Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations
MEDIA STATEMENT
18 November 2008
The Swaziland Coalition is most concerned about the recent developments in the Country. It has previously resisted the temptation to comment on the government’s stance regarding the politically motivated violence as it was waiting to see if there would be a difference between the high flown rhetoric of ‘stranglings, throttlings and iron fists’ compared to the actual actions by the government and its security forces. As an organisation that has consistently promoted peaceful democracy and the rule of law we now feel that it is time for civil society to speak.
In a meeting we had with some traditional leaders earlier this year, they were strongly of the opinion that there was no conflict in the country and if there was, they knew how to deal with it. It was obvious to us then, and we hope it is obvious to them now, that the conflict is here, it is real, and it is escalating.
We see the actions of both sides as having the potential to make the present situation in Swaziland worse, not better. Situations like this have a habit of growing quickly out of control. Each action by one side seemingly justifying an increased reaction by the other. This is common but it is not inevitable. Visionary Leadership can help.
Prime Minister Dlamini is most famous for the Rule of Law Crisis in 2002. A government that plays fast and loose with the law is one that cannot be trusted by foreign investors, private companies or its people at large. We have already seen that important parts of our Constitution have been ignored and fear for worse. On the other hand Political Parties that espouse violence cannot be trusted to negotiate according to a democratic mandate. But at some time negotiations will become inevitable. To resort to force and heavy-handed laws actually plays into the hands of the men of violence and the hawks on both sides.
Of course, we recognize that the state has to be seen to be the protector of our security but cannot the criminal law look after that? Does it require that the state goes further and starts to ban political organisations that it already had effectively excluded from public life? Can you really equate PUDEMO to Al-Qaeda? Mario Masuku to Osama Bin Laden? Is the level of threat really so high? We support the Law Society of Swaziland’s call for human rights and the rule of law to continue to be respected and that any use of emergency powers to be reasonable, proportionate and within the Constitution.
There is a fine line between the suppression of violence and the oppression of political enemies, beyond that line is a sustained attack on legitimate political debate. And therein lies the problem – ‘throttling’ the voiceless is an exercise in overkill, it gives the bombers all the justification they need for the bombings to continue. It is not in the mindset of committed political activists to say - ‘OK that’s it, we’ve been banned - we’ll give up our cause and take up golf.’ You can look across the world from South Africa to Ireland and Nepal. All were negotiated settlements after organizations were banned and violence was exerted by both sides for as long as it took them to realise their cause was not capable of being won through repressive or military means.
Let us be blunt, politically motivated violence has no place in a democracy, but a democracy is a place where all voices can be heard and respected. Can we truly say that about Swaziland today?
To put it another way, if a child was crying out in pain, would a loving father choke it to stop the noise?
Musa Hlophe
Co-ordinator
No comments:
Post a Comment