervision of democracy activists for as long as close to a century. 

 Basically what sacrilege does is that it renders all things and persons that have to do with the monarch as divine, and anyone who dares question as cursed.  Divine being such a hard term to describe in physical terms, so whatever the Monarch renders divine would basically be considered divine, regardless if it is divine or not. If a peasant is found pissing against a wall and if such behavior displeases the king, the king could render the wall divine and there goes the peasant.

The parallel being that in Swaziland the king is above the law and whoever is charged under the suppression of Terrorism act can rest assured that the stigma of going against the royal divine will stick, the king’s judiciary will surely convict and some other people wouldn't even want to associate with him/her because s/he has dared the divine.  In Swaziland you can be leafing through a scripture that talks about freedom and you would be accused of being ‘in possession of seditious material'.

It becomes hard then in present day of science and the micro-chip that we still continue to consider some people as royal when we have no bases to support the claim. In China too, they tried to give legitimacy to the monarchy by authoring the Heavenly Mandate philosophy. But they too failed to really legitimize the monarchy, and only managed to establish a number of warring dynasties.
       Just over two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ was briefing us on all manner of existence in heaven but by some miracle he fails to remember to remind us about the other messengers of God which are the earthly kings and the Queens.  He does not even call them bagijimi (runners), to at least give us some inkling that maybe the father considers these people relevant.  So it becomes clear that the importance purported by royals is forced upon the people until it becomes habit, and has no bases to claim its legitimacy, either from heaven or from earth.

In two months or so, Swaziland will be partaking in elections so fraud that with every election there are less and less observers, the number of those that vote decreases, and the observer missions that are looking for hope in hell are unanimous on the lack of democracy of the elections. The whole thing has become such a comedy show that the registration is taken to people’s work places in order to force them to register, and chiefs are reported to have threatened the people into registering. Even after performing such shameful and desperate stunts, the conclusion is that the scam has lost its initial shine, so the trick would be either to upgrade the scam or present a new scam. But the problem is that with a string of obviously-desperate acts, it is becoming clearer that Tinkhundla regime is running old scams on a population that has become more awake to the scams that enforce the repression.
Come election time, some will go and cast their vote. Some will cast in gratitude to the MPs that have been allowed by the Elections Commission to campaign with food and blankets. Some will cast in fear of the Chiefs that don’t tolerate dissent. None will cast their vote because the election makes any meaningful input in their lives. When it is all said and done, the number of voters will be significantly low as has been the indication during registration.

When Mswati 111 opens parliament he won’t be an elected member of the government but an imposed one. Being imposed as he is he will go ahead and appoint other government members to further the imposition. He will deliver a speech as if he was elected by the majority. But the question will always be: What gives Mswati 111 the legitimacy to rule the Swazi people?

Tuesday, July 30, 2013


when people are forced to cultivate right on top of their houses
and to build their houses on the slopes of rocky mountains,
chances are, they will somewhere along the line get tired of such
and start to demand the land that was stolen from them.

Sometimes language when taken for granted can be a communication barrier. 'I will be only a second', does not necessarily mean that the person will attend to you within one second, but it is so commonly used that almost all know that the second will probably be a few minutes, even though it turns out to be hours to a special few whose diaries are always suffering from 'busi-ness'. But regardless of the accuracy of the communication and the fluency of the language, as long as it is commonly understood that a dog can either mean an animal or a male human being, or that a cow can be a milk producing animal or a haughty female human being, such cannot be an impediment to communication, unless of course the cliché gets so overused that it does not communicate what it means because it has become too general or it has been repeated so many times that it ends up communicating itself out of meaning. 

There is nothing that has communicated itself out of meaning than the assumption that Progressives want multi-party democracy in Swaziland. Actually such an assertion has been Tinkhundla's rallying point that, 'multi-party is the main ingredient for a war', as Sobhuza 11 pioneered this line of disinformation, and in retaliation, progressives have lost themselves in rhetoric, refusing and asserting that, 'we want multi-party democracy'.

 As much as multi-party democracy would lead to the thing itself, it is rather defeating the purpose to seek the end by rallying around the means, which stands the danger of even communicating the end out of the equation. The means is supposed to serve as the vehicle to the end but the games of mudslinging being so murky, multi-party democracy may end up too much multi-party and too little democracy, and eventually zero land.

So to say progressives don't want multi-party democracy but they want the land, would be more honest.

From time immemorial when people took to the streets, it was in demand of land  and all the precious natural minerals it contains, even though in most times than not the demand slogan would beat about the bush due to the bad habit inherent within rhetoric. When people started demanding multi-party democracy, it was because it was the system that would give them the power to be able to control the land and all it contains.

The reason the Swazi aristocracy don't want multi-party democracy is because they control the land. Why should they bother themselves with the means when they are in possession of the end? In seeking perpetual possession of the land, they have spent their lives convincing the 'fools' that don't own and control the land, that they should fight multi-party democracy to protect ‘their’ land  and ‘their’ kingship, when the reality is that the land is borrowed to the people, and that the people don’t have any stake whatsoever in the kingship and dare the people lift a finger in disapproval, those unfortunate souls will be subject to a bulldozer and a family-displacement truck.

Was the question to be raised as to which should precede the other between land ownership, and multi-party democracy, many would not run toward the next ballot box but would lay claim to a portion of land, and would only bother about the right government system after securing the land.

It is not multi-party democracy that Progressives want, but the ownership of the land which will enable them to control their destinies. Multi-party is just a system that will ensure that the land ownership is not one sided as has been the case in Swaziland, and that once the people own the land, never must there be, dispossession of one by another.

Sometimes the rhetoric becomes the driving force and the narrative loses direction because the authority in power will always spice-up the narrative in a manner that it paints the adversary in a bad light. So instead of saying, 'the people want the land', the regime says, 'A select few want multi-party democracy'; which is a lie because nobody ever cultivated multi-party democracy and a maize stock grew out of it. Was the regime to say, 'only a select few want land ownership', there would be uproar because the people know that such is not true.

 If there was a choice between land ownership and multiparty democracy, not even one Progressive would choose multi-party democracy because of the knowledge that s/he who controls the land controls the government.

So whoever claims that Progressives want multi-party democracy is in truth lying because multi-party is not the goal but the means to achieve the goal which is total land ownership. And that would of course include the land along the base of the whole of Lubombo Mountain and Malkerns.

In disillusionment people have gone in search of more jobs, then better jobs, and better working conditions and most have even forgotten that the wealth is the land and nothing else, because all that constitute wealth comes from the land, even a toothpick.

Swaziland is one place where the aristocracy is at pains to induce some amnesia to the fact that the bone of contention is the land. In trying to achieve this, the three words, multi-party-democracy are repeated as much as possible in order to create the reality that the people are fighting for multi-party democracy when they are not.

Multi-party democracy only brings about quality of leadership in the fact that power is contested and not easily acquired. Then thereafter that power is used to give the land back to the people. It is the land that is being fought for and not multi-party democracy. As my mother would often say, ‘angiyidli inja’ (I don’t eat a dog) when the dogs tended to be demanding a better share of the feed than the edible pigs and the chickens; Progressives too, ‘don’t eat multiparty democracy’, but they eat food that comes out of the land.

Sobhuza 11, that sweet-talker, used the advantage of a politically inexperienced people and sold them the gimmick that multi-party democracy brings about war. What Sobhuza conveniently forgot to mention is that it is people that fight wars and not a political system. What he also forgot to mention is that there are a number of post-colonial countries that had adopted multi-party democracy and were doing much better than Swaziland. What he also omitted when warning 'his' people is that in countries like Mozambique and Angola the post-colonial conflicts were manufactured by the apartheid regime who he was in bed with, and the intention of the conflict was to fight a proxy war for the cold war to eliminate communism. One of the fiercest wars in Africa is the Rwandan war, and that it is fueled by capital and its sustainability has been achieved through tribalism which is Monarchism’s very foundation. Actually tribalism has claimed more victims than any other political system in Africa. The annihilation of the people of Darfur has been brought about by tribalism, and even the Arabs are killing each other for tribalism’s blood sister which is sectarianism. Had Sobhuza not stigmatized multi-party democracy, Swaziland would a thriving economy today instead of playing kindergarten in IMF's crèche.

 The disinformation to discredit political parties has been the holy grail of the aristocracy as it has over the years insured that it is distributed long and wide within the borders of Swaziland. But the scales have slowly but surely been tipping and dropping off of the people's eyes and such deception does not hold much sway over the people anymore. The land that Sobhuza was hoarding for himself and his, when he deceived the people, is the same land that Progressives are fighting for today, and will continue to fight for until them too, like other people in multi-party democracies can work it while they own it. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013


In contemporary society, the First World is viewed as countries that have the most advanced economies, the greatest influence, the highest standards of living, and the greatest technology. Actually when thoroughly scrutinized even the level of democracy becomes a factor when trying to ascertain if a country falls under first world status. Another pointer that is used to ascertain a country’s world-status is the Human development Index.  But it also boils down on the country alignments after world-war two; with communism being a quality that would dump a country into second-world status even if all the other prerequisites were met.
Cotton cultivation could be a goldmine in
Swaziland if the land tenure system was not
the stumbling block.

For a person  - whose country’s Human Development Index ranks number 148 out of 178 countries – to aspire to first-world status, is either  very optimistic, overly ambitious, delusional, or purely crazy; especially if that country is an established fact that it is third world and has been third or even fourth-world throughout known history. But we live in times of unattainable dreams where shiny suits delude many pastors into thinking they can perform miracles.

Many find it a joke that king Mswati 111 of Swaziland has set himself the goal of leading Swaziland into first-world status, but I find no comedy in such cruelty.

My father used to say that a full stomach causes arrogance. It would also be good to add that those that have never been hungry can be ignorantly arrogant. Such I find to be the scourge that has plagued the Swazi throne because it is a shame to buy a poor person an expensive suit if the person must wear the suit on an empty stomach. And such has become the logic of the king of Swaziland with the difference being that he has always worn the suit 'in trust for the Nation'.

But taking a closer look at the height of inequality in Swaziland then it becomes easy to figure out why Mswati 111 would even think that Swaziland would reach first-world status with Tinkhundla regime at the helm. The royal family and the elite enjoy a standard of life that would be easily considered as first-world, if the aristocracy and their friends were to exist in a vacuum that is. They drive cars that are driven in first world countries, they can afford to buy food consumed in developed countries, they fly chartered jets, they sleep in villas, mansions and palaces, when they give themselves that which they have not earned, their allowances carry surpluses; actually, they live first-world standards set in a third-world reality. So when the rich brat blames the poor kid’s laziness  for the latter's hunger, it becomes very hard to blame the brat because in his world he has no point of reference to appreciate the reality of need.   

But such is human patience that it runs out when the brat persists to adulthood. Considering the ‘peace’ that Swaziland has enjoyed over the years, one would assume that Swaziland would be a first world country by now; but it is not. Why then is the king of Swaziland raving about aiming for first-world status when he has had so many years on the throne which included the achievement of plunging the Swazi economy into a crisis? No grown man or woman in Swaziland would claim not to know the reason for Swaziland’s stagnation in a third-world horror, because we all know.  The difference is that others have chosen the ‘peace of mind’ of nodding their heads in agreement to the relentless propaganda manufactured by the royal family and the hired help, while those that have pointed to the truth have been brutally victimized by the regime.

 A rural development strategy can be traced  to as early as 1954 when the Central Rural Development Board (CRDB) was created to oversee all developments on Swazi National Land (SNL). The problem that has put Swaziland on a development-standstill is the system of Land Tenure.  In 1965 a British Overseas Development Ministry economic mission concluded that the ‘…rigid system of Land tenure…’ was making it impossible for the Swazi to own or lease land, hence agriculture was treated as a ‘… part-time occupation providing a bare subsistence…’ Then thereafter the problem was watered down to a shortage of land ignoring the fact that customary tenure was responsible for low output and productivity.

In 1970, G. Maina, a Kenyan consultant also came to the same conclusion that, ‘The agricultural problem of Swaziland, such as low productivity of Swazi Nation areas and overstocking are symptoms of a land tenure system which – in today’s Swaziland – has outlived its viability’, and added that, ‘…only a modification of the land tenure system can solve the problems’.

In true Tinkhundla style, Maina’s recommendations were ignored when the state implemented the Rural Development Areas Programme (RDAP) in 1970. This programme was supported by the bilateral funding provided by the British Overseas Development Ministry.

An ILO Report published in 1977 also identified Land tenure as the stumbling block stating that, ‘Where there are “progressive” chiefs, the operation of the RDAs has been smooth. However, the problem of facilitating the operation of such a programme and even obtaining approval for its establishment could be almost overwhelming when there is an obstructive chief or chiefs. This is of course germane to the type of land tenure obtaining on Swazi National Land.’ But that too was ignored because the land tenure system is the very foundation of Tinkhundla regime and changing it would bring the Tinkhundla regime to its knees.

There is a reason why the tenure system must remain as it is. If it could change, the Tinkhundla regime would lose its leverage on the loyalty of the people. The people are loyal because they know that any sign of disobedience would threaten the very shelter they lay their head under.  It is the ownership of the land that renders a people free because with the ownership comes the production and it is the production that ensures survival independence. Once a person can provide for his basic needs independent of the other, that person is free, and once a person is free s/he can provide for the basic needs of another. That is the philosophy of the quality called community. Such independence is like death itself to Tinkhundla, because if the people cease to depend on the spoon-feeding there won’t be any need for the draconian ruling system. The higher risk rests in the fear that the people might even cease to see the need for the institution of the monarchy and comprador  and state-controlled accumulation would be stopped in its tracks.

For king Mswati 111 to preach first-world status without changing the land tenure system is the same as assuring someone that s/he will be rich while keeping all the riches under lock and key. The only way that Swaziland can even dream of attaining first-world status is through the ownership and utilization of the land by all. All must be involved in creating the wealth. It is the land that is the wealth, and not the money. Money is just a piece of paper that is supposed to serve as a legal tender for the real wealth which is the land and other tangible things such as natural minerals.

The land tenure system of kukhonta prevents Swazi people from owning land because the land can be taken away at the whim of an emotional chief. Inheriting land is even worse because, one cannot inherit something that can be taken away.  Inheriting land in Swaziland is not different from being handed over borrowed land which can be reclaimed by the borrower at any time. So to say, ‘Lona ngumhlaba wakitsi’, (This land belongs to us) that Swazis have learned to tell themselves is a lie because in reality they know that the land is being forcibly held by the royal Dlamini clan and can be taken away at any time.

To know that first-world status is in the ownership of land and the minerals, is to know wealth. Otherwise anyone dressed in a shiny suit can come and tell you that Sikhuphe airport is a sign of a first-world country and you would agree. Actually projects like the wasteful construction of Sikhuphe airport are the foundation for creating third world countries because when you have savings, you don’t spend it on one big purchase, but you invest it until you have enough to build the airport, if there is even a need for the airport, and if the savings are enough, there won’t be any hiccups and delays with the project because it would have been well planned.

First-world status also has to do with a truly democratic system that respects human rights. We know that the European Union does not consider Swaziland democratic, and the commonwealth also on its last elections observer mission, found the process to be undemocratic. United States of America also complained about human rights violations in Swaziland. The ANC, that has all these years given Swaziland some room to come-right, they too are calling for the absent democracy in Swaziland. But some assert that the ANC is meddling when in reality it carries the burden of constantly changing diapers on Swaziland’s perpetual economic infancy. The ILO is much unhappy with the state’s shenanigans of victimizing the labour federation TUCOSWA. The British government has voiced its concerns over the lack of democracy in Swaziland. The Scandinavian countries are embracing all that seems be an alternative to Tinkhundla.

So all in all Swaziland sits at a precarious position internationally, and is an embarrassment to its citizens nationally, and king Mswati 111 is dreaming of first-world status. Doesn’t the king think that Swazis are embarrassed enough? Unless of course such is part of the campaign to drive attention away from the upcoming elections that have become a substantial amount of embarrassment that Swazi citizens have to endure every five years; especially when the government spin-doctor Percy Simelane rates Tinkhundla democracy ngemalengiso (with distinction) in Africa when the opposite is the truth. I live with the permanent fear that one of these days the king might just announce that Swaziland must prepare to embark on a mission to Mars. Many are the dreams he has come back with from foreign trips. If we can be as ambitious as to gun for first-world status with 70% poverty, the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in the world, and an economy in crisis, why not just zoom past all the planets and land on Pluto, on a broomstick or something.

Friday, July 5, 2013


The governance of the Swazi people is solely dependent on the Swazi people. Even though that is not the reality in Swaziland but such are the dictates of nature. Nature did not put kings and queens upon the earth but people. It is either it was through choice that the people decided to crown kings and queens as their rulers or through force where those at an advantageous position imposed their will on the people. But the burning question is either kings come about through birth or if maybe it is conquest that gives kings and queens legitimacy.
Prince Masitsela: A veteran taker of
the Swazi royals

It is within undisputed Swazi history that Swazi kingship was acquired through conquest even though the conquest was bloody and cowardly. To conquer people by inviting them to a hunting expedition and then ambushing them while they were focused on game is a cowardly act and a shame but it is what it is and it forms part of our history. All we can do now is look forward and try to find the best way that should point us to a brighter future.
The first thing that the Swazi people would do could be to completely get rid of the Monarchy institution and install a republic style of governance. As much as it is my opinion that such a government would be the ideal government under the present global circumstances but it is also my observation that Swazi people are still so much sentimental over culture, tradition and the institution of the Monarchy that they wouldn’t accept a government that seeks to do away with what might seem like the root of tradition and culture.

So it becomes very clear that getting rid of the monarchy as an institution could be met with much resistance from the people, at least for now.

The second point of option would be to get rid of the Monarch as an individual. Of course that would mean that if we are getting rid of the king, the regular entourage consisting of Mahlaba, Masitsela, the queen mother and basically all of royal incorporated would have to go, including the Mambas that have been sticking to the self-appointed royals like a bad habit.

The argument to this is that the present king is king because of conquest but this time around it is the people that will conquer through debate and not bloodshed. After conquest then the people will install their king and the Swazi “tradition” that has the present line of kings being kings will be maintained. It is a lie that a Swazi king is born because this kingship was acquired through conquest, and thereafter those who conquered installed their offspring. So the conclusion, judging from history is that a Swazi king is not born but the kingship is acquired through conquest. That is tradition so we must stick to it.

But having gotten rid of the king and all those that are of the mind that the institution of the monarchy is an institution for personal accumulation, and then we would have to break with tradition and choose a king. As this might sound as breaking with tradition but it is not because such has been widely practiced in many places around the world where it is the people that choose the king. But the chosen king would be the overseer of the tradition and culture and must have nothing to do with governance of the country because that is where compromising the Institution of the Monarchy comes in. Otherwise we cannot guarantee that an elected king cannot pull a Sobhuza 11 stunt on us. So the separation of government and tradition must be strictly enforced.

When king Sobhuza 11 was warned against being the head of Imbokodvo because it was going to compromise the institution of the Monarchy, he ignored the advice and went ahead championing a political party. It was not too late afterwards that this mistake came to haunt him and it forced him to do one of the greatest mistakes ever made by a Swazi  king, second only to Mbandzeni’s mistake when the latter signed over the independence of Swazis for a mere 12 000 pounds a year.

When king Sobhuza 11 made that proclamation in 1973 he turned Lozith’ehlezi into a hideout for a mafia gang that had hijacked a country through a coup de tat. In short Sobhuza 11 defiled the royal house, and it is up to us as Swazis to make that right again.

My personal gripe with the present Monarch is that he was warned by Somhlolo that money would be the death of Swaziland. Actually Somhlolo was advising future kings against the dangers brought by the love of money, but the royals had to sell the story as if Somhlolo was warning the nation when it has been pretty clear that it was the royals that were more at risk to be corrupted by money. We see the present king worshipping money and completely oblivious of the people because money has blinded him. It may seem that the dream was tailor made for Mswati 111 because money has made him to forsake his people.

Swazi kings knew criticism as a thing that was part and parcel of kingship because a king not scrutinised is a rogue king. The nation could go as far as insulting the king and the king would take that in his stride because he knew that the survival of the institution of the Monarchy depended on such scrutiny. But this tradition of scrutiny has been killed by the present king and some of his predecessors. If anybody so much as opposes anything that has to do with the royals and the regime, then that person is thrown into jail or forced into exile. So it is honour’s opinion that a king who thinks himself as above the people he leads must be replaced, and since the royal family has shown between 1982 and 1986 that when they have to install a king they focus more on fighting, so it should fall upon the Swazi nation to choose its own king. And such an undertaking must comply with the following but not limited to:

1.       The king must be voted into office

2.       The king must only deal with issues of tradition, culture and heritage

3.       The king must serve a limited term

4.       The king must not handle any finances

5.       A queen must  also ascend the throne

In case this is wrongly construed, let me clarify. As a Swazi citizen I am asking my fellow Swazi citizens to consider removing the present king and to install a king that will respect Swazi traditions and not allow traditionalists to use our girl children for political ends. It is my request to fellow Swazis that let us install a king that will do more than buy sneakers for the youth. Let us install a king that will not insult our youth by dangling a piece of meat once or twice a year. A king more concerned about the people than private jets. Let us install a king that will be more concerned with increasing the number of houses for Swazis and not with increasing the number of the cars he has. And that a queen can be as equally capable of overseeing issues of culture and tradition.

We all know that the Prime minister is not the problem, but in fear of confronting the root of the problem we all run to take jibes at him. The Prime Minister is just a worker that was employed for his shrewd character. When the time comes he will have to account for his crimes in a just court of law, but in the meantime let us not deceive ourselves and face the institution of the Monarchy and the Monarch himself because that is where all the problems are manufactured. Let us not pretend to be fools and behave as if we don’t know where the problems emanate.

Then after installing the king, let us install a government that will serve the people. Let us install a government for the people by the people. In Africa we are the last absolute Monarchy. This is not because we are unique. This is because we have been lied to for too long. We have gullibly bought into the deception of the royal family because they had no choice but to lie to us, otherwise the wealth of Swaziland would have to be shared among all Swazis and that would greatly reduce the bank accounts of the royals and the elite, and that wouldn’t rest well with them because over the years they have developed insatiable appetites for material accumulation which is caused by greed.  For this we only have ourselves to blame because we have deliberately submerged our heads in the sand when we knew very well that we were being lied to, but pitifully wanting to believe that we were a unique peaceful people we slept our freedom away and now is the time to awake and take control of our destinies.
Honestly speaking, was I to be made the sole decider, Swaziland would be a republic tomorrow.  But I have walked among fellow Swazi citizens and I have heard their articulations and their murmurs. I might be wrong but considering what I have heard and what I have seen, a republic is not the conclusion of the people, but a government completely independent of the interference of the institution of the Monarchy is the conclusion I hear; a Monarchy whose purpose is culture, tradition and heritage, and a Monarch who has enough control over his greed as not to meddle in the financial deliberations of the taxpayer. This is what I hear the people saying. What i hear is that the people have just about had enough of the sticky finger tendencies of the royal family and the elite.

Before I get misconstrued, let me clarify. It is not the Monarch that the people say they love but the institution of the Monarch. When the people talk about things that they love about the Monarchy, they mention culture, tradition, and the pride of being Swazi that is found in heritage. Of course Swazis being Swazis will parade numberless sets of white teeth as they show make-believe smiles because the regime judges merit through the quality of the smile directed to the royals in order to reward. And those that are sincere are mostly recognising the institution than the Monarch himself, because if truth be told, powerful is the unifying force of an honourable king. But I would be lying if I could say anything honourable regarding the king of Swaziland. Of course I might be wrong and subject to correction but I doubt that very much. In the army it is said that it is not the person that the soldier must respect but the rank that that person holds. In Swaziland such is the behaviour of some of the people as they seem to love and respect Mswati 111 when it is actually the throne that they are kneeling to. There is not much that Mswati has done that can command the respect of the people, and I fear that it is too late to earn that honour.

I will also challenge king Mswati 111 to prove if the people love him or not. If for three years in succession he can hold incwala (kingship ceremony), umhlanga (reed dance) and all the other traditional celebrations without giving the people any food to eat and if on the fourth year the people would still be coming in droves, that would be prove that the people love him. If he can give all Swazis enough land which they can totally own independently of the chiefs, and thereafter the people still present cows and money as gifts, would be proof that the people love him.

My take is that people come so much in droves to the royal celebrations because the nation is hungry and the taste of meat, even if it is twice a year is a novelty especially after some sightseeing on government transportation. The reason why people are giving so many gifts to the king and the chiefs is because the chiefs are holding the land at ransom and if the people do not pay the ransom which is the fine, the gifts and the other myriad tributes, then the chiefs will withhold cultivation land or the subjects can be totally evicted. Whatever other love that the people talk about for Mswati is fake love manufactured through force and cruelty, like the kind of love of a lady and her abusive “lover”, and the reason of the lady staying in the relationship being that if she could dump the fool, the idiot would kick her out of the house and she would be without a roof over her head. It goes without saying how abused women sing praises of their lovers and how they run back to the abuser’s arms after being beaten to a pulp.


1.       THE TAKERS: Those that use the system as a tool of accumulation, the royals and the elite, which I would accuse of insanity if they didn’t love the king because he is the person that keeps the milk cow steady so that everyone can steal some milk.

2.       THE DESERTERS: Then there are those that believe that with the appropriate person at the helm the institution of the Monarchy could be reformed well enough for it to serve as a tradition-anchor and a governing tool. These have a half love half hate relationship with the king but they dare not find fault with the king as they code their anti-sentiments in the richness of the siSwati language which can slap you with an insult so romantically that you will be left smiling. But it is also good to note that this group doesn't seem to have a clear picture on how the institution of the Monarch can achieve the use of power without abuse. They seem to assume that an absolute Monarch can be a constitutional Monarch at the same time; I always accuse this group of suffering from a bootlicking hangover. But the danger of these people come across as those that have tasted some power and would like to enjoy the power in their terms, and those that are still in power but don’t seem to be able to position themselves at the apex of the juicy morsel; so you could say the latter are those that shit in the plate they are being fed from. If I was the system, I would get rid of them like yesterday.

3.       THE OPPRESSED: This group is the subject of many a disillusioned political analyst and the cause for lengthy arguments as to who is who and who is loyal to whom. These are the 70% that live in abject poverty and the majority of the working class. Once in a while one or so of the elite would jump into this group when they feel disillusioned by their fellow takers but mostly this is the group of the oppressed.

 There is also another group that I wouldn't know where to slot,but I might just add  them here. There is a group of academics that once in a while peep into the progressives’ camp carrying bags full of bright ideas and they spill them into the debate space and as some try to point out the shallowness of weekend warrior tendencies, others are in sheer awe of academia’s offspring because none is more eloquent than this group. Every word that comes out of the mouth is so clean as if the inside of the mouth has been thoroughly sanitised. Being the bounty hunters that they are, they quickly disappear into their flourishing careers and successful businesses because they have ascertained that the struggle hasn’t come close where it could be financially viable and however high the position held there is none whatsoever in the form of monetary reward. Some don’t go without having tasted the frustration of holding a high position that does not pay in currency but in gratitude. But of course there are those that are sincere, that after burning themselves out, they take some time to recover. The sincere are very few though.

 Otherwise this super group consists of a small percentage which fall into the camp of progressives and another small percentage that fall into Tinkhundla regime camp. The rest of this group would form what would be termed as a swing vote. In America they normally refer to this group as the swing state. This is the undecided people. These are the people that don’t even know there is a need to decide until they are persuaded to decide. These people live their lives as the circumstances allow them and the chase of survival is so harsh that all that matters is the means to survival.  A priest would come and offer them a morsel to eat, and they will accept the gift and declare their love for him, and if a criminal came along they would take whatever he was offering and show him gratitude and love. As soon as the priest and the criminal leave, they wouldn't even have time to analyse the good Samaritans. If you were to ask them about the criminal and try to ascertain what they thought of him, all they would remember is that the criminal gave them a means to survival and they would sing his praises. This is the group that would be found singing to high heaven at traditional ceremonies in anticipation of the feast that is used by the royal regime to entice them.

 So my advice to career political analysts and journalist is not to try to extract some quotes for a non- fiction piece from this group; especially under such conditions because the person will honestly tell you that s/he loves the person that is about to give him/her the meat. Hunger has never created a rational thinker. Thought processes of a hungry person are informed by the intensity of hunger, and only two rationalizations exist there. One is towards being thankful to the giver and the second is defending the giver lest s/he be harmed and lose the ability to give. Hunger is concerned with the moment, there is no future, and there is no past, all that exists to hunger is the now. Hunger is very selfish because it thinks only of itself, hence hunger being such a good tool to divide people. So many journalist and analyst have used the sentence, “I love my king”, as if it defines the orientation of this group. And such journalists and analysts fail to investigate deeper into such strange behavior  then they go publishing a story that is devoid of truth, presenting the Swazi person as one with a "strange" behavior when such is totally explainable. 

 If I could be more honest I would also add that as the people parade the fake smiles and nauseating bows, the love of the royals is the furthest thing on their minds. Others think of juicy pieces of meat they would be sinking their teeth in later and others dream of meeting individuals with relevant surnames and connected connections in order to work their way up into landing an appointment-position through the king. Most want to be seen as loyal as to find the favor of ruthless chiefs whose relations with their subject are strictly based on tribute extraction. The boot-licking at the royal ceremonies is just phenomenal  Others have been so indoctrinated that they truly believe that they should act the part of the rag that the royals wipe their feet on. Others come seeking a distraction from the daily struggles that they go through almost on a permanent basis. Many young ladies truly hoping to be picked by the king as a wife so that they could escape the grind of rural living also present themselves at the slave market. 

The accumulation system for the Swazi Royal family is tribute-extraction and if tribute is not surrendered “willingly” by the subject, then it is extracted ruthlessly, so the subject has to act accordingly, even if it to say that s/he loves a person s/he doesn't love.


Tuesday, July 2, 2013


According to the times of Swaziland (online), dated 27-06-2013, a huge cargo plane landed at Matsapha International airport to deliver new weaponry that has been purchased by Swaziland Defence Force (USDF). According to sources from within the security forces, the times of Swaziland was able to ascertain that the cargo included firearms and other military hardware. It is said that the cargo arrived at around 3PM and was met by a heavy security detail consisting of the army and the police force. The arrival of the plane was said to be top secret.

Members of the Swaziland police and correctional services
unleashing fury on a protester in Manzini Swaziland
Due to Swaziland’s modest aviation industry apparently the ‘huge’ plane drew the attention of members of the public and the airport staff. The plane gazers were prevented by the soldiers from getting any closer to what is a rare sight in Swaziland. Journalists were ordered to leave the premises and warned against snapping any mementos with their cameras.

Army Commander Lieutenant General Sobantu Dlamini confirmed that the plane had come to deliver security equipment for the army, but profusely refused to offer further specifics on the equipment citing security reasons and further refused to give the name of the country where the equipment originated.
Not so long ago three of Swaziland’s chiefs of the three security arms, which is the correctional services, the police and the army, received two state of the art custom fitted BMWs each. These are the leaders that are called upon to quash dissent whenever the people of Swaziland take to the streets to protest against the repressive Swazi regime. Not to insinuate that high ranking officials should not be suited with fitting transportation but knowing the laws of give and take of the Swazi regime, it becomes very concerning when the henchmen get pampered.

It took teachers more than a month of marching and protesting on the streets to be denied a 4.5% salary increase. Just after snubbing the teachers, the government of Swaziland gave junior police officers a whopping 30% increase on their salaries. Not to discourage decent pay for the Swazis in navy blue, it is very concerning when the baton wielder, and the trigger puller is given what seems to be an incentive to further the brutality on a repressed people.

Swaziland is a country at peace with all its neighbours and due to its size geographically and economically there doesn’t seem to be any chance that it would one day be cocky enough to challenge one of its much stronger neighbours to a fight. It then defeats reason why this tiny kingdom would year on year increasingly spend a reasonable chunk of its budget for security purposes. Swaziland’s overspending on security comes at the expense of an already ailing education sector and an underfunded health sector where at times hospitals run for lengthy periods without basic medication. As the last absolute monarchy in Africa, the aspect of stupidity can be ruled out for such a seemingly wasteful spending.

Why is Mswati 111’s regime spending so much on security when it is not at war with any country?

To watch the brutality and the cruelty that the Swazi regime visits on members of banned  political parties and civic organisations when protesting against its repression, would then be to find the reason for the Swazi regime’s obsession with security  of which at times borders paranoia.

Some Career political analysts have ruled out the possibility of a war anytime soon in Swaziland as they seem to lack confidence in the resilience of the Swazi activist, citing overindulgence in intellectualism on the part of the activist and zero indulgence in the actual mass mobilisation. It is unclear as to where the career analyst harvests such 'reliable' information as to arrive to such a confident conclusion considering that it is the Swazi regime that has access and control to the information.

Regardless of the integrity of the academic analyst’s analysis or the intellectualism and practicality of the Swazi activist, one thing is crystal clear, and that the Swazi regime has identified a threat, real or not real, and that sooner than later Swaziland will be either involved in a war or a genocide, and the relentless fortification of its artillery is proof enough.

 Politics of the Swazi regime have time and again proved that when it gives an incentive, it has already put in place mechanisms for the incentive to be earned. The junior police that is given a 30% salary increase out of the blue, and is on a daily basis taught how to prey on protesters like the lion cub being taught by the lioness that other animals are not playthings but food, will one day have to earn the 30%, either out of gratitude or out of having finally reached the ultimate killer’s instinct. Sooner rather than later the security chiefs, Lieutenant General Sobantu Dlamini of the army, Commissioner Isaac Magagula of the police, and Commissioner Isaiah Mzuthini Ntshangase of the prisons, will have to pay for the BMWs that they have already been paying and continue to pay with all the torture and the deaths that are perpetrated on their watch. Of late the incentives seem be growing by leaps and bounds, and that can only mean that the ‘ask’ from the regime is growing more cruel.