ESWATINI DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT MUST DEMILITARISE THE STRUGGLE
The recent trend of leaders of the democratic Movement enganging in war talk, bearing arms, body guards, wearing military fatigue and its attendant military symbolism is counter productive o the course of democracy.
The democratic struggle in Eswatini has intensified in recent years, with widespread calls for reform and a growing demand for democracy. However, a recent surge in war talk, military symbolism, and a reliance on the language of arms has introduced a dangerous undercurrent. The trajectory of similar struggles, particularly in Sudan, underscores the need for the Swazi democratic movement to avoid the pitfalls of militarization. Only a peaceful and civilian-led approach can secure Eswatini’s democratic future.
Sudan's recent revolution, celebrated for its initial promise, stands as a cautionary tale. In 2019, Sudanese civilians and military leaders jointly ousted long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir. However, as civilian leaders and military factions jockeyed for influence, the country soon descended into power struggles, ethnic violence, and an all-out civil conflict. Sudan’s experience illustrates that while military alliances may initially provide leverage in ousting authoritarian rulers, they inevitably leave civilian movements beholden to armed factions who have their own agendas.
Eswatini must avoid this trap. The democratic movement's recent use of military imagery and symbols — the wearing of army fatigues, a language imbued with “fighting spirit,” and the frequent references to “combat” — risks overshadowing its civilian foundation. Like Sudan, a militarized approach would likely provoke a backlash, breeding more violence and undermining the legitimacy of the democratic cause.
The very essence of democracy rests on the rule of law, freedom of speech, and civilian participation. A militarized approach runs counter to these principles, embedding a culture of force and power struggles rather than justice and cooperation. Eswatini’s democratic movement needs to ensure that it is based on ideas, dialogue, and public support, not the threat of violence. Militarization not only alienates potential allies — including businesses, civil society, and international supporters — but it also weakens the democratic ideals that the movement seeks to uphold.
The 2011 Arab Spring offers a pertinent example. Nations like Tunisia, which maintained a peaceful civilian-led approach, made real progress toward democracy. Conversely, nations like Libya and Syria, where the struggle turned to armed conflict, became embroiled in violence and instability, leaving entire generations to grow up amidst war. Eswatini’s peaceful struggle must aim to avoid this outcome and demonstrate a different path for its people.
The Advantages of a Peaceful Struggle
A peaceful struggle has strategic and long-term advantages over a militarized approach. For one, it minimizes the loss of life and property and preserves national unity. Armed conflict often results in polarization, with families and communities split along ideological lines. In contrast, a peaceful movement fosters solidarity, bringing together people from diverse backgrounds and regions in a common cause. This approach can harness the support of the rural populace, urban communities, businesses, and the Swazi diaspora, creating a broad-based coalition for democratic change.
Additionally, a peaceful approach strengthens the democratic movement’s position in the eyes of international partners, governments, and NGOs. Many of these groups are hesitant to support movements that endorse armed struggle, preferring instead to back civilian campaigns that embody democratic values. A peaceful approach will not only attract more supporters but also discourage Eswatini’s government from framing the democratic movement as a threat to national security, which could justify repression.
While the rhetoric of war and military revolution may inspire some, it is ultimately counterproductive. A focus on arms undermines the movement's credibility, as it shifts attention from legitimate political grievances to a battle over who wields power. The Swazi government could capitalize on this by amplifying fears of instability, which might prompt neighboring countries or allies to back the current regime for the sake of “regional stability.” Additionally, even symbolic gestures — like wearing army fatigues — can encourage a mindset that normalizes armed conflict rather than peaceful dialogue.
Militarized language also distracts from the pressing economic, social, and political reforms that Eswatini needs. The people of Eswatini want jobs, quality healthcare, education, and the ability to live freely without fear of oppression. By emphasizing armed struggle, the movement risks sidelining these critical issues and alienating those who would otherwise support the push for peaceful change.
A call for Civilians to Lead and for Peace to Prevail
Eswatini’s democratic movement must make a conscious decision to embrace peace. This doesn’t mean passivity or weakness; rather, it is about focusing on strength in numbers, moral authority, and the long-term vision for a stable Eswatini. Peaceful resistance has an impressive track record. The fall of apartheid in South Africa, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the U.S. civil rights movement are all examples of how disciplined, peaceful protest can topple oppressive systems.
A peaceful movement is a movement with a future. Eswatini’s democratic leaders should denounce war talk, reject the symbolism of military uniforms, and commit themselves to a civilian-led, non-violent struggle. This approach will protect Eswatini from descending into the violence and instability seen in Sudan, Libya, and other nations where militarization overshadowed democratic ideals.
The road to democracy is long and challenging, but the Swazi movement must remember that it is ultimately a journey to freedom for all. This freedom can only be secured by a movement rooted in peace, respect, and the power of the people.