To Vote or Not to Vote

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

William Shakespeare - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet 3/1)

There is absolutely no question about the fact that Swaziland's hybrid regime can never be changed through the ballot. Unlike in Swaziland, elections in Zimbabwe and the U.S.A will usher in a new set of leaders and possibly a new set of policies. The question that many Swazis ask themselves is whether it is worth-while to vote or not. Swazi opposition parties and the unions have vowed to once again boycott the forth-coming elections and current events suggest that they are following their plan.

How effective has this strategy been in terms of building up the movement for democracy? In other words, what does a boycott achieve that a well-planned lobby-group in parliament couldn’t possibly achieve? The grass-roots movement that could have been the basis for a mass-uprising is nowhere near as big as it should be after so many years of struggle and it is doubtful that any armed insurrection is looming. It is within this context that it must be acknowledged that opposition parties might lack the creativity and acumen to seize what might be a defining moment.

To illustrate this fact, it is worth noting that an economic research based in Pretoria predicted that if the movement launched by reformists won the elections and the regime either cheated them of their win or refused to open parliament, it could result in an upheaval similar to the one in Kenya. What the research group was speculating on was the very real possibility of agitating the people on the ground by using a well- established and non-radical medium-the elections. In other words, while it is true to say that the winning of elections cannot bring about any real direct change in the status quo, it is not true to say that they cannot be used to achieve a more advantageous position for the movement.

In the event that the progressive movement has decided to ignore this possibility because they do not have the patience to wait for the people’s response and have decided to resort to arms, it is just as justified for them to ensure that they have a parliament that is sympathetic to their deeds. The terrorist bill is currently being debated in parliament and it is not surprising that the current parliament will pass it without even bothering to define what a terrorist is and whether it would be right to pass a terrorist bill without first ridding the country of the conditions that cause terrorism, such as the lack of freedom of speech and other things central to achieving democracy in a peaceful way.