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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment