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
