Swaziland@Newsletter Extra
Published by Africa Contact (Denmark)

Earlier issues can be read at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/SAK-Swazinewsletter together with
documents and other materials not included in the regular newsletter.
If you wish to subscribe to the newsletter, please send mail to:
SAK-Swazinewsletter subscribe@... All correspondence to
swaziland@...

Free subscription to the newsletter will also give access to a photo
section with thirteen albums: Swaziland. Historical. Occupation,
exploitation and rebellion. Colonial times. Sobhuza. Settlers in the
colony. People of Swaziland. Images of power. Women of the land.
Children. Men of the land. The struggle for democracy. Images of a
democratic movement.
____________________________________________

Boycott of the elections in Swaziland: excerpts of a debate in
Swaziland Solidarity Network Forum

____________________________________________

Not a "unique" form of boycott

The boycott of the tinkundla elections is not some new idea or
proposal. The progressive forces in Swaziland have always boycotted
elections there. These boycotts have been successful. The turnout has
always been incredibly low, even despite coercion by chiefs. If I
remember correctly in the last elections the turnout was something
like 5% or so, and in some areas the poling stations were just
deserted for the whole day - and this was even in the face of coercion
on people to vote. Furthermore, individuals who were previously
aligned to progressive forces who got tempted to stand were disowned
by the organisations, correctly so. The boycotts have deprived the
"elections" in the past of any real legitimacy. Of course boycotts
alone are not going to bring down the system, it will take much more,
but starting to participate now would be very dangerous.

One should also point out that this is not a "unique" form of boycott.
Even under the tricameral and town council system in South Africa, the
United Democratic Front (UDF) never said "register but don't vote" -
the entire thing was boycotted. Voter turnout is compared against the
eligible voters not against the people who went to register.

It's really worrying that a shift away from the existing position of a
boycott is going to confuse people by sending mixed messages, as well
as giving the pseudo-elections some form of legitimacy. How do you
tell people to go and register and then next thing tell them not to
vote. The entire process is illegitimate, it's can't be separated into
some parts that are ok and others not.

I'm not sure what he means when he writes "With democracy, when they
give you an inch you should generally grab hold of it and then do your
best to take a mile." That may be true for bourgeois democracy, but in
Swaziland there is not a democracy in the first place to grab hold of.
The message needs to be sent clearly, both internally and to the
world, that there is no democracy in Swaziland - it's not that there
is a democracy with some small problems.

The situation is really different from that of Zimbabwe. Despite the
big problems there, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was
contesting in a multi-party parliamentary system - unlike Swaziland.
We need to look at a specific conjuncture rather than just judging a
boycott as a good or bad tactic in general. The struggle in Swaziland
is not an electoral one.

As for the point that a multi-party system is likely to be declared if
the State Court case is won - I wish I could share this optimism, but
no court case is going to bring democracy to Swaziland, at least in
the foreseeable future. Even if the case were to be won there would be
many other obstacles in the way of Peoples United Democratic Movement
(PUDEMO) participating in the "elections".

Finally, it's good to talk about these issues but let's remember that
the existing position was democratically decided within PUDEMO and
re-affirmed on several occasions. Of course other organisations can
have their own positions but should consider carefully the messages
that are being sent out. Let's keep a strong and unified message that
there is no democracy in Swaziland and the struggle needs to be
intensified to get that democracy.

_______________________

The struggle will not be won in court

Participating in the elections to join a parliament with no real power
would be like joining a soccer game knowing that the ball will not be
given to you or that even if it is given you will not score. The most
ridiculous of this debate is when people think that the struggle will
be won in court. This line of thinking is promoted by (some) people
who are afraid or refuse to take the longer route and want short cuts
that are not sustainable. As Bongani Masuku once said, some people
think the struggle in Swaziland is some Hollywood movie worth endless
comments and analysis and not about people's lives.

These desk top activists refuse to align themselves with certain
political parties because they know that by doing so they would be
antagonising the enemy which will in turn remove its gloves when
dealing with them. Of late some of these so called 'neutral democrats'
have been all out discrediting all those who advocate for the boycott
of the elections with some of them even going further to claim that
'better with the devil (tinkhundla) we know than the angel (political
parties) we do not know'.
________________________

Not a virtue to be banned

What the revolutionaries must always do is to legitimate themselves,
and not to volunteer to exclude them selves. They must insist on being
present in public and in all the institutions of society.

The comrades of the United Democratic Front (UDF) opted for a boycott
of the trilateral elections. I still find this problematic. Their
success was partial, even in its own terms; and further, what is left
out of account is the "opportunity cost", in other words the lost
opportunity of having popular leaders publicly endorsed by the masses,
which would then have had a number of further options.

As for the Bantustans, when did they have elections? I don't remember
that, or any campaign to boycott them, either. I stand to be corrected
about this, by all means.

What I am sure about is that before they were banned in 1950 the
communists frequently contested elections in South Africa and won
seats on quite a number of notable occasions.

The South African communists never made a virtue of their banned
status. They fought against it constantly for 40 years and since
regaining it in 1990 have indeed, as they should, participated in all
facets of South African society, although it is not a socialist or
communist society. Our Party is legal and it is independent and it is
well loved and respected by the masses of this country. It remains, as
it always has been, a revolutionary party of the working class.

At times you say that the proposed elections are not legitimate, as if
there is some kind of election that is more legitimate than this; but
that would only be a bourgeois parliament, which type you then,
further on, also denounce. Your fallacy is to conceive of this event
in the terms that it is presented by the regime, and not as an
opportunity, conceded under pressure, for the masses to exercise a
greater measure of agency than they otherwise would have.

Your appeal for unity is formulaic and bureaucratic. Political
education is nothing like that; and the revolutionary political
process that you must necessarily contrive has to be educative in the
profoundest sense. It must serve to render greater and greater numbers
of people into free subjects, in the philosophical sense of the word
subject, not the feudal one.

Boycott, as a tactic (invented in Ireland and developed in South
Africa and further developed overseas in the South African cause) was
always about agency. It was a way for individuals to act directly and
together, en masse, as opposed to having them appeal to governments or
to international institutions to act on their behalf.

This is why an electoral boycott is a perversion of the boycott
tactic. It does not render the individual into more of a free agent,
but instead deprives the person of an opportunity to exercise a degree
of agency, or in other words a degree of choice. Such opportunities
are hard to come by, and should never be wasted, in my opinion.

Finally, the success of your tactics, whatever they may be, cannot be
measured in terms of whether a tactic was carried out according to
plan or not.

The success of your tactics can only be measured in terms of whether
they succeed in taking you closer to your strategic objective. By that
measure the best verdict that can be given on the "success" of your
electoral tactics so far is the Scottish one of "not proven".

_______________________________

If you stand away, what can you do?

Boycott is a bad tactic in these circumstances. It will put you in a
corner. Every vote cast will be a vote against you. You cannot be sure
of 100% support. Therefore the chances are that the boycott tactic
will split your own support, as opposed to support to the system.

There are many obvious counter-tactics available to the regime which I
will not mention.

With democracy, when they give you an inch you should generally grab
hold of it and then do your best to take a mile. Boycott is nearly
always a bad (electoral) tactic.

There is so much you can do when you are involved in an electoral
situation. If you stand away, what can you do? You don't have any
momentum, you don't have any initiative. You are like a spare at a
wedding.

The main actors here are not you or the regime, but the masses, and
the main event is the election, not the assembly, whether it is called
tinkundla or bourgeois parliament. Neither you nor the regime will
know what the masses can do until the day. In Zimbabwe, the MDC
considered a boycott, but decided to trust the masses, and the masses
rewarded them. An electoral victory given by the masses changes
everything.

_______________________________


Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) is calling!

I am surprised in seeing the re-occurrence of issues in human
activities. When the Afrikaner government introduced the Bantustan,
many people raised the same arguments, saying that it was better to
vote and show the world that Black South African can govern. The same
logic was used in Zimbabwe by many African reactionaries.

If the progressives in Swaziland were to participate in any way in
this selection process, it will negate all the work that has been
done. The fact of the matter is that Peoples United Democratic
Movement (PUDEMO) is calling for a plural democracy and nothing less
than that. We in PUDEMO understands this, but it is not being imposed
on other organisation. If you are not a PUDEMO member, you can
consider participating, but if you are you do not even think about it.

The struggle is not about going to parliament, it is about effecting a
fundamental change in the Swazi society. A change that is based on an
ideology that accept that every person is equal. That all human beings
have the intelligence to make a common sense decision. You can be part
of a system that question your intelligence. The process that produced
the constitution was based on the principles that once Swazi meeting
without the supervision of a state functionary (A chief or his trusted
cronies) there bond to come to a decision that is detrimental to
themselves. My friend you may remember the words of Mndeni Shabalala,
when he said that the tinkhundla is such a good social medicine that
needs to be forced down the throat of Swazis.

My friends, please do not ask us to accept and submit to the view of
the ruling elite, in seeing us as a bunch of children that do not know
what they want. I
hope you remember the other Swazi who said that we talk about
democracy as a child playing with a new toy.

The people of Swaziland deserve to be treated with respect, even by
the educated and rich Swazis. The people are boycotting this process,
there are simply not participating, because we are not a bunch of
sheep that can be lead by the Sheppard.

It is time that we claim our pride as a people. My friend you know how
it is like to go meeting and have the people make jokes about us. The
world secretly doubts our collective intelligence. How can we tolerate
a minority to decide our collective destiny and fate?

My friend if you look at the people of Iraq, how they go to bed
knowing that the might of the American government can not take them
for granted. The people of Palestine can hold their heads high; they
are there to defend their dignity. How can you ask us to shame
ourselves as a people, for how long are we to be the foot mat for a
political system that does not care for any of our views.

Now if we were to be so foolish and participate in this selection
process and we make it to parliament. What then, we all become the
community development officers?

My friends there is no rush, time is on our side. Even if it takes 100
years. We have to wait, the African National Congress waited, the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is still waiting.

Let just continue with our programme to create a meaningful democracy
in Swaziland. The organisations that are looking for donor money by
pretending there is something happening in Swaziland, let them do
that, it is their choice. History will judge them accordingly.
_______________________________
Source:
Swaziland Solidarity Network Forum
<sa-swaziland-solidarity-eom-forum@googlegroups.com
_______________________________

Swaziland Newsletter is published by Africa Contact (Denmark) and
distributed to more than 1200 national and international
organisations, research institutes, universities, trade unions and
labour movements, political parties, church organisations, print and
electronic media, governments, diplomatic missions, members of
parliament, parliamentary committees and private individuals in
Southern Africa, Europe and the United States of America.

Support the democratic movement in Swaziland: MANDELA FUND: Den Danske
Bank, Norre Voldgade 68, 1358 Copenhagen K, Denmark. SWIFT-BIC:
DABADKKK. Registration Number: 0274. Account Number: 3327000. The
MANDELA FUND is a registered national collection in Denmark.