Swaziland: More questions than answers

The latest update from Adrian Prandle, Young Fabian International Officer, on the ACTSA delegation to southern Africa.

A busy time in Swaziland saw meetings with the Swaziland National Union of Students, Luvatsi (a youth empowerment organisation), the EU Commission delegation to Swaziland, the United Nations Development Programme, and the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF), as well as a day spent in the field seeing the work of SWAPOL (Swaziland for Positive Living).

It’s hard to take one clear message from such an extensive programme and harder still to reconcile with our own experiences in the UK. The youth organisations face similar challenges to the Young Fabians, such as operating within a tiny budget, yet deal with the much bigger problems of recognition and ability to engage with government and decision-makers.

This is primarily because Swaziland is an undemocratic one party state controlled by the monarch, King Mswati III. His spending is focussed on himself and his coterie rather than addressing the needs of the population. The lack of investment in infrastructure – i.e. school buildings and teachers – is preventing the court-enforced commitment to free primary education from being rolled out with any speed. The SUDF is a coalition of banned political parties, trade unions and civil society organisations fighting for a multi-party system. Whilst passionate for their cause, the SUDF is in its early stages and has much to do to engage with the wider population of Swaziland, let alone be seen by the King as a serious force in curbing his lifestyle and pushing for democracy.

In terms of impact from outside of the country, there is one major stumbling block and a devastating chain that exacerbates it. Swaziland is a middle income country, meaning it is not a high priority for aid and meaning that conditional aid is limited in its effect – ultimately because the King doesn’t rely on this money, so does not feel pressured to change behaviour or spending. Swaziland’s per capita income is going up in tragic circumstances: high HIV/AIDS rates mean Swaziland has a decreasing population, hence the appearance of greater wealth.

Gender was an issue constantly raised over these few days. There is a philosophical debate to be had about moral and cultural relativism, but it is fair to say that there was reasonable consensus at an organisational level from our meetings, that the role of men in sexual relationships had a major impact upon being able to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS - responsibility, yes, but combined with the culture of polygamy and having multi-concurrent sexual partners. SWAPOL’s work seeks to educate around HIV/AIDS at a community level and promotes and facilitates sustainable projects to enable meaningful living with HIV/AIDS. In a country lacking basic education for all, generational change though is difficult to guarantee.

The theory goes that multi-party democracy would enable a reduction in inequality through fairer distribution of financial resources, particularly aimed at health and education. But there’s a long way to travel – which is perhaps why these Swazi organisations were so keen to meet with us. This peaceful battle is on uncertain ground, notably due to King Mswati’s position in the region. SADC, the South African Development Community, has pretty much failed to stand up to Mswati’s hypocrisy in using his position as chair of SADC’s Troika of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation to criticise the state of Madagascan democracy whilst his own country has jailed the leader of PUDEMO, the banned opposition party. The friendship between South African President Jacob Zuma and Mswati does not leave Swazi activists with much confidence that help in their struggle will come across the border any time soon.

Amidst an EU Commission Delegation that appeared to me to be hamstrung or dispassionate about its mission, I leave you with questions rather than answers: How should a responsible international community deal with inequality in a middle income country? And how can we, as British citizens and/or Young Fabian members, highlight the tragedy of a country getting richer whilst its population suffers and dies?

June Candidates Network e-debate – Thatcher’s legacy

Each month the Young Fabians send out the Candidates network e-debate. The email provides a platform for Labour Prospective Parliamentary Candidates to spark debate amongst Young Fabians members. The Candidates Network e-debate will focus on one of the big issues of the month.

Over the last month two issues – MPs expenses and the future of the Labour Party, have dominated the news. However, in the face of political manoeuvering and talk of duck houses, an important political anniversary went almost unnoticed. 30 years ago last month Margaret Thatcher first came to power. This month’s e-debate discussed her legacy. Below is a contribution from James Green, Young Fabians Candidates Network Officer and PPC for Cheltenham.

Before stepping into the House of Commons chamber to deliver their maiden speech, newly elected MPs are confronted with a defining choice. For decades the statues of Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee and Lloyd George have stood commandingly in Members Lobby. Tradition has it that rubbing the foot of your party’s famous former leader brings with it two attributes that every politician yearns for – luck and legacy.

Two years ago a new statue was unveiled in the Members Lobby. Portraying a living politician, it broke with Parliamentary convention. Perhaps that’s fitting. Margaret Thatcher was anything but conventional. A person who in office, just as in bronze, stood outside the party mainstream. Her statue serves as a pertinent reminder that she is, and likely will always be, a permanent fixture of British political life.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 victory. 30 years on and her legacy remains as bitterly contested as ever. For some she is the ‘milk-snatcher’ who decimated British manufacturing and left millions on the scrapheap. For others she is the ‘Iron Lady’ who, through perseverance and sheer strength of character, dragged Britain from the depths of industrial strife to the heights of global power and influence. Whatever you may think of her one thing can’t be denied – Thatcher was a transformative force in British politics.

Yet almost symbolically, the anniversary of Thatcher’s rise to power has coincided with the systemic failure of the economic orthodoxy that she pioneered. Thatcher’s dogged, almost fundamentalist, belief in the ability of markets to correct themselves, has been dramatically undermined by recent events. The ideologically driven deregulation of the banking sector, which began with her government’s 1986 Financial Services Act, has contributed to the most significant global economic crisis since the Great Depression. In the face of the global recession Friedrich Hayek has gone out of fashion. John Maynard Keynes has come back in.

The impact of the economic downturn on British politics cannot be underestimated. The battle lines, so bitterly contested and carefully crafted over the last thirty years have been irrevocably altered. Coupled with the crisis over MP’s expenses, economic events have conspired to create one of those rarest of political moments – a fundamental ideological shift within mainstream British society.

Labour must grasp this opportunity. It’s time to redefine the fault lines of British politics. If the last thirty years were defined by an economic model in which wealth and influence was concentrated in the hands of the few, the next thirty must be defined by power shifting to the grassroots. Proportional representation, popular rights enshrined in a written constitution, a fairer social democratic economic model – that is a legacy to be proud of.

From the past to the future via ‘ubuntu’

Three Young Fabians are currently taking part in a delegation organised by ACTSA to southern Africa. Here Adrian Prandle, International Officer on the Young Fabian Executive, writes about the connection between what has gone and what is coming and an African philosophy.

Constitution Hill in Johannesburg, South Africa, is the coming together of contrasts. From the grim history of the – now closed – prison block to the modern splendour, pride and ambition of the Constitutional Court which opened in 2004.

The personal testimonies of former prisoners were told through a tour of the blocks – Number 4, Old Fort and the Women’s Wing – which had incarcerated Winnie Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and others over the years. The poor conditions and the discriminatory processes felt real and wrong as brave, brave people stood up for what they believed in. Political prisoners were mixed in with serious criminals and racial segregation meant more severe discomfort and treatment.

South Africans are extremely proud of their constitution and the Constitutional Court demonstrates in its architecture the balance between learning from history and looking to the future. What appears at first glance to be a very modern building, in fact incorporates some of the remaining prison structures with the combination of old and new symbolising the importance of learning from the past but moving on optimistically. It’s grandly carved front doors detail the articles of the constitution in the nation’s eleven spoken languages – plus sign language and braille. The constitutional court is for everyone we were told. It is made up of eleven judges, again with reference to the languages, and there is much pride that this includes two judges with disabilities, signifying that no-one is excluded in today’s South Africa.

Talking to young South Africans and Zimbabweans afterwards offered an insight into their passion and innovation in promoting democracy and youth particpation. Some, under the ‘Democracy Begins In Conversation’ vehicle ran Radio Con Hill which sought to facilitate young people’s engagement with, for example, constitutional court judges. They explained the philosophy of ‘ubuntu’ as being about humanity, solidarity and cooperation; about understanding that if you have something then somebody else doesn’t and you should share. The youth leaders offered their disappointment at the occasions in recent history when this spirit of Africanism had not been at the forefront of all their countrymen’s behaviour. Rafael, the young activist from Zimbabwe’s MDC party, expressed his willingness to die for the cause of democracy if that was what President Mugabe had in store for him and his colleagues. But he was optimistic that change was happening one way or another: “We have sown the seeds – one day it will grow.”

Tackling the BNP

The irony of the BNP winning two seats in the European Parliament is that fewer people in total voted for them this year than in 2005 – almost 3,000 in the North West region, where Nick Griffin was elected as an MEP, and 6,500 fewer in Yorkshire and Humber, where Andrew Brons was returned.

That raises an important question about the role of mainstream parties in ensuring Britain is not represented in Europe by fringe groups in future.

Without doubt, the single biggest factor in the election of two BNP MEPs is the collapse in the Labour vote. For the most part, voters who supported Labour last time didn’t bother to vote this time around. This inflated the vote shares of other parties.

So how best to tackle the electoral threat the BNP poses?

The evidence from the European elections seems to imply that the BNP’s core support is unlikely to have some Damascene conversion as a result of reading the campaign literature of Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives; that focusing on those who don’t vote, but are otherwise inclined to support more mainstream parties, is a better course of action. Getting apathetic voters to return to the ballot box is the best remedy for the electoral success of the BNP.

Politicians from mainstream parties are making the right noises today about the troubling beliefs of the BNP. But it is too little, too late.

Mainstream parties have a responsibility to provide reasons for people to vote (in the first instance) and, more than that, to vote for them – they need to provide positive reasons to engage with their policies and proposals, rather than resort to negative campaigning, which is unlikely to work for the reasons outlined above.

Our politicians in Westminster should be ashamed that, on their watch, the conditions arose which has resulted in Britain being represented by extremes of the political spectrum in Europe.

They have to do better next time.

• As an aside, the fact that the BNP now have two MEPs makes ‘no-platform’ arguments more difficult to sustain – hence why both 5live and Radio4 gave time to Nick Griffin this morning. I have not always been a fan of expelling too much energy arguing about ‘no-platform’ issues – it uses time that can be better deployed encouraging those who don’t vote to support mainstream parties. Now more than ever, that energy needs to be focused on getting the apathetic to re-engage with the political process.