Swazi Observer

FULL STORY

SPONSORS OF POLITICAL THUGGERY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

By David Dlamini | 2025-02-03

The reality facing African governments is that their continued dependence on international players to achieve the basic obligation of running successful operations will always create space for external players to detect the terms.

It is often argued that the reason more African governments, its actually most, prefer working with China and Russia is that these governments have shown no appetite to prescribe how the beneficiary African countries should run their affairs.

We cannot make the argument that the aid extended to African countries should actually come with absolutely no strings attached, perhaps the point is on the kind of strings and their purpose.

But our focus today is not on the government to government level but on the equally important level of interactions between international organisations and the civic and political organisations within the African political landscape.

The inclination for ruling governments across Africa is to be suspicious of such interactions. a number of African statesman/woman have actually pointed out the negative implications arising from international organisations escapades into the African political landscape.

Most international organisations claim that their role is noble and beneficial to Africa, that in fact their interactions with civic and political organisations is meant to enhance these entities capacity to be responsible and impactful actors.

Both conservative and progressive African civic/political organisations benefit from their western benefactors. a number of African countries have since introduced some regulations to ensure that such assistance does not dilute the guanine aspirations of the African voter.

This has been especially the case with regards to regulations relating to fundraising by civic/political organisations for election campaigns. efforts to curb undesirable interference into our political landscape, as Africans, remain weak and we are nowhere near to the impregnable barricades the West has against Chinese and Russian influence in their own political landscape.

The issue of undue influence by external players is no little matter and it must not be flippantly dismissed as a preoccupation of incumbents who are merely concerned about extending their stay in power.

The esteemed former ambassador of the African Union to the US, Dr. Arikana Chihombori -Quao, has also offered her opinion on this matter and her informed view is that external players always sponsor opposition parties to achieve one goal, to perpetuate political strife and instability in Africa.

Again, a distinction must be made between credible international actors who offer legitimate and above-board assistance to build capacity for governance across the board.

We believe external players who are fueling division and political strife in Africa must be held to account. organisations such as SADC and the AU must be seized with these issues and the individual members must initiate the process by reporting such actors to these structures.
We look at the destructive role played by these external actors in our country and highlight how their nefarious activities are fomenting tensions and conflict.

Ignoring existing pivotal freedoms
The existence of a bill of rights in our constitution is continuously being ignored by progressive radicals and their sponsors.

The Tinkhundla system, in its current posture, through the individual merit election principle, does afford the freedom to every citizen to contest and vote in an election. It’s a right and freedom that has been maximally leveraged by some members within the multiparty politics proponents. in fact it is not just some members, but arguably the most influential member of Parliament.

Though some within our traditional sector may be uncomfortable with this fact, but the longest serving member in our parliament, a multiparty proponent has been the most influential in the House.

And we are very careful to justify our claim, in the internationally accepted matrix for measuring individual members of parliament which considers, number of motions raised, number of successful motions, leadership of House committees, out-of-order rulings against member, impact/influence on government policy/legislation, courage to hold members of the executive to account, etc.

Very few of us would dispute that this longest serving member of parliament has excelled across the matrix; the longest serving members has, however, dismally failed in the critical area of corruption, which relates to the alleged selling of votes by House of Assembly members when electing the assigned 10 members of the Senate.

The alleged selling of votes by members of parliament has been confirmed by a former member of parliament who now leads a political party. the former member made no qualms of the fact that he never lifted a finger to expose this corruption during his tenure, neither has the longest serving member been forthright about this.

The foregoing narration simply seeks to augment this fundamental fact, that the Tinkhundla system, however minimal the freedoms it grants may be, but it does provide the pivotal right/freedom to vote and contest in an election, and this right is pivotal because it allows access to constitutional avenues that facilitate all degrees of change that may be sought by the members.

The existence of this right/freedom makes even the mere mention of a revolution and targeted sanctions not only unnecessary but downright nonsensical.

External players, who are extending assistance to radical progressives fall into the same grievous error, an error that carries treasonous implications for external players who should exercise due diligence before committing their resources.

Incentivising disengagement
When radical progressives choose to ignore and forego pivotal freedoms afforded by our constitution they do so with the urging of their external sponsors.

When a political actor, in any political culture, refuses to engage, no one should incentivise such an undemocratic choice. In fact, radical progressives are calling for a revolution and armed struggle precisely because of this incentive by external actors.

Radical progressives are a risk to democracy because of their intolerant and undemocratic appetite for a winner-takes-all outcome. recent political developments across the world eminently demonstrate that we live in times where winner-takes -all outcomes have been obsoleted.

Incentivising the formation of undemocratic political organisations
We need to revert back to the African union (AU) call to silence the guns in Africa. the AU heads of states and government adopted this programme as part of its solemn Declaration of May 2013 when commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Union and its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

The persistence of the deadly and piercing sounds of guns in Africa is driven by organisations that lack internal democratic processes. external actors who are sponsoring these undemocratic parties are actually taking Africa back to the period of WAR LORDS.

No sensible donor would ignore to investigate how the organisations benefitting from its generous aid are being run. this may add credence to the claims made by the esteemed former AU ambassador to the US that in fact this is deliberate. the numbing fact that there is a deliberate enduring strategy to condemn African countries into perpetual political instability.

Sponsoring political organisations that show no commitment to internal democracy but who instead want to resuscitate the archaic personality-cult politics of yester years is a serious matter that African bodies like SADC and the AU should confront.

Regulations in multiparty democracies that require stringent control on this matter, though vehemently resisted, are a necessary measure that should be strengthened if Africa’s development is to have any prospects of success.

No one can suggest that it is desirable to have opposition parties remain perpetually small and ineffective. in the case of multiparty politics, no legitimate assistance meant to build capacity in such parties is welcome and constrictive.

The terrorism charges preferred against Duduzile Zuma for the 2021 riots
We mention this case, the arrests of Duduzile Zuma on terrorism charges, to highlight what is unfolding in South Africa and draw the attention of external actors to the striking similarities between her charges and those faced by the former members of parliament here.

Her arrest follows the riots that occurred in and around Durban in 2021, the same year we also experienced similar riots in the country.

South African riots were characterised and involved destruction, violence, intimidation and looting, exactly the same pattern that characterised the riots that occurred here.

Zuma is alleged to have incited and instigated the riots and the terrorism law has been found to be the appropriate law to apply to her case, exactly the same determination was made by our prosecutors here.

The similarities are striking and do call for a serious reconsideration of the view held by external actors sponsoring radical progressives that the prosecution of the implicated people in the country was nothing but political persecution.

An objective analysis of the similarities between the two cases would not confirm the political persecution claim, neither would it take the application of the terrorism law as an abuse and inappropriate.

share story