Recent reports in The Star (25/11/06) allege that the
development of the “armed struggle” tendency within a
section of the pro-democracy movement in Swaziland could be
accelerating. Given that the pro-democracy movement has set
itself the goal of liberation in 2008, it is understandable
that frustration has led some comrades in this direction.
We do not believe that an “armed struggle” approach is
appropriate. The dangers inherent in such an approach are
many. We support the right of the oppressed to self-defense
against repression.
However, “armed struggle” is generally not a very effective
strategy. It substitutes a small cadre of militants for a
mass movement of the workers, peasants and poor. Militarily,
it is not very effective in confronting and defeating a
well-entrenched regime. Buildings are replaceable, as are
the officials and functionaries of the State. If a large
section of the Royal Army does not join the masses, there is
no real chance of the regime falling. To win over soldiers
requires drawing them into a popular movement for
Democracy
Economic and social justice
People’s power
The soldiers are from the popular classes; they must join
them and desert the ruling class.
What is also likely to happen, as it did in Lesotho, is that
the SANDF could well invade Swaziland in order to defend
South African and British investment.
It is the structure of power itself that must be challenged,
not simply a few individuals in that structure. This can
only be done by a mass movement. What is necessary for the
people suffering under the Tinkhundla regime is to create
organs of counter-power in the communities and workplaces
that can both resist the existing power structure, and
eventually replace the traditional authorities and
capitalists with grassroots democracy.
Only such organs, organized and controlled by the oppressed
masses, will place power in the hands of ordinary people,
replacing the centralized power of the old regime with the
class power of the masses. Only such a system can prevent a
new elite emerging to take control of the existing power
structure.
Armed struggle provides a ready pretext for the repression
of the whole pro-democracy movement. Rather than act as a
catalyst to propel the people into revolutionary action,
which we believe is the intention, armed struggle acts to
scare them away from the arena of struggle. Popular
confidence and organizations are difficult to rebuild, yet
it is only mass action that holds out the prospect of really
changing society.
The power of the regime also lies in popular acceptance of
the instruments of the Tinkhundla regime, such as the
chieftaincy. Political conscientisation is crucial: the
battle of ideas is more important than a few acts of
sabotage. This is partly about challenging the existing
power structure, and the ideas with which it clothes itself.
It is also about convincing the masses that the problem is
not just the King and the chiefs, but the capitalists and
the State. That power must rest in the hands of the masses,
not a group of leaders, whether traditional or otherwise.
That economic democracy and social justice are just as
important as political freedoms. An “armed struggle” lends
itself to the military group becoming a new elite, which
will create or maintain a power structure that places the
masses at the bottom, once again.
What is needed for the liberation of Swaziland from the yoke
of Royal oppression is a mass movement of the workers,
peasants and poor, both in rural and urban areas. This will
only come about when they have come into political
consciousness, and the main activity of pro-democracy cadres
should be in assisting this process until the point where
sufficient numbers of the Swazi oppressed masses are
conscious of the aims and goals of the liberation movement,
namely social revolution. To substitute the ideas and
struggles of the masses for their freedom with a minority
insurrectionist group will jeopardize the hard work done by
cadres in raising the level of consciousness of Swazi
society thus far.
To summarize:
We wholeheartedly support the movement for freedom, justice
and human dignity of the people of Swaziland.
We support their’ right to defend themselves and the social
gains made during the struggle, with arms when necessary,
from the repressive and violent forces of the state and
Tinkhundla authorities.
We do not consider armed struggle to be a viable option, as
the liberation movement at this stage appears to be
insufficient in numbers, weapons and lacking in popular
support to wage successful guerrilla warfare, and that a
guerilla force lends itself to creating a new elite.
The struggle for democracy must not confine itself to
winning limited political freedoms, but to creating a
participatory economy planned from below, a system of
libertarian socialism. Otherwise, the struggles of the
masses are more likely to be used as a bargaining tool than
a revolutionary one, with the basic system of class
domination unchanged.
We maintain that the only force capable of liberating
Swaziland is a mass movement, and that anything short of
this is only likely to lead to repression, collaboration
and, at most, limited reforms.
In Solidarity,
Jonathan Payn
International Secretary, Zabalaza Anarchist Communist
Federation
www.zabalaza.net
ZACF
Postnet Suite 153
Private Bag X42
Braamfontein
2017
South Africa
http://www.zabalaza.net/leaflets&talks/swazi_statement_20061207.htm
