Preface
to the first public release – 4 July 2019
The
discussion that follows below was drafted in 2016, meant for internal free discussion within PUDEMO. The
analysis was premised on the idea that the more comrades discussed the
documents of the Movement, the more growth, ideologically and otherwise, the
Movement would receive as a benefit. For the past close to three years, the
document has been somewhat a “closely-guarded” secret by me and the comrades who
were able to receive it.
The document
was posted to members of PUDEMO in 2018. Comrades were expected to engage it
like any other opinion that has been expressed by anyone. I must hereby
register my utter disappointment, however, that out of all the comrades who received
the document, only one was able to provide feedback, with whom I had real discussions
on the opinions expressed below and the ideological outlook of the Movement as
a whole. Nonetheless, the discussion was helpful.
I have
decided to release – to the public – my opinion(s) on the People’s Manifesto, for two reasons. Firstly, there has been more than enough time for PUDEMO members to
read the document. By now it is clear to me that the comrades, except for that
one, are not interested in engaging it. Of course I had expected, and it is
widely known anyway, that only a tiny minority of our comrades ever read the
Movement’s documents. Life must go on! Secondly,
the document under scrutiny has been a public document for about two decades. The
public at large, it is expected, has had many bites on the issues raised in it.
Since the question of democracy concerns not merely PUDEMO members, but an
entire population, it is crucial that the public be allowed some greater degree
of engagement of our documents. This will go a long way in strengthening PUDEMO
and the entire democratic movement.
I do expect
that some will be displeased by my decision to send the document out for discussion
by the public. I also expect that some will be displeased even by my decision
to express opinions on the People’s
Manifesto since they still hold the backward belief that the manifesto
holds some sacred and divine position in the democratic movement; that, like
the bible, it should never be scrutinised, let alone be changed. I am already
laughing so loud at the stupidity of those comrades!
In terms
of analysis and sequence of discussion, I have not changed anything since the completion
– and sending out to comrades – of the first document. No editing of the
content has been done. I reproduce my analysis as is to show to the public my
opinions in their “purest” form – as they were when I first sent out the analysis
for the first time to members of PUDEMO. If an update will be necessary in
future, I will make that update as far as necessary. In the PDF version, which
will be sent to those who wish to receive it, I have only added a table of
contents for ease of reading. Readers who are interested in the PDF version may
make requests directly to my email – rintopius@gmail.com
– or make that request on the comment section of the blog.
I hereby
invite the reader to go through the analysis below. It is up to the reader’s
discretion on whether to read my analysis before or after reading the People’s Manifesto. However, I have
tried to the best of my abilities to quote the manifesto to such an extent that
the reader would not be hard pressed to search for and read it.
1. Introduction
It is
generally observed and accepted that a manifesto will normally be brief yet
capable of presenting the full concrete message of that particular movement,
including its short term and long term goals. Partly due to this, a manifesto
is usually difficult to summarise. Its language will usually be broad in the
presentation of the subject matter, carefully covering all the relevant issues
in that particular society in order to paint to the curious reader a clear picture
of the prevailing material conditions and also providing
a clear picture of the future that needs to be crafted. The People’s Manifesto is
therefore no exception. It is clear from the content and wording of the
manifesto that the drafters intended to compress its message in a small
pamphlet whilst at the same time taking care to provide theoretical and
programmatic clarity regarding the Swaziland revolution.
We must
note and accept, however, that notwithstanding the amount of care taken to
draft a manifesto, changing material conditions necessitate that it must also
evolve along with inevitably changing conditions, otherwise it must fall away.
As such, a manifesto is never cast in stone; it must change as times change. Even
the iconic Manifesto of the Communist
Party (1848) could not escape the reality of a constantly developing world,
a world in continuous motion. See in this regard the 1872 Preface to the German
Edition of the Manifesto, jointly written
by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, reflecting on the experiences of the Paris Commune of 1871, where they
concede that:
In view of the
gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying
improved and extended organisation of the working class, in view of the
practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still
more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held
political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been
antiquated.
The thorough
analyses contained in The Civil War in France (1871) written by Karl Marx, where he makes the point that
‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made
state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes’ is also very helpful in this regard.
From
the above, it is clear that little protest can be registered concerning the
need for a critical analysis and improvement of the People’s Manifesto. We must
therefore avoid treating our manifesto as a god which should never be
critically analysed. Following below is a critical analysis of our People’s
Manifesto, meant strictly for internal debate,
within PUDEMO, focusing on both its theoretical and practical aspects.
2. Constitutional
multi-party democracy
As PUDEMO
we have committed ourselves to the creation and promotion of, among other
important principles, a constitutional multi-party democracy. This is a clear
statement in so far as it distinguishes itself from the tinkhundla system and
its operations. It is important that the Manifesto states that the immediate
goal of the revolution is a multi-party democracy, or, put differently, a
democracy based on the active participation of political parties on governance.
These parties, as implied by the Manifesto, will not merely exist in name but will
additionally have the freedom and the right to contest political power under a
democratic constitution. The rights to freedoms of speech, movement and
assembly are by implication included in that respect; especially if one has
regard to the last section of the Manifesto.
The
point that we made in 1996, over two decades ago, pertaining to the call for multi-party
democracy, needs immediate attention. Let us first recall that in the year 2011
there was a group of people, comprising mainly the youth, of which the author
of this opinion was unashamedly a part of, which publicly called for the total overthrow
of the monarch and replacing it with a democratic republic. Since that year the
question of a democratic republic has forever been firmly on the table and impossible
to avoid. Some of the comrades who argued fiercely against the ‘democratic
republic’ slogan claimed that PUDEMO is not fighting for a democratic republic,
but for a constitutional multi-party democracy, as per the Manifesto. To argue
for a democratic republic, so the argument lazily laboured on, is to literally
go against the teachings of PUDEMO! A laughable argument, yes, but the comrades
were unshakably serious on their empty standpoint.
Back
in 1996 it was understandable that PUDEMO would carefully couch its message in
a broad ‘constitutional multi-party democracy’ concept and not go into the slogan’s
nitty-gritties. Material conditions then and now differ markedly. Interpreting
the Manifesto positively, it becomes clear that the drafters had a broader
vision; that it would be possible in the future, when the mobilisation and
conscientisation of the masses had reached a higher level, to openly call for a
people’s democratic republic within the same ‘constitutional multi-party
democracy’ concept. Sadly, some of the comrades kept holding themselves back and
refused to expand the call, yet the same ‘constitutional multi-party democracy’
concept has always given PUDEMO a wide area to manoeuvre and update itself as
material conditions shift towards our favour. Brains stuck in the 90s!
Let us
try as best as possible to liberate all the comrades who still believe that
they have said the most revolutionary thing ever when they limit themselves to
the rigid call for a constitutional multi-party democracy. We must open our
minds to the fact that a constitutional multi-party democracy is possible both
under a democratic republic and a constitutional monarchy. As such, it is not
an impossibility to have such a system with the monarch supervising and
existing above it. A static and ignorant call for a constitutional multi-party
democracy therefore does not help in distinguishing Pudemo from the likes of Sibahle Sinje, a known traditional group
which only advocates the replacement of the people around the monarch with
their own ‘quality’ members, or the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC)
which still believes that Mswati or any of his successors will one day ‘see the
light’ after much verbal persuasion and allow political parties to contest
elections. It is heart-breaking to realise that the NNLC seems to still hold on
to the same old lame view that ‘it is the people around the king’ that are
misleading Mswati and thereby ignore all the selfish deeds Mswati commits, on
his own and under his direction, on a daily basis! What a tragedy!
We further
need to appreciate that passage of time has made the call for a mere
constitutional multi-party democracy obsolete and lifeless. It no longer
clearly addresses the needs of our epoch, although it would have been
understandable to maintain this bare minimum in 1996. It is not, and will never
be, in our favour to leave the masses in the dark or to leave such questions unattended
to. It is a fact that the monarch has become very unpopular with the masses
today compared to 22 years ago. A careful investigation will prove to every
member of PUDEMO that even the people who work with the monarch today will never
waste their energy and resources in an attempt to reawaken the monarch the day
it is forcibly overthrown. As such, we need to come out of this broad outlook and
make it clear that our historical mission is the forcible overthrow of the
monarch, and the transfer of all power to the people! Anything less than this aim
can only be a compromise, which, naturally, can only be a result of struggle
where there has been a deadlock between two warring opponents, with neither
willing to concede defeat. Compromises, whilst they are logically anticipated
in any people’s struggle, should not be taken to substitute the principled
position of the Movement. Starting from a compromised perspective can only be a
sell-out position!
3. The
Goals
3.1. To create a constitutional
multi-party democracy – Goal 1
This point has been extensively addressed above.
3.2.
To
promote economic growth, development and empowerment AND promote and protect
access to land and security of tenure – Goal
3 and Goal 4
These Goals need collective attention because
they address the most important aspect of struggle; ownership and control of
the means of production, including the land question.
Both Goals 3 and 4 make pronouncements on the
economy and the land, but do not clarify nor give a hint on the historical
basis for these pronouncements. What is the material basis, for instance, for
the pronouncement that production relations shall be based on the principles of
a mixed market economy? Is the mixed market economy proposed as a start or as a
perpetual system of production and ownership? Currently, the monarch controls
vast areas of the economy and land, directly or indirectly, which it has expropriated
from the people, and all of which must be returned to the people. These must be
owned and controlled by the people, under the administration of their
democratically elected government, as a start. We therefore need to make it
known that the economy of the country will be democratically owned and controlled
by the people in order to benefit the people. Production as well must be in the
interest of the people. We must not conceal from the masses our ultimate goals.
The masses need clarity on the purpose and intent of the revolution!
Let us
focus more on this phenomenon introduced to us as ‘mixed market economy.’ In
simple dictionary terms, a mixed economy is an economic system in which some
companies are owned by the state whilst some are owned by private entities
(Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 8th edition). There is a lot
that this definition does not tell us about a mixed economy. We must therefore
dig deeper.
Below
we briefly present some literature by different thinkers on the concept of
mixed market economy. As we present the literature we must note that the
concept ‘state capitalism’ is also unavoidably introduced. Additionally, it
should be clear to every revolutionary that when quoting other literature it
does not mean that we seek to copy and paste exactly what those thinkers said.
Instead, the point is to learn from their analyses and from experiences of
other countries and make sober reflections as we study our own terrain.
Anton Pannekoek in State
Capitalism and Dictatorship (1936) speaks of state capitalism in
the following manner, which we must quote in full:
The term “State Capitalism”
is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which
the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers
in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway
are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state
capitalism predominates in industry: the work is planned, financed and managed
by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits
are considered the income of the state. Second, we find that a condition is
defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist
enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading,
however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of
private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole
master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance
system for the workers is accepted.
Could
it be possible that when we talk of a mixed market economy in our manifesto we refer
to either the first or second definition in the quote above? But how can we be
sure when we have not clearly distinguished the kind of mixed market economy
from state capitalism? Can we say with utmost authority that our ‘mixed market
economy’ necessarily excludes the principles of state capitalism?
According
to Paul Mattick (The
Limits of the Mixed Economy – 1969), state-capitalism
remains a 'mixed economy’ by being part
of a world economy still largely determined
by private profit production, and by virtue of the fact that it is marked
by all the antagonisms that characterise private capital production except that
of private profit appropriation. He states that in theory, state-capitalism
should allow for a nationally-planned determination of both the volume and the
direction of production. He then adds that the kind of planning actually
undertaken is, however, ‘determined by the needs of capital production within a
setting of international capital and power competition. The possible advantages
of complete government control can be only partly enjoyed and the fate of the
state-capitalist economy remains bound to the fate of capitalism in
general. Generally, however, both the state-capitalist and mixed economies
are recognized as economic systems adhering to the principle of progress by way
of capital accumulation.’
In
light of the above view, it means that in a society in which the capitalist mode
of production prevails an economy based on the principles of a mixed market economy
presents itself as a progressive system as opposed to unbridled capitalism.
However, this apparently progressive system is heavily limited by the
capitalist system which rules the world. Whilst the state also owns some
companies and/or industries, production and exchange is at the same time
heavily restricted by the dictates of capitalism.
Pannekoek suggests that it is
possible and quite probable that state capitalism will be an intermediary
stage, until the proletariat succeeds in establishing communism. From this standpoint
we may also add that it is possible that the mixed market economy in Swaziland
will be employed only as a starting point and not as a perpetual system. This
is why one must stretch Mattick’s view, quoted above, where he states that the ‘possible
advantages of complete government control can be only partly enjoyed and the
fate of the state-capitalist economy remains bound to the fate of capitalism in
general.’ Here we must add that it depends on the ideological orientation of
the political party or government leading that particular country, as discussed
below.
Let us
now seek the wisdom of Vladimir Lenin. In his document The New Economic Policy
(1921), Lenin recognised the role of state capitalism
in building socialism in a peasant country, like Swaziland, although Swaziland
and Russian demographics vastly differ in addition to the fact that we are
dealing with different eras here. It is important to mention that in this
document, Lenin speaks only of state capitalism and does not mention anything
about mixed economy. However, because the concept of state capitalism is an
important one, relevant to our discussion here and may sometimes be confusing
when compared with the principles of mixed market economy on the one hand and general
capitalist production on the other, it would be an injustice on our part to
ignore this concept.
According
to Lenin, The New Economic Policy
meant ‘reverting to capitalism to a
considerable extent - to what extent we do not know. Concessions to foreign
capitalists… and leasing enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean
restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy.’ Throughout
this document, Lenin makes it clear that for Russia, then under the leadership
of the Bolsheviks who had just taken power, this was merely a tactic; that it
was a means in the building of socialism which must lead to communism. As such
it was not a permanent place for the people of Russia. He saw an advantage in the
‘restoration of capitalism’ for the ‘restoration of a proletarian class,’ a
class best placed than all the classes to overthrow the bourgeoisie and wage a
socialist revolution.
In
this ‘restoration of capitalism,’ Lenin makes it clear that the direction of
the country thenceforth would depend on which class would lead; that if the
capitalists succeeded in organising first, they would drive out the Communists
and that would have been the end of it. He provides another scenario in which ‘the
proletarian state power, with the support of the peasantry,
will prove capable of keeping a proper rein on those gentlemen, the
capitalists, so as to direct capitalism along state channels and to create a capitalism
that will be subordinate to the state and serve the state.’
This
is exactly the point being made here; when this ‘mixed market economy’ has been
created in the new Swaziland, which class will lead the new state? If it is the
capitalist class, then surely we can never expect all the people of Swaziland
to benefit from the fruits of struggle. On the other hand, if we decide to
place PUDEMO in a neutral position
where we play the role of an umpire, no longer a revolutionary role (see Goal 5 discussion below), we would have
practically given all power to the capitalists who will in turn run the country
in the interest of profit maximisation and not the people. It is strongly
suggested herein that we must only use the system of mixed market economy as a
tactic towards a people-owned economy.
Note
that this was not the first time Lenin had talked about state capitalism. A few
months before this he had made the same point in his address to the Third
Congress of the Communist International (1921). There he remarked:
On the contrary, the development
of capitalism, controlled and regulated by the proletarian state (i.e., “state”
capitalism in this sense of the term), is advantageous and necessary in an
extremely devastated and backward small-peasant country (within certain limits,
of course), in as much as it is capable of hastening the immediate revival of
peasant farming.
This
point has been clearly illustrated in the preceding paragraphs. We must not be
stuck in general terms about the economy and the future of the country. We need
to go much deeper into the specifics. Also important is the role of the new
state in the developmental agenda of the new nation. No middle road! No to playing
the neutral card!
It has
to be admitted, nonetheless, that it always sounds ‘professional’ and
academically sound to use the phrase ‘mixed economy,’ or the longer version ‘mixed
market economy,’ and sometimes ‘capitalism with a human face’, but when all is
said and done it remains capitalism, with all its cyclical crises and
contradictions relating to the immense creation of wealth whilst at one and the
same time overseeing the creation of extremely high levels of poverty. Capitalism
is never pro-people but always pro-profit; whatever the ‘face’ it presents
itself in. Such truths should never be hidden from the people. Admittedly, sometimes
such ‘softer’ words and phrases may be tactically used to convince the
international community, which is largely dominated by imperialist forces, to
support one’s struggle. However, in trying to strike that balance, we must bear
in mind that the primary people we must focus on are the oppressed people of
Swaziland. Principle must come first and anything else may follow!
From
the above discussion, we see therefore that the future of a mixed market
economy depends on the type of government running that particular country. In
other words, it is that particular government’s ideological positioning that
determines whether the economy will become more progressive as time goes or
not. For a country that is run by a Communist Party, for instance, it is well
understood that a mixed market economy is utilised merely as a tactic towards
socialism. Of course socialism is not the end of the story. Society still has
to evolve towards classlessness (communism, or the higher phase of communism as
Karl Marx put it in the Critique of the
Gotha Programme – 1875). Granted, PUDEMO is not a Communist Party, but
still we should expect that if it is indeed the leader of society, or the
vanguard of the liberation struggle it claims to be, it can at least be
resolute and leave no question unanswered.
With
the above discussion in mind, it is revealed to us that current tinkhundla-led Swaziland
may surprisingly also lay a claim to exercising a mixed market economy. Hence
the protest registered above that as long as we have not qualified these ‘principles
of a mixed market economy,’ we may easily be clubbed together with other
reactionary and even monarchical forces.
Let us return
home to see if the questions we have posed above have been answered. There is an
interesting contribution in PUDEMO‘s Programme of Action (Adopted at the
5th General
Congress in 2001), where the following
profound statement is made:
The
assumption that the national and per capita incomes would be high enough to
make sizeable redistribution of income possible through the national trickle-down
process of competitive and mixed economic system is yet to prove its validity.
This Programme
of Action significantly contradicts
the 1996 Manifesto. It is the first concrete indication that by 2001 PUDEMO had shifted from the strict worship of the principles of mixed market
economy. In the document, PUDEMO
further says, ‘There is a fundamental need to re-orient development
priorities from exclusive preoccupation with the maximising rates of GNP growth
towards broader social objectives such as the eradication of poverty and
reduction of huge income inequalities. Economic development is when society
develops economically as its members increase jointly their capacity for
dealing with the environment for maximum gains out of it.’ This proposition is acceptable.
We
must note, however, that, in general, as it has been hinted above, the proposal
of a mixed market economy is not dismissed without qualification, despite the
indication that by 2001 Pudemo had already shown clear signs of shifting away
from a strict worship of this principle. Indeed, as a tactic towards an economy
controlled by the people it is acceptable to first have a mixed economy. However,
this should be clarified that it is not an end but a mere ‘breather’ for the
revolution. As the proposal stands in the Manifesto, it is ahistorical and
presents a mixed market economy as an end. It also means that as soon as PUDEMO
takes power it will privatise vast sectors of the economy (land and other
industry), stolen from the people by the monarch. This needs to be corrected.
We
need to make it clear that for a (1) true ‘economic empowerment of the people’,
to (2) ‘uproot the evils of poverty and backwardness’, and (3) for the national
wealth and natural resources to be ‘utilised for the benefit of all the people’,
the land and other property currently controlled by the monarch through Tibiyo Taka Ngwane and Tisuka must be expropriated without compensation and transferred back to
the people. This point needs to come out clear in our Manifesto. All the land
and property controlled by the monarch, including those properties controlled
through fronting, must be expropriated for the benefit of the whole population.
This should be the first great act of PUDEMO in a liberated Swaziland, failing
which history shall have the right to forever judge us harshly!
Speaking
of privatisation of vast sectors of the economy (see preceding paragraph), let
us zoom-in on revenue received by Tibiyo
Taka Ngwane yearly. The aim of
this discussion on Tibiyo is to show
how much the people of Swaziland would materially benefit from the revenue
received by an organisation which is purportedly held ‘in trust for the Swazi
Nation’ by the thieving Mswati! We will focus mainly on the Tibiyo Taka Ngwane Annual Report 2012 (year
ending 30 April 2012) which we have been able to get a copy of. Of course the
economic situation may have slightly changed since 2012, but this financial
report is a necessary guide for discussion.
According
to the Tibiyo report, Tibiyo has investments in 23 companies,
having a 100 percent control in 7 of them, and on the rest having a share
control of up to a massive 76 percent. These shares should be generating
revenue that should be in the control of the people. But these resources are currently
controlled by, and benefit, the royal family and their close friends! In the
report, Tibiyo claims to be ‘at the
core of the social, cultural and economic development of the Swazi people,’ but
the facts prove otherwise. Even the money spent on projects such as bursaries,
health, etc, is nothing but a smokescreen for a great royal charade. In fact this
money benefits the chosen few, that is, family members and
friends of the royal family. No way does it serve the interests of the people.
The
report also claims that the total amount spent on Swazi Nation Development
Expenditure (SNDE) at the end of the year was E83 million. But what is this ‘development’
that has taken up so much money which Tibiyo
speaks of? Whilst the report is open about the money they spent on scholarships
and bursaries, including ‘donations to various institutions dealing with poverty
alleviation and health issues,’ there is a deliberate omission of the amount of
money they spent on the following ‘development’ projects which happened within
that financial year;
(a) Weeding of king’s fields at eNkembeni, eBuhleni and
Lozitha Royal fields over a period of two weeks wherein the ‘total number of
eMabutfo who turned up for these tasks varied from 250 to 700 emabutfo.’ It is
up to the reader to then make calculations of the amount of money spent on such
activities for food and other costs.
(b) Mswati’s birthday was celebrated at eMbangweni Royal
Resident in the Shiselweni Region which ‘attracted about 30 000 people’ and ‘Tibiyo
had been assigned to feed 15 000 which was the general public.’ Again the
reader needs to exercise her or his mind here pertaining to costs.
(c) The sorghum harvesting which took almost a month (8
May 2012 to 29 May 2012). Winnowing activity ran for 6 days beginning on 2 July
until 8 July 2012. ‘These duties were carried out at Mfabantfu, Mbangweni and
Hhohho for harvesting. Winnowing took place at Ludzidzini Royal Residence. The
total number of eMabutfo that came for these tasks were from 1 000 to 3 000
people.’
(d) Marula celebrations which took place at Ebuhleni from
17 to 19 February 2012 and eHlane from 2 to 4 March 2012. According to the Tibiyo report, in both ceremonies
participants were estimated to be about 30 000 in number. As above, they do not
mention the amount of their financial contribution to these activities.
(e) Lutsango LwakaNgwane ceremony (9 July 2012 to 14 July
2012). The total number of Lutsango witnessed at Ludzidzini arena was 40000
plus, according to this report.
(f) Other activities Tibiyo
also catered for are the following (taken verbatim from the report):
-
Maguga Dam visit by Her
Majesty The Queen Mother
-
State Banquet for
President of Taiwan
-
Visitation of Christians
to Lozitha Royal Residence
-
UNESCO Signing Ceremony
-
Ascension Day Service
at Embangweni Royal Residence
-
Easter Service
-
Somhlolo Festival of
Praise
-
Dalcrue Farms
Visitation by Their Majesties
We
present the above list extensively, not merely as a formality exercise. Here we
prove that Tibiyo spends millions
yearly in propping up the royal family in the name of ‘development’ of the
nation. These activities listed above have nothing to do with developing the
people of Swaziland or uplifting their standard of life. This is partly why in
our call for a mixed market economy, we need to make clear what the practical meaning
attached thereon is. These funds must be transferred to the ownership and
control of the people, materially benefitting them. No longer should money be
spent on ‘public’ events which are in fact meant to patronise the people!
Note
that the above analysis of Tibiyo and
revenue of the monarch does not include the separate budget that the monarch
receives from taxpayers through the national budget presented by the Minister
of Finance. This also does not include the money that the monarch loots from
taxpayers, in most cases money which had originally been budgeted for the
people’s basic needs such as education and health. All these monies should be
controlled by the people when the tinkhundla regime is finally overthrown. The
first thing to do, however, is to present our message as clear as possible. We
need not apologise for fighting against the tinkhundla regime!
To
conclude the discussion on these two Goals,
history shows that the big economies of the world rapidly developed
primarily because of the dominant involvement of the state in the economy. This
is exactly the point that Ha-Joon Chang makes in his book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism (2010) – Thing 7. Chang shows that the US, South Korea,
China, South Africa, Britain, and others, contrary to the free-market mantra
and anti-state leadership/intervention propaganda penned out by bourgeois
economists, managed to rapidly develop because the state played this dominant role
and decided which industries had to be prioritised over others and protected
local industry (see Thing 12 –
Governments can pick winners – in this regard). The China of recent decades
followed exactly the same approach of the US of the 19th century and
succeeded in rapidly developing its economy, Chang shows. The US itself came
after Britain which was heavily protectionist.
In
order for us to ensure the development of a democratic Swaziland, we must take
an unapologetic attitude towards development, an attitude which must begin now!
For the state to play the dominant role suggested here, it is important that
the state maintains its sovereignty and not be placed at the mercy of the
markets. In Goal 3, however, by
leaving everything to an unqualified ‘mixed market economy’ principle and phrases like ‘healthy environment for
economic growth and development,’ it
appears that this sovereignty will be undermined and exercised by capital over
the state instead. A state run by capital can only be a puppet state. Thus, PUDEMO
has thrown away ‘the people’ in this Goal
in favour of capital.
3.3.
To
promote job creation and high levels of employment – Goal 5
The main point to be made here is on the ‘tripartite
relations between the state, labour and capital.’ In this short sentence, PUDEMO
suddenly places itself in a neutral position. It suddenly is not presenting
itself as a true representative of the people. History shows that whenever an
organisation takes such a decision, only the dominant class comes out
victorious. In the long run, the organisation loses its revolutionary sting. In
short, such positions can only be taken by an organisation which serves the
interests of capital but for its continued survival must pay lip service to the
working class which is in turn used as nothing but voting fodder! This ‘labour’
which we have interestingly put out in this Goal
as a group outside us, yet which we are in fact a part of, is the very group we
should be mobilising for the overthrow of the tinkhundla regime. We should
continue to be with this group in the development of the new democratic state
and not simply look at it merely as a ‘partner’ as we have unacceptably done
here.
It was mentioned above under Goals 3 and 4 that the strong economies of the world rapidly
developed primarily because of the dominant involvement of the state in the
economy. Here, instead of creating some PUDEMO ‘partnership’ between the state,
labour and capital, we should mention clearly that PUDEMO (as a government) will
lead the process of development in the state and also instil within itself the
capacity to, together with the working class [and the peasants] in this
development path, discipline capital so as to meet the developmental demands of
the new democratic state. Playing neutrality in a class divided society is to
always play into the hands of the ruling class!
3.4.
To
promote the right to education and promote the sustenance of high levels of
relevant education – Goal 6
Since we, as PUDEMO, did not properly resolve Goals 3 and 4, we could only skirt around issues here. Firstly, a call for free
primary school education is a laughable one today. The call should now be free
education up to at least the first degree. Even the value of degree
qualifications has gone down compared to twenty two years ago. As such, the
call for free education in general should dominate our propaganda on education,
and not be limited to primary education!
Additionally, there should be a call for the total eradication
of illiteracy. Illiteracy is still a big problem in Swaziland despite the
regime having enjoyed economic stability during the life of apartheid in South
Africa. In a state like Swaziland where the ruling regime does not care about
the needs of the people, it is mandatory that PUDEMO becomes the people’s hope
as a ‘true representative of the people’ as we have proudly stated. In this
instance we have sadly been lagging too far behind. We therefore need to update
this Goal and bring it up to speed
with current conditions.
Further, which ‘culture’ is being referred to when the
meaning of education is said to be to teach young people to love and respect
‘their culture’? What is this ‘their culture’ that is being referred to in this
Goal? This needs to be cleared or
removed from the Manifesto.
Furthermore, the backwardness and elitism that is
contained in this Goal is disorienting,
to say the least. For example, the people who are being targeted are young
people, and these young people must be taught to ‘love and respect’ their
people, amongst others. We need to be clear that we seek to introduce critical
education; education which empowers all people to develop a critical outlook of
the world and not just an education which is aimed at teaching young people to
respect their people! To have a real people’s government, we must have people’s
education targeted on people of all ages. People’s power needs to be strengthened
by people’s [critical] education. For PUDEMO to have a real claim to the ‘true representative’
of the people of Swaziland moral ground, as per the preamble of the document
under analysis, it has no choice but to introduce a people’s education funded
by a people’s economy.
Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with paying
particular focus on young people in the introduction of a new progressive culture.
The problem in this instance, however, is that there is no hint towards this
direction. The focus is only on instilling respect on young people. In any event,
it has been through ‘respect’ that the tinkhundla regime has continued to
thrive; ‘respect’ in this instance referring to never questioning the system’s
leaders.
3.5.
To
promote good public health and improve the quality of life for all – Goal 8
It is to be noted that both Goals 6 and 8 would be heavily dependent on whether we are able to
achieve the Goals on the economy and the
land; that is, whether we are able to take revolutionary decisions on the
economy and the land, and not just playing the role of belly-growing neutrals
in a class divided society, after a complete revolution in Swaziland. The
future democratic state must go beyond providing free basic health care,
although this can be a beginning on the road towards free universal health care.
One point must be added, however. In this Goal we are silent on the importance of what
is usually referred to as indigenous medicine. The whole paragraph appears to focus
exclusively on ‘modern’, that is, Western style health care. It is important
that we come out clear and express ourselves on the importance of indigenous
medicine and unite the groups of people producing indigenous medicine. An
African revolutionary movement like PUDEMO is duty-bound to develop and promote
indigenous medicine instead of turning a blind eye to it. Interestingly, but
unsurprisingly as an anti-people system,
the tinkhundla regime, despite proclaiming itself as the last authentic African
leadership, has never promoted indigenous medicine or indigenous approaches to health
care. In 2016 the Mswati regime was reported to have passed a
law essentially outlawing
traditional healers and
the use of traditional medicine. This is the Medicines and Related Substance
Control Act of 2016. (It has proved extremely difficult to access the
government gazette on this law, but see this report
by the Times of Swaziland on this
issue). What then needs to be shown in order to prove that this
tinkhundla regime has never been a traditional leadership, but only uses
tradition as lip-service for its survival?!
3.6.
To
promote and develop the rich heritage of the Swazi culture – Goal 9
It is interesting that we did not care about
developing indigenous medicine on the Goal
discussed above, but here we are on this Goal, now professing to promote and develop the rich heritage of
the Swazi culture! Nonetheless, let us focus more on this Goal 9.
At a certain point it will be necessary to make a
clear distinction between (1) heritage, (2) culture, (3) tradition, and (4)
Swazi law and custom. Throwing words in the air will catch up with us in the
long run. For purposes of the discussion of this Goal, however, we will not focus on definitions of these terms. That
can be done in some other discussions.
It would seem that the obvious justification for this Goal is that Swaziland is largely
populated by SiSwati-speaking people who generally subscribe to Swazi culture.
The era of the adoption of the Manifesto (1996) also gives a hint as to the general
mindset of the greater population of the country at the time, especially
towards political party systems. It may therefore appear that this Goal was included in order to dispel the
regime’s propaganda that the policies propagated by PUDEMO and other progressive
forces are ‘unSwazi’ and ‘unAfrican.’ That is, of course, if we view this point
positively.
But PUDEMO is not just a Swazi movement. It is a
revolutionary movement tasked with the historical duty of uniting all the
oppressed people in the fight against the tinkhundla regime which has in any
case never been ‘more Swazi’ than anyone. As such we need not engage in
tribalism like we have done here, no matter how small the other groups may be. We
need to acknowledge and show that Swaziland belongs to all its citizens and not
merely those who ‘belong’ to the Swati/Dlamini tribe/clan. There is therefore no
longer any need to prove that we are also truly Swazi, if there ever was any!
Currently,
the regime spends millions in public funds in the furtherance of cultural activities
(see discussion of Tibiyo above), but
never spends a cent in promoting other cultures that are also within the
borders of Swaziland. What then will be the difference between a PUDEMO-led
government and the tinkhundla regime if we also ‘promote and develop the rich
heritage of Swazi culture,’ and go on to codify Swazi law and custom whilst at
one and the same time neglecting others? It surely would not make sense!
We
must recall that a culture is a culture because of the people and therefore
changes as material conditions change. To even go to the extent of making it one
of our Goals that we will promote and
develop Swazi culture is a total waste of time. A culture of a people living in
urban areas, for instance, is different from the culture of rural masses,
despite both groups of people apparently subscribing to one tribe. This is
because the material conditions under which they live are also different. This
is why, additionally, there is a stark difference between bourgeois culture and
working class culture, whatever the tribal affiliations. The promotion and
development of the ‘rich heritage of Swazi culture,’ therefore, must only mean
the recording of the history of the nation of Swaziland and no other. There is
no need for us to arrest people under a culture they probably do not even
subscribe to!
And,
what are these ‘cultural institutions which ‘shall be open to all?
Are we here referring to a future tinkhundla ministry of some sort? Is this the
kind of education we will be feeding future generations? (See Goal 6 on this and the comments
therein).
The
bottom line, therefore, is that it is wrong for us to pick one culture and
promote and develop it simply because it is the most dominant in Swaziland. That
amounts to the condoning of all that the tinkhundla regime has done in the past,
suppressing other cultures whilst pretending that everyone lives in harmony
under that one culture! We must not do this! It also appears as if we are
including this part in order to please the Swazi monarch. But this would be the
wrong path. When we want to protect and develop a culture it should be simply
because we are guided by the most advanced revolutionary theory and not because
we are so desperate to be accepted by the population or even by the tinkhundla
establishment!
3.7.1.
The
resurrection of the repugnancy clause? – expanded discussion of Goal 9
When
all has been said and done, PUDEMO’s next great task will be to ensure that ‘customs
and practices that are contrary to basic human rights shall be prohibited.’ Have
we returned to the ‘golden’ days of colonial repugnancy clauses? Have we
returned to the days when everything that came with Europeans was sacrosanct
and holy whilst African principles always had to be taken with the greatest of suspicions?
It seems we are back there! After all the glorious ‘uplifting’ words about Swazi
culture and Swazi law and custom generally, we have the guts to remind the
people of Swaziland and Africa at large of the ‘good’ old days of repugnancy
clauses! We show them that we have no intention of liberating them from the old
colonial laws and mentality. We are so cruel!
There
is ample evidence that, despite all its rhetoric about being truly Swazi and
African, the tinkhundla regime never liberated the people from the colonialist
system. Astonishingly, we seem too comfortable in walking in tinkhundla’s
footsteps! This is horrendous! It is also interesting that the repugnancy
clause is being slapped on the ‘customs and practices’ but never on ‘religions
and practices.’ So much for the promotion and development of the ‘rich
heritage’ of Swazi culture! Not so rich now, clearly!
For
those who may still be languishing in doubt about the above, let us here and
now show them that there is nothing patriotic about the tinkhundla regime and
the royal family as a whole. The regime has never even lifted a finger in the
fight against colonial legacy. In fact, since independence it has sought to
benefit from neo-colonial, and later neoliberal, policies. For the regime,
being truly Swazi only means the unilateral rule of the monarch over the whole
country and its unconditional acceptance by the people. It ends there! Whatever
‘cultural’ rhetoric that has always been thrown around has been done simply to
keep all the citizens in check. Below let us show one example which proves that
it has never been in the regime’s interest to undo the colonial legacy.
Section
11 (a) of the Swazi Courts Act 80 of 1950 reads as follows:
The Swazi courts are to apply
the Swazi law and custom prevailing in Swaziland as far as it is not repugnant
to natural justice or morality or inconsistent with the provisions of any law in
force in Swaziland.
At
that time Swaziland was under British rule. Swaziland gained independence in
1968 and also had a new constitution in 2005.
Principles
of Swazi customary law (Swazi law and custom) are also recognised as part of
the law of Swaziland through section 252(2) of the Swaziland constitution of
2005. Yet subsection (3) of this section provides that the provisions of subsection
(2) do not apply in respect of any custom that is, and to the extent that it
is, inconsistent with a provision of the constitution or a statute, or repugnant to natural justice or morality or general principles of humanity. These words taken from the
Swaziland constitution have been highlighted to show how much the tinkhundla
regime continues to bow to colonialism and implement its principles.
It is
clear from the aforementioned sections that the regime still maintains that
Swazi customary law is capable of all the egregious things mentioned above (repugnant
to natural justice or morality or general principles of humanity) but does not
see anything wrong with colonialist laws! A closer scrutiny will show that there
were many colonialist laws that were repugnant to natural justice or general
principles of humanity. Further, the regime does not explain to the people of
Swaziland what they refer to when they talk of ‘morality.’ Whose morals are we
speaking about here? Is it colonial
morality? Perhaps it is Western morality? Surely, it can never be Swazi
morality, for it is the very Swazi moral values that are being heavily put
under the microscope and rejected by the tinkhundla regime!
There
is so much criticism that can be levelled against these sections and many
others on the same subject, but this is not the central scope of this article.
What is important is that the tinkhundla regime is not, and has never been, a
protector of Swazi culture, Swazi law and custom or even the language of the
Swazis. PUDEMO cannot therefore also
fall into this same narrow line of thinking that Western cultures are of a
higher moral value than African ones to such an extent that we begin to reject
African cultures with the use of such vile colonialist phrases. We must show
here explicitly that the use of colonial standards to measure African customary
law principles was always wrong. It cannot then turn to be correct when we are
in power.
Note,
importantly, that the argument here is not that there must be no limitations on
Swazi law and custom or any cultural practice. The main issue, firstly, is the
colonialist approach to the matter; to single out African cultures and customs
as if they are the only practices that are capable of having some ‘backward’ propensities.
Secondly, in a country governed by a constitution which is the supreme law of
the land, there is no need to further limit some specific practice(s). The
constitution, in any event, is the supreme law of the land and any practice
that is inconsistent with the constitution is deemed unconstitutional. Already
we can immediately count many religious practices that are ‘repugnant to
natural justice or general principles of humanity.’ Yet there is no word
against such practices!
Therefore
we should drop the part where we bring Swazi culture and Swazi law and custom
in serious doubt. As a revolutionary movement we need to empower African
cultures (albeit not in the way we have expressed in the document under
discussion), develop them in line with current material conditions whilst
exposing the horrible imported colonialist practices that have never been open
to scrutiny.
3.8. Conclusion
The
above critical analysis of the People’s Manifesto is meant to spark internal debate
about our own documents. It is hoped that more comrades will dust their
notebooks and engage passionately in this debate. But the debate need not
necessarily be limited to the one raised here. Other documents and resolutions
can also be critically analysed and brought up to speed with current times as
best as possible, whilst new opinions regarding current issues may also be
raised for debate.
The People’s
Manifesto has largely been outdated and therefore needs to be updated or
alternatively be completely done away with and in its stead a new People’s
Manifesto be drafted. From an ideological and programmatic point, there is need
to critically scrutinise the current one, remove the obsolete sections whilst
at the same time rephrasing those that do not make much sense ideologically and
practically.
Ngekubuka Kwami: Thinking Out Loud
Rinto
November
2018
4.
POST SCRIPT: TINKHUNDLA AND BUNKHUNDLA
The
first draft of the document critically analysing the People’s Manifesto was
started and completed in December 2016. It was meant to introduce a critical
analysis of our documents and programmes. The natural benefit of a consistent
engagement of our documents would be the gradual development of revolutionary
thinkers and writers within the Movement, something which our struggle
desperately needs.
However,
the analysis of the People’s Manifesto has, for different reasons, been withheld
for far too long; long enough for the necessary attachment of a new topic beneath
the main critique. Thankfully, PUDEMO has held its congress, and one hopes that
there is nothing along the way which will distract comrades from honestly and
seriously engaging in such debates.
This
new topic on bunkhundla will not be
discussed in great depth as the analysis on the People’s Manifesto above.
Rather, it is meant as an introduction to an issue which all revolutionaries
and democracy activists must always keep in mind and grapple with as they
struggle for freedom in Swaziland, and of course as programmes of the Movement
are discussed, decided and implemented.
The
tinkhundla system is nothing but a royal dictatorship. As Mswati said back in
2013, it is a ‘monarchical democracy’, that is democracy that serve the
interests of the monarch. It is democracy by the ruling monarch and for the
ruling monarch. That distinguishes it from the people’s democracy PUDEMO is fighting
for (or ought to be fighting for).
To
implement and deepen its rule, the tinkhundla regime has built a network of
state institutions. There are of course the obvious institutions such as the
police, army, intelligence wing and the different government departments that daily
instil fear and distribute patronage among the people. Others include the
chiefs who implement royal rule and ensure obedience.
The
tinkhundla regime, like every other regime which has to sustain its rule, must
create within society some beliefs through which it can ensure the voluntary obedience
of the people. Spending millions in monies to force the people to obey the
regime’s rule is unsustainable. It has to spread some beliefs among the people.
Using various means, the regime has been spreading so many beliefs which have
coalesced into the tendency known as bunkhundla.
The
deepening of every system necessarily creates tendencies and beliefs among the
ruled people, and every system creates ideas for its perpetuation. As the
system strengthens, so do its ideas. Under feudal rule, especially as it held
sway for a long time in Europe and Asia, it was unthinkable that there could be
a society in which people could wake up every morning and work for the
accumulation of profit for a private individual. This latter reality could only
manifest itself under capitalism, the mode of production which prevails in the
world today, including in Swaziland. During feudalism era it was totally
unthinkable that a leader of a state could ever be elected by the people in a
national electoral process – universal suffrage was not thought of. The most
‘natural’ thing was that a leader is born with some ‘divine right’ to rule. Only
through a revolution, which in Europe took the shape of the bourgeois
revolution, was this ‘natural’ law defeated and proved to be the fable that it
was.
When a
system has therefore been in place for a long time it creates and deepens the cultures,
tendencies and beliefs held by many members of society to such an extent that
those cultures, tendencies and beliefs are then conceived as natural by a
greater majority of that population. Individuals and organisations emerging
from that particular system also, to a certain degree, mimic that system in
their daily engagements. It is partly for this reason that Vladimir Lenin
argued in his classic State and
Revolution that the early epoch of a socialist society will still contain
many of the tendencies that are key aspects of capitalism.
If it
is agreed that the individuals and organisations that sprout from a well deepened
system also mimic the way that system operates, to a certain extent, then it
should be true for Swaziland as well. In
the context of Swaziland, the tinkhundla system would then give birth to a
tendency that would exist among the people, known as bunkhundla. This means that the individuals forming part of the
organisations of Swaziland have bunkhundla
within them, first because they have been tutored by the tinkhundla system
all their lives and, secondly, because the organisations under which they
belong are filled with people who have the bunkhundla tendency and thus causing
those particular organisations to also have bunkhundla.
The bunkhundla phenomenon must be studied
thoroughly in order to make a clear distinction between those organisations
which can be classified as ‘revolutionary’ and those that can be placed under
the ‘reformist’ and/or conservative or reactionary categories. It is important
to reiterate that all the formations from Swaziland inhibit within themselves bunkhundla, only that some have more or
of this tendency whilst others have less and continuously work to eradicate it.
This will in most cases be through regular and consistent political education and
practical revolutionary work. Those organisations which ignore political
education only help to deepen themselves more into the bunkhundla pit and soon become, willingly or unwillingly,
consciously or unconsciously, agents of the tinkhundla system by their various
acts.
Bunkhundla is easily identified
among individuals and organisations by observing their practical actions,
including written works, and their attitude towards the tinkhundla regime and
bodies that fight against the tinkhundla regime. For instance, the tinkhundla
system has continuously oppressed the people of Swaziland whilst at the same
time teaching them to raise their complaints with utmost respect, ‘like Swazi
children that have been raised with respect, as the royalists usually say. Is
this not what happens among some of the democratic forces of Swaziland? A fight
against the Mswati regime must be revolutionary. It must be aimed at ‘changing
everything that needs to be changed’, in the words of Fidel Castro. But some of
the leaders have scolded those comrades who use words and phrases like ‘overthrow’,
‘Mswati is a criminal’, ‘Mswati is a rapist’, etc., in a word, those words and
phrases which violate the command of the tinkhundla regime to raise issues ‘with
utmost respect… like true Swazi children’. Too many times leaders spend their
time shushing especially young comrades from using ‘strong’ language against
the regime and the monarch. In the end, anything against the monarch is itself condemned
by these leaders. The ultimate result is a disillusioned youth who do not know
whether to fight the Mswati regime or to simply go down on their knees and beg
for freedom.
Bunkhundla must be combatted every
day. Those organisations which are daily imbuing its membership and the
communities of Swaziland with revolutionary material are the ones that can be
trusted with real change in Swaziland. Such organisations can be properly
classified as revolutionary. They teach against all the norms and values that
have been created and taught by the regime in the schools and churches, among
many fora, and are at one and the same time purging themselves of any remnants
of bunkhundla that exist. An
organisation that stops purging itself of bunkhundla
can only evolve into one which aids the tinkhundla system. Thus, just like the
process of learning, the fight against bunkhundla
must be continued and be sustained even during the era of a democratic
Swaziland. The struggle against the tinkhundla system must therefore involve a
continuous struggle against bunkhundla!
Ngekubuka Kwami: Thinking Out Loud
Rinto
16
November 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment