The concept of regime change, a very popular strategy during the Cold War period, has endured and been tried several times across the globe by world powers.
During the Cold War period the objective was largely about installing a compliant leader and government the results were mixed and history reflects an adventure that produced more chaos than good.
But despite its terrible history, regime change remains the favorite and even the most popular mantra of progressives in the country.
The concept has led to a whole generation of radical and lazy armchair activists, whose most consuming desire is to grab power merely for power’s sake, but ostensible for democratic outcomes.
The social media has become a convenient platform where regime change fanatics trade insults and conspiracy theories about everything traditional and the monarchy.
Progressives continue to pursue the politics of disengagements with the public, and this strategic miscalculation is a result of growing culture of political dumbness – a political culture that is least bothered with providing an alternative to the public serve for endless efforts to foment public anger.
The fomenting of public anger is consistent with progressives’ urgent desire to access state power and wallow in their own new found gravy train.
The Tinkhundla system, from its inception, was never presented as a perfect instead our previous monarch explicitly stated that the system will require continuous development – equating it to the traditional beehive headgear/style ‘Sicholo’ worn by Swazi women, an intricate styling that requires steady maintenance.
So, for the record, the Tinkhundla system was presented as a project that would require Emaswati to intellectually engage with it and make inputs aimed at improving it, clearly this exercise has proven too daunting for activists who want power at all costs and by all means.
The current Tinkhundla system has changed almost beyond recognition compared to what it was at inception almost 50 years ago, having transitioned from an electoral college system to direct representation; constituencies started at a modest number of 22 in the 70s and progressed into 40 in 1979 and currently stand at 59 constituencies with direct representatives from each constituency.
Direct representation forms a core of representive democracy, and this milestone must be celebrated as a measure that deepens our democracy.
The foregoing examples clearly demonstrates that the Tinkhundla system is not static, but is evolving in response to the people’s desires.
We need to expose the fallacy of regime change concept, as we attempt to persuade our progressives compatriots to abandon their unproductive and unrealistic revolution-seeking ideology.
THE REGIME CHANGE CONCEPT HAS FAILED
History is replete with examples of regime change efforts that have dismally failed, starting from the ColWar era regime change efforts that were engineered to facilitate power transitions that ensured regimes that would be compliant with world powers.
Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that the regime change concept/approach never realised any success, it actually did – the most outstanding was the total overhaul of both Germany and Japan after the second world war, but these regime changes occurred under very unique conditions, such as total military defeat, presence of strong foreign powers in the two countries, essentially conditions that meant no domestic opposition to the changes that were being engineered.
But subsequent interventions meant to facilitate regime changes in other countries were a total failure, Iran stands out, so does Afghanistan. Iran, which in the 50s was considered as liberal nationalists, experienced a coup in 1953 which was engineered by British and American intelligence services, that event started a domino effect process that was to ultimately lead into the 1979 Islamic revolution that ushered in the current monster regime; the regime change approach facilitated the emergence of a regime that stands accused of sponsoring terrorism across the entire Middle East and remains a source of political instability in the region.
We need not remind the reader of the humiliating exit of US army from Afghanistan as the Taliban was marching into the capital city in the period 2020/21, the Taliban stormed back into power reversing all efforts of establishing a modern democratic state initiated in the 2001 intervention; what was celebrated as the defeat of the Taliban and terrorism was to return in 2021 to establish an extremist regime that forcefully denies women and girls their fundamental human rights of pursing their careers and education.
These two examples, given their extreme failures, should make the evidence of the failure of the regime change too overwhelming to require any additional cases, but we do have cases in Africa of colossal failings of the same approach. In fact, the Congo region’s political instability which has persisted for decades, is attributed to similar regime change machinations carried out by the west.
The results of these failed regime change efforts are too ghastly to be taken lightly and this is exactly the reason why local progressives` call for a regime change is a demonstration of intolerable irresponsibility.
Progressives politicians across our borders are currently engaged in a blame game debate regarding the developments surrounding the collapse of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and his subsequent murder.
This debate is essentially motivated by the belief that African leaders ought not to have allowed this, from the African countries who occupied the non-permanent seats at the UN security council – where the whole NATO invasion was initiated, the feeling is that Gaddafi was failed by his own African brothers.
But the point is this regime change project has led into Libya becoming a failed state, with the ensuing civil war that has resulted in the death of over 500 000 people and the displacement of over 13 million people, evidence that should persuade even the most radical progressive that regime change is the worst option where the creation of a sustainable democratic state is concerned. Ultimately, it is apparent that it takes democratic processes to deliver democratic transitions, it must be accepted that efforts to deepen democracy must respect both the means and the ends.
The 2021 riots reflect an inclination by progressives to undermine both the means and the ends, they were certainly seeking a brutal power grab, which naturally as the above evidence has demonstrated, would have been followed by a dispensation of political chaos and violence; the hallmark of political statesmanship detects that such a risk must be continuously mitigated and refuted, no country deserves to go through the litany of violence and human rights abuses occasioned by regime change outcomes.
TINKHUNDLA AND DEEPENING DEMOCRACY
The political evolution as mentioned earlier, transitioning from 22 constituencies in the 70s through 40 in 1979 and the current 59 all reflects a process of deepening democracy; the direct representation in the legislature of constituencies is a democratic attribute of serious significance; these direct representatives are expected to continue the development and deepening of other democratic attributes such as freedom, human rights and others as enshrined in our constitution. The illusion of a regime change, sadly, has kept progressives in a state of political irrelevance and deliberate hibernation, these compatriots must be urged to love democracy enough to respect all its processes and to accept that in real democracy the ends are as important as the means.
This is a lesson that appears to becoming more difficult with progressives, if their ongoing gravitating towards autocratic regimes like China is anything to go by and we dare not ignore it.
Calls for a revolution are not just irresponsible, but demonstrate a height of political naivety that should not be tolerated, other than the fact that its an impossibility it also creates a political culture of unproductive political rhetoric.
The two progressive politicians, both late, former prime minister Obed Dlamini and former Member of Parliament Jan Sithole, demonstrated that participation remains the most noble and responsible option for nation building; boycotting democratic processes purely on ideological bases reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy and a refusal to subject oneself to the necessary litmus test of the ballot box – a revolution should thus be seen for what it is, a rejection of democracy in pursuit of power at all costs and by all means.
It is thus the responsibility of all democrats to ensure that those who reject democratic processes remain in the periphery of our politics, commitment to democratic processes, not ideological pursuits, should be at the front and center of our democratic values.
The regime change approach has been proven by overwhelming and objective evidence that it has failed, its consequences are too ghastly to be ignored.
