Global+economy,+apartheid+plan,+and+Swazi+economy,+Masuku

=Character of the global economy and the apartheid grand plan for Southern Africa: Prospects for the democratisation of the Swazi economy=


 * Bongani Masuku**

Who else could be better qualified to explicitly define the content and character of globalisation than the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) President in a letter to senior US officials on March, 21, 1997, when he said, “we will oppose any and all measures to create or even imply binding obligations for governments or business related to environment or labour”, he went on to state that, “the MAI is an agreement by governments to protect international investors and their investments and to liberalise investment regimes”[1]. This communication was sent to the Clinton administration in anticipation of its contemplation of side-bar agreements to the multilateral agreement on investment (MAI) on labour and the environment.

This scenario is necessitated by the emergence of new forms of capitalist accumulation, organisation and exploitation as a consequence of the rise of imperialist globalisation. The globalisation of capital and accelerated penetration by imperialism of the less-developed parts of the world have taken three forms;
 * Firstly, we have seen the emergence of huge transnational companies, demonstrating a savage and limitless appetite for the plunder of the resources of the people in those parts of the world; and,
 * Secondly, there has developed a “servicing and support structure of international capital, “ World Bank, International monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation, G-8 group of countries and the imperialist “aid” and technical assistance programmes, whose objective is to provide infrastructure and create favourable conditions for the international circulation of global capital, to speed up the destruction of pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist forms of production, and generally to facilitate the secure integration of peripheral areas into the imperialist world system; and
 * Thirdly, globalisation seeks to entrench corporate rule through a global security regime enforced by governments and special security agencies on behalf of industrialised countries’ interests, primarily the US in the name of fighting terrorism.

In this regard, the role of governments will not be to ensure economic, social and environmental policies that serve the interests of their people. The clear rule being that repressive regimes, so long as they are properly aligned politically and ideologically, are effective instruments of global corporate rule and the agenda for globalisation in general.

The key rule governing the functioning of imperialism is that of always integrating all countries of the world into its global economic system, but under terms and conditions that favour the rich capitalist countries at the expense of poor countries. This is the primary contradiction of globalisation.

This simultaneous integration and marginalisation confirms that to be integrated does not benefit the poor countries precisely because of the capitalist character of globalisation. The most obvious manifestation of this contradiction of simultaneous integration and marginalisation are the structural adjustment programmes and the whole neo-liberal programme imposed by international financial institutions; WB, IMF, WTO, etc. These aim at opening the developing world to the profit craving interests of the transnational corporations through privatisation, liberalisation and de-regulation of the whole economies. These programmes have nothing to do with addressing the socio-economic needs of the majority of the population in these countries[2].

This fact highlights the importance of solidarity with workers and oppressed people all over the world against two forces;
 * Imperialism, as manifested in the limitless appetite by capital for the resources of the developing world and poor people; and,
 * Client states and agents of imperialism in the developing countries, primarily, the corporate, bureaucratic and political elites who are the gatekeepers of imperialism in this part of the world.

This form of solidarity should direct its energies at challenging the very logic of imperialism in the current period, whilst at the same time uniting the struggles of the poor and oppressed people throughout the world.

Globalisation weakens, to a large extent, the developmental role of the state in the economy and its capacity to satisfy the basic social needs of the poor, whilst strengthening its regulatory, and in many cases, repressive capacity and functions in order to effectively drive a neo-liberal programme.

Of necessity, neo-liberal measures always lead to popular resistance, which make it necessary therefore, for the repressive machinery of the state to be strengthened in order to deal with such resistance. This goes together with the privileging of the interests of private capital over those of the social needs of the poor masses. Therefore, globalisation is not a neutral phenomenon, it is an ideologically driven process of the expansion of the productive forces. It is driven by the desire to maximise profitability for a few transnational companies, and not to meet the basic needs of the people.

At this juncture of capitalist domination, it is monopoly companies, particularly transnational corporations which largely set the global agenda.

As such, it has become clear that political and economic policies of governments throughout the world are already dictated to by these corporations. In actual fact, the content and form of globalisation of trade, investment and capital flows, as well as general operations of the financial multilateral institutions reflect the definite agenda of these large corporations.

Combined with this is the fact that we entered a new millennium with an approach to international relations that reflects capitalism’s unlimited licence to plunder people’s resources in any part of the world, but particularly in developing countries which have, in large part surrendered their sovereignty.

Capital and labour have over the decades tended towards international deployment and solidarity. The constant search for cheap labour, raw materials and markets have chased capital all over the globe, as indicated by the Communist manifesto written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

At the same time, the development of the productive forces and capital’s relentless pursuit of profit have spurred on the concentration and centralisation of wealth. In its wake, labour solidarity has, out of necessity, transcended industries and state borders. //The tendency towards internationalism is therefore a necessary product of capitalism and the fight against it[3].//

Background to the structure of the Southern African economy
At the beginning of this century and during colonial times, western countries saw their colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America as sources of raw materials and cheap labour, for industry in the mother country. They used the colonies to generate wealth on terms of trade beneficial to the industrialised countries, which laid the basis for the perpetual unequal relations.

Factors that accounted for the deepening of the unequal relations, inter alia are, particularly the third world debt;
 * Crisis in the world economy which could only be bailed out through a transfer of loans to the crumbling poor countries, as well as to bail out the economies of western countries themselves which were undergoing deep-seated structural crisis in their profitability indices. In this sense, loans sought to stimulate the market in the north and set the economic ball rolling;
 * OPEC profitability which was invested in western commercial banks that became too loaded with money and decided to plan for a loaning system to developing countries, as a means to service their systems;
 * Arms became a key part of the external debt, which was in the interest of western profitability and part of the arms race, so central to the cold war conflict

The crisis and dilemma of Africa’s development prompted the development of the Lagos Plan of action in 1979, which was heavily criticised by the World Bank as not giving enough room for private sector participation, not emphasising enough on the need for reforms in the public sector and being too ambitious in its projections on what Africa could achieve in terms of industrial growth[4].

The world bank therefore went ahead to set up its own assessment of the possibilities to jump start African economies and in accordance with its mandate as the forebearer of capital’s interests throughout the world. It appointed Professor Elliot Berg as the leader of the commission, which came up with a two-pronged solution to the problems;
 * Rolling back the state from involvement in the economy through privatisation; and,
 * Opening up the economy to more private sector participation and the rule of the market through liberalisation.

In this regard, this is the background to the imposition of Structural adjustments programmes (SAPs) defined as IMF economic policies imposed by western creditors whose ultimate purpose is;
 * To generate hard currency to repay debts; and,
 * To open up developing country markets to foreign imports.

These cannot be achieved unless a country is so indebted that it can be forced to open up its foreign capital and trade markets. The way to get a country to open up is to offer loans or bail-outs and then apply conditions. Western creditors cannot intervene unless a country becomes indebted. Then the IMF is sent in to put adjustments policies in place.

The conditions tied to SAPs in general impose;
 * Higher interest rates
 * Cuts in public expenditure, including cuts in health, education and social welfare budgets
 * Currency devaluation, making exports cheaper and imports more expensive
 * Limiting state interference, which means the removal of state subsidies, such as on basic foodstuffs
 * Privatising state industries and agencies, such as transport, agricultural co-operatives, hospitals, schools, etc
 * Increasing exports, such as plantation cash crops instead of subsistence food crops.
 * Encouraging international investment, such as the establishment of export-processing zones, allowing profit repatriation, limiting the power of unions and other organised mass organs, promoting the unlimited rule of transnational companies, etc.

This was to be the case with most countries in the Southern African region. However, it must be noted that South Africa, under apartheid rule at the time, had earlier on indicated ambitions to create a common market under its hegemony, which according to its plans was to stretch from Cape To Zaire (now DRC).

By 1979, foreign capital had regained much of its confidence in South Africa. The international political and economic situation pushed the gold price over $700 per ounce by the end of the year. Taxation from gold mining alone had jumped from R 477.4m in 1977 to R 937.3m in 1978, to an estimated R 1600m in 1979[5].

Earlier in 1979, Prime minister Botha had felt confident enough to dust off the plans that had been drawn up in the 1960s under Dr Verwoerd for a Southern African Common market. Designed to ensure South African hegemony over the region, the Verwoerd plan had designated the area from South Africa to Zaire a “co-prosperity sphere”. The aim was not only to give South Africa increased leverage over the region, but to guarantee her supplies of raw materials and labour, and a market for her industrial and agricultural exports[6].

The Botha plan became known as the Constellation of Southern Africa States (CONSAS), was unveiled in March, 1979 to a gathering of South African ambassadors in Zurich. It was reported that the aim was “…..to draw into South Africa’s orbit all Southern African states up to and including Zaire”. In November 1979 Botha publicly launched his initiative, appropriately enough at a business conference in Johannesburg.

This initiative was to be home to states that were historically were close to the apartheid regime, such as Malawi under Kamuzu Banda and Swaziland under the monarchy regime and the Bantustan despots of South Africa. However, progressive states convened in Zambia in August, 1980 to form the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Conference (SADCC), meant to unite the frontline states against apartheid aggression and advance the liberation objectives of the people of the region. In particular they sought to reduce their economic dependence on South Africa, so as to assert their independent positions on matters of interest to the welfare of their people.


 * Character of the tinkhundla neo-colonial system in Swaziland**

The colonial regime and its creation - the tinkhundla neo-colonial regime have pursued discriminatory social, political and economic policies which; amongst other things have led to: extreme levels of poverty and disease in the rural areas; the creation of urban ghettoes where people have been denied even the most basic means of survival as a result of severely limited access to decent homes, electricity, water-borne sewerage, tarred roads, and recreational facilities; an education system preparing the majority for lives of inferiority and low wage jobs; a social security geared almost entirely to fulfilling the needs of the royal minority and their friends; a health system that has seriously neglected the well-being of most Swazis; the social and political marginalisation of the majority of the people, through their exclusion from public, economic benefit and decision-making, as well the distortion and abuse of culture by the ruling royal regime[7].

Gender discrimination has either excluded or subordinated women's participation in all socio-economic and political institutions. Combined with tinkhundla patriarchy, this has resulted in women, rural women in particular, being the most exploited and poverty-stricken section of the Swazi population.

Both the political system of tinkhundla and the pattern of economic development in our country, have been responsible for these developments. The royal minority and their capitalist friends have used their exclusive access to political and economic power to promote their own interests at the expense of the majority of our people and the country's natural resources. The majority of the Swazi people have been systematically excluded and disadvantaged economically with the result that Swaziland has one of the most unequal patterns of income and wealth distribution in the world.

The alienation of land from the indigenous people and the denial of the majority of our people's rights to land and political power in our country are ultimately connected. The agricultural sector is experiencing a deep crisis due to the land tenure system and the deep-seated structural crisis of the whole tinkhundla system. These problems have led to the arbitrary eviction of people from their land, unemployment and a serious decline in living standards. Furthermore, they have deprived the youth and women of opportunities to realise their talents and contribute to the development of our country.

Our people are divided. They do not know each other’s views and are prevented from developing a national vision, in terms of which, we would see our country through the eyes of all its people and not just a privileged few. While as a people we live together physically, but we are spiritually alienated and skeptical of each other, because the system has instilled in us a feeling of paranoia for change and what it means for each one of us, in terms of our cultural identity, material station in life and personal security. In this sense, we are ruled by a fragmented system and a confused political architecture, imposed upon us from somewhere in the royal palaces of a family whose will is supposed to be law. Tinkhundla has thrown the whole nation into the deep end of a black and endless pit and left the nation with no hope for a better future.

Therefore, it is vital that PUDEMO develop a clear response, which must be aimed at establishing a new and truly democratic system in the country, so as to replace the chaotic and undemocratic tinkhundla configuration, whilst simultaneously addressing the legacy of tinkhundla neo-colonialism and semi-feudalism in the broader socio-economic sphere.

This document seeks to highlight the major problems and extent of the crisis of the system and to respond to these issues, with particular attention to the economic sphere. It is structured so as to highlight the strong relationship between the creation of democracy as a cross-cutting way of organizing society and the actual transformation of ownership patterns at every level of Swazi society.


 * Structure and character of the Swazi economy**

Swaziland is a country with high income-inequalities than in most developed countries and high by standards of the developing world according to a study by the UNDP for 2000[8].

There are two major causes of the persistent inequality in Swaziland;
 * First, the deliberate policy of the tinkhundla royal regime to monopolise national resources and allocate these in favour of their own narrow selfish interests, to the total exclusion of the suffering masses of Swaziland;
 * Secondly, the economy has experienced growth that has not translated into development and benefit for the majority of the people of Swaziland.

This situation is made worse by the fact that the economy of the country is going through a deep-seated structural crisis, resulting in the lack of growth, which is indicated by the fact that economic growth dropped to 1.5% in 2002, compared to 2.5% for 2000 and 3.7% in 1999, according to the Annual Report of the Central Bank of Swaziland for 2002. This situation is further compounded by the fact that the country is also suffering from a lack of foreign direct investment inflows[9].

All this is a result of a political and socio-economic crisis engulfing the country, brought about by a system without a vision, characterized by rampant corruption and fragmentation, parasitism, and deepening poverty levels. In this regard, instead of creating new jobs and protecting the existing ones, the economy is destroying the remaining jobs. This explains the terrifying unemployment levels in the country.

The key features of the Swazi economy, as indicated by the study of the UNDP include:
 * High levels of poverty
 * About 70% of the population live in rural areas
 * The bulk of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority
 * Land remains largely in the hands of a few
 * The economy is still agro-based
 * The economy is no longer expanding, thus it is destroying jobs and not creating new ones, which also make it fail to absorb new job seekers
 * The economy is largely dependant on the economy of South Africa, particularly for revenue as indicated by the close to 50% SACU revenue which remains a key source of revenue for the country
 * Ultimately, the economy is going through a deep-seated structural crisis

The GNP per capita of $1360(1999) classify Swaziland as a middle income country, disregarding huge inequalities so obvious in the country, assuming that the size of the economy, in relation to the population, automatically means guaranteed access for all to basic resources, which is not the case in reality.

This is what has led to many progressive economists and development activists questioning the use of per capita GNP as a proper measure of development. According to Todaro(1997), //"the experience of the 1950s and 1960s, when a large number of third world nations did achieve the overall growth targets, but the living standards of the masses remained for the most part unchanged, signaled that something is wrong with this narrow definition of development subsumed in the growth rate of per capita GNP"[10].//

There seems to be no automatic link between income growth and human development, and therefore the growth of per capita income over time should not be the sole measure of human welfare. Fundamentally, development should be measured in terms of poverty levels, income distribution and levels of material satisfaction in a country, and not just economic growth rates.

The average picture of wealth, as indicated by the growth rate, as well as social audit, tend to hide the high level of inequality, poverty and deprivation so evident in the country. This shows that since the 1968 independence the standard of living of the great majority of Swazis has not improved.

Instead, inequalities have deepened as indicated by the following characteristics;
 * Huge unequal distribution of income and living conditions
 * Regional disparities in income and living conditions
 * Skewed property income and land ownership
 * Inequality in upward mobility and favouritism in social opportunities
 * Unequal access to safe and clean water and sanitation facilities
 * Unequal access to basic education and employment
 * Massive rural and urban poverty and landlessness

Manzini region has the highest human development index while Shiselweni has the lowest due to the high rates of unemployment in the Shiselweni region. More than that, this also reflects the patterns of development in Swaziland which are urban-biased while the majority of the people live in rural areas, under conditions of total neglect. On the other hand, Lubombo region is said to have the highest life expectancy index, followed by Manzini and Hhohho regions, while Shiselweni again, has the lowest of them all.

In terms of gender performance, a Human development report of the UN made an example of how Swaziland fares when it stated that, "the proportion of female parliamentarians in Swaziland is 6.3% (SADC target being 30% by 2005), which makes Swaziland perform worse than any other country within SADC and to rank 62 out of 70 countries listed under the gender empowerment measure (GEM) in the world"[11].

Swaziland is currently listed as one of the top two countries (2002) countries with the highest HIV prevalence rate in the world according to the UNDP. Children are orphaned, workers' productivity suffers, families are broken and left without breadwinners, children's education suffers as parental care and national resources are stretched, people die young and poverty is deepened by these conditions - all as a result of the HIV/AIDS catastrophe. The government has no political will to deal decisively with this pandemic, which is compounded by the regime's systematic encouragement and practice of patriarchy and cultural abuse.

Statistics indicate a serious increase in the number of people infected with the disease. At the same time, impact on our communities has been devastative. While HIV/AIDS can affect anybody, it hits the poor hardest. Our programme to fight this epidemic must therefore be part of the struggle against poverty; to make basic health services, clean water and sanitation accessible to all our people; to improve nutrition and food security; to fight against opportunistic diseases, malnutrition and to promote the empowerment of women and youth.

We must mobilize and support the international effort to ensure affordable access to medicines, including medicines used against HIV/AIDS in the developing world through engaging pharmaceutical companies, for them to stop seeking to make profit at the expense of human lives in the true spirit of "putting people before profits".

The summary from the balance sheet of the global economy is that more and more people are getting poorer and a few are getting richer. Most of those getting poorer are from sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of whom are women. This explains why the situation of Swaziland must be located in the context of a global order that serve the interests of a tiny minority of rich elites, both in the rich countries of the north and the poor countries of the South. Therefore, the enemy must be understood.

A study published in April 2001, for example, indicates that the share of income going to the poorest 10% of the world's population declined by 27%, while that going to the richest 10% increased 8%[12].


 * Global economic indicators at a glance**


 * About 28 people die of hunger every day in Africa, while the world spends about $4 million per day on military.
 * One billion people live on less than $1 a day.
 * Since 1990, the number of poor people has increased by an average of 10 million a year.
 * One billion people are undernourished, underweight and live in water scarce areas.
 * 1,2 billion people lack access to clean water and hundreds of millions breathe in unhealthy air
 * By 1998, the heavily indebted poor countries had international debts of $214 billion - a huge sum for them, but equal to only 4,5 months of western military spending
 * In 1993, the US population had a combined income greater than the poorest 43% of the world's population.
 * Nearly 25 million people in the world die each year because of lack of clean water and adequate sanitation.
 * Africa accounts for about 2% of world trade.
 * The number of Africa's poor has grown and Africa's share of the world's absolute poor increased from 25% to 30% in the 1990s.
 * According to UN statistics, women do 60% of the world's work, yet only get 10% of the world's income and own only 1% of the world's property[13].


 * The struggle for economic justice is a struggle for an alternative economic system**

The movement’s transformation and development agenda should be premised on the understanding of the all-round and deep-seated crisis into which centuries of colonialism and decades of tinkhundla rule have plunged our society. Every aspect of our country – our political institutions, our economy, social life, the very moral fabric of our communities – has been terribly destroyed by the legacy of this past. The task arising from this ugly reality was well summed up by the Last mile to freedom programme of PUDEMO, when it said, //“Change in Swaziland should not simply be a change in the face of the ruling class. A new dispensation would have to include fundamental transformation of social and economic conditions of the majority of the people”.//

Our approach to transformation should be people-driven in line with emerging international progressive perspectives on sustainable development in the context of Africa’s renewal, an effort in which economic development, popular participation and respect for human rights are seen as an integral part of the process. In this sense, this effort should also be an outright rejection of inefficient and corrupt neo-colonial bureaucracy and of the sacred hegemony of technical programmes of structural adjustment programmes imposed by imperialist countries through their institutions of global economic dominance.

Our development agenda surely, is concerned not only with accelerating economic growth as a narrow technical process of targeting double digit figures, but primarily a direct effort towards improving the material conditions of life for the vast majority of our people who have largely been on the margins of economic growth in the past few decades. The main objective therefore, must of necessity, be to generate overall and broad-based growth patterns, giving particular priority to the incomes of the working class and rural poor masses, women and youth in particular.

Such an aim requires a very different strategy from one that is simply oriented towards maximizing the growth rate of GNP irrespective of distributional patterns. Although rapid economic growth does not automatically provide the answer, it nevertheless remains an essential element for any realistic poverty eradication programme of development.

There are of course serious political, institutional and power structure problems involved in any re-orientation of development strategies towards socio-economic development of the poor. 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 has been exposed as a myth.

There is a fundamental need to re-orient priorities from exclusive pre-occupation with the maximizing rates of GNP growth towards broader social objectives such as the eradication of poverty and the 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. It is important to understand the redistribution of resources and economic development as not opposites. Part of the demand for the redistribution of wealth and resources are means for social consumption and means for further creation of resources and wealth. Development raises labour productivity to a higher level, which leads to increased wealth accumulation. This can be done by investing more resources in the productive initiatives of communities, by working more efficiently and diligently, as well as by raising the technical standards of the means of production.

The central goal of our economic understanding is that key to any economic policy is the democratization of the economy and empowering the historically marginalized, as well as eliminating the economic disparities created and consolidated by colonialism and its //off-// //spring//, tinkhundla. This shall involve the stipulation of social and economic development targets and the removal of prevailing imbalances and entrenched privileges.

It is a fact of life that women;
 * Bear much of the responsibility of house work;
 * Spend more time on child care;
 * Are paid less for equal work as their male counterparts;
 * Are less educated and have less opportunities for upward mobility in life.

In this regard, the liberation of women shall come with a society that is based upon justice and equality. It is not automatic, but a process to transform the oppressive gender relations - //the existing relationship between men and women//, specifically those which have defined and assigned a subordinate social position for the female gender, which have had deep roots in the socio-economic and cultural norms, have shaped the attitudes and values of the people from time immemorial.

One of the major reasons for the heavy burden borne by women in the country, particularly in the agricultural sector is the relative inefficiency with which they must perform their tasks due to the poor or lack of Capital and technology. Given the major role played by women in the production of agricultural output, it is important that women share in the improvements in labour productivity that arise as our country's agriculture industry, particularly, undergoes a transition from a subsistence to commercial and specialized farming.

In general, women are marginalized in the decision-making process. Within some circles there is a demand for power sharing rather than dismantling of the present/existing power relations. Since power sharing does not necessarily challenge the institutions that reinforce gender inequalities, there is a need for the total dismantling of such institutions.

Another important generalization about poverty is that it affects women more than it does men. In our country there are more women at the lowest levels of income. Women are usually less educated, have fewer employment opportunities and receive lower wages than men. Furthermore, they have little access to land, capital and technology and this diminishes the efficiency of production.

Aggressive efforts should be made to improve the status of women, by direct policies aimed at eliminating poverty, of women in particular. Such efforts may include the provision of training and employment opportunities as well as improved access to the necessities of production, all of which can enhance the productivity of women.

The urban-industrial bias of development policies have led to a widening gap in income between men and women, such policies make it difficult for women to get training and employment in favour of men.

Several trends related to this bias have had similar consequences, thus increasing urbanization, further widens the gap in income as women have fewer income earning opportunities in the urban sector economy, as a result of its highly skewed character.

The system of education in our country is a reflection and a fruit of the surrounding underdevelopment, from which arise its failures, its quantitative and qualitative weaknesses. Human resources of a country constitute the ultimate basis for a country's natural wealth. Capital and natural resources are passive factors of production, human beings are the active agents, who accumulate capital, exploit natural resources, build social, political and economic organizations and carry forward national development.

Clearly, a country that is unable to develop the skills and knowledge of its people will be unable to utilize them effectively in the national economy and will be unable to do anything else. By reflecting the socio-economic structures of the societies in which they function, educational systems tend to perpetuate, reinforce and reproduce these economic and social structures. On the other hand, education transformation has the great potential for bringing about fundamental social and economic transformation in the country as a whole.

Equitable development also involves a broader perspective, first and foremost, it needs to be viewed in the context of far reaching transformation of economic and social structures, institutions, relationships and processes in rural areas. The goals of rural development cannot simply be restricted to agricultural and economic growth. Rather they must be viewed in terms of a balanced economic and social development with emphasis on the more equitable distribution, as well as the rapid generation of the benefits of higher levels of living.

Among these broader goals, therefore, are the creation of more productive employment opportunities both on and off the firm, more equitable distribution of rural income, more widely distributed improvements in health, nutrition, housing and finally, a broadened access to both formal and non-formal education for adults, as well as children of a sort that will have direct impact on the needs and aspirations of rural people.

Finally, the progressive movement must have an immediate interest in defending and advancing both the social and economic interests of the poor majority, linking them to the fundamental questions of seeking to create a new society based on respect for human dignity. This is where it is important to establish the link between issues, for instance, the struggle against cuts in social expenditure, rise in unemployment, grinding poverty, rural and urban landlessness, massive retrenchments, and for economic justice in general, is at the same time a struggle for a new economic policy, and therefore a fundamental struggle for a new socio-economic system.


 * The response of the Swazi regime to the socio-economic crisis facing the country**

It is against this background that we assess the restructuring agenda of the Swazi government in view of the huge challenges facing the country and its people. The regime has taken the neo-liberal road to the restructuring of the socio-economic crisis facing Swaziland. This is what the Swazi government calls an **" Internal Adjustment Programme"[14].** As other forms of structural adjustments programmes driven by the world bank and the IMF, this programme is based on the logic of transforming everything into a commodity and putting people's lives under the dictates of the market at all levels of social life. It includes, privatizing much of the public sector, deregulating the whole economy, de-subsidizing basic goods, cutting social expenditure (basic needs, wages and infrastructure development), etc. On the other hand, the state plays an important role in creating new conditions for the maximisation of profitability and private accumulation, by strengthening its repressive capacity; army, police, judiciary, intelligence forces, etc.


 * An equally important aspect of the government's agenda is to restructure the economy in such a way that the redistribution of the country's wealth will be extremely difficult.**

The launch of the Internal Structural Adjustments Programme (ISAP) in the fiscal year 1995/96, which expressed itself in the form of the Public Sector Management Programme (PSMP) and its implementation plan, the Economic and Social Reform Agenda (ESRA) were an attempt by the regime to develop a response to its crisis, particularly in view of the intensified struggle by the poor for their rights and basic needs.

However, as the 2002 report of the Central Bank of Swaziland indicates, **"the country's current economic slowdown is exceptionally deep and broad, with no evidence that the downward spiral that began two years ago will see a recovery".** Almost all of these impact directly on the working class, rural masses and all poor people in general.

[15]The Swazi economy is characterised by a highly concentrated and centralized system of ownership, overwhelmingly in private monopoly hands and the remainder in the hands of the royal elite. Capital formation in Swaziland can be broadly classified as follows;
 * Private monopoly capital in the productive and financial spheres
 * State or public capital in the form of parastatals and the fiscus itself
 * Social capital in the form of community and co-operative units

There is also institutional capital such as pension and provident funds, which may be characterised as having a somewhat independent identity though it may also be an element of one or more of the above forms of capital formation.

On 27th August, 1999, the Swazi government released its 2022 vision, its 25 -year development plan for Swaziland[16], which provided a long-term and short-term framework within which development should take place in the country. But what has been a key contradiction of the NDS programme has been that it does not resolve the basis of the crisis faced by the Swazi economy fundamentally, but merely adjusts the system to full compliance with the neo-liberal dictates of global capitalism. In this sense, it is also suffering from the crisis of legitimacy, because the government did not include all stakeholders in its formulation, which is worsened by the hostile political environment characteristic of the country currently. This worsens its crisis, as it is exclusively owned by a few royal beneficiaries, who seek to ensure that it renews the conditions of accumulation for a few and further exploitation for the majority. However, in terms of content, it still remains within the confines of the neo-liberal paradigm of the tinkhundla accumulation path and the global onslaught of international capital, as espoused by the system of capitalist globalisation.

Therefore, the battle lines will have to be drawn around first reversing the effects of the current state initiatives and at the same time launching the offensive for a new economic order based on the needs of the poor, instead of profit.

The core pillars of the model democratic and people-centred state for Swaziland
The tinkhundla state is illegitimate and structured to serve the interests of a royal minority and their friends. To perpetuate itself, tinkhundla state relies on repression and brutality on a massive scale, as well as aggressive propaganda policy against the forces of liberation, PUDEMO in particular. It also uses public resources to try and buy off a collaborative layer from among the oppressed masses. To attain all this, it has become a seedbed of corruption and criminal activity both within the country and beyond. It has subverted all sensible social rites and morals, in the true sense of the word, it has become the core of royal rottenness and a crime against humanity.

Therefore, the progressive movement cannot lay hands on the tinkhundla state machinery and hope to use it to realise its aims. The tinkhundla state has to be destroyed in a process of fundamental transformation. The new state should be by definition, the opposite of the tinkhundla state. It should be legitimate and share the interests of the overwhelming majority, based on a democratic constitution, a culture of human rights and maximum transparency. It should strive to use public resources to better the lives of the majority, the poor in particular, demonstrating unequalled determination to root out corruption and criminality, as well as the buying of political allegiance from a few among the oppressed to weaken and confuse the struggling masses.

The issue of defining fiscal deficit targets needs to be properly engaged. On the one hand, the principle that the democratic state cannot rely on borrowing to meet its social deficit is both economically and politically logical. This includes the issues of sustainability of development, the global terrain in which we operate, the ripple effects large deficits on most other indicators which impact on the poor, such as inflation and high interest rates, etc. On the other hand, an approach to cut services to the poor in pursuit of fractions of deficit targets is suicidal both economically and politically. Therefore, a proper macro-economic balance has to be struck and maintained, not for its own sake but for the sake of sustainable development. Our consistent emphasis on the issue of capital and resources derive from the fact that economic relations are at the centre of social transformation, since politics is a concentrated expression of economics.[17]

In order for the agenda of meaningful development and social transformation to take place, there must be a democratic and developmental state to actively intervene and put in place the necessary mechanisms for the empowerment of the poor. The features of that state include[18]:


 * A conscious and deliberate plan to transform Swazi society fundamentally and all its facets, key to which are ownership patterns and the aggressive empowerment of ordinary Swazis, particularly through social forms of ownership, as opposed to the dominant paradigm of monopoly and individualistic enterpreneurship patterns being promoted by the system. This includes transforming gender relations and social relations in general, land ownership patterns and the inherently perpetual underdevelopment structure of the economy, so as to generate economic activity which allows for the full participation of all the people as producers and beneficiaries in the economy. The centrality of power relations transformation is fundamental for any struggle, which must be in the most real sense, an actualization of the concept of people’s power in practice.
 * It is an imperative for the state to provide an adequate social wage for all poor people. This means services that a democratic and developmental government should provide, like; health, education, welfare grants, electricity, water and housing.
 * The country also needs a new growth path for the economy. This growth path requires that the state actively intervene in the economy, to defend the interests of the poor by promoting production for the needs of the majority and not for the profit of a few.
 * Equally fundamental is the task of ensuring more equitable distribution of resources. This means more investment in poor people’s needs and areas, to address the legacy of unequal development and skewed distribution of resources.

Finally, such a state must derive its legitimacy through popular participation, hence the need to ensure that the state affords the poor greater democracy in the economy and the institutions of the state itself. Privatisation of basic services turn the people into customers and not citizens, whose benefits depend on their buying and not voting power or basic rights. Therefore, participation in public and economic life becomes a privilege and preserve for the rich minority at the expense of the poor majority.

6954 words

[1] WTO – a new trade regime, 2001 [2] B. Nzimande, AC: globalization is imperialism, 2001 [3] T. Mbeki, Address to SACP Special Congress, Durban, 2005 [4] Lagos Plan of Action [5] M. Plaut, E. Unterhalter, D. Ward; The struggle for Southern Africa, September, 1981, Morning Litho Printers London [6] opcit [7] B. Masuku, SWAYOCO Political Report to National Congress, 2004 [8] UNDP Country report on Swaziland, 2000 [9] Central Bank of Swaziland Report, 2002 [10] Third World economics and underdevelopment [11] UNDP Country Report, 2000 [12] Robert Wade, Economist, 2001 [13]All these figures were extracted from Sawubona Magazine, SAA, 2002 [14] PBC discussion document, Ministry of Finance, Swaziland, 1994 [15] PUDEMO discussion document on Social transformation and development in Swaziland, 2001 [16] National Development Strategy of the Swazi government [17] ANC discussion document on the State, Property relations and Social transformation [18] COSATU discussion document on the South African state