Swaziland: the revolution to come

[Bob's World]

Bob,

As you said, legitimacy lay in the hand of the people. So in COIN, as it is practiced nowadays, the question would be is it possible to build legitimacy? (And I do not have the answer).
The question may seems genuine as if you take the postulate that legitimacy is built through democracy then you run elections and you have a legitimate government.
But to that I see several constraints or contradictions:
- In recent past, we tried to build legitimacy by picking up individuals as our champions, gave them means to be elected but in fact did not make any real populace consultation as the democratic process was tricked at the early stage. So the legitimacy of the elected body is extremely questionable.
- If you have an elected body recognized by 51% of a population but controlling less than 49% of a territory: he is legitimate but unable to administrate.
- If the elites of a selected place do not recognize the democratic process as legitimate. You end up with a governmental body which is not capable to administrate and incapable to deliver services. Then you loose the capacity to enjoy its legitimacy.

A combination of those constraints may even make the problematic of building government legitimacy even more complex...

Frankly I neither understand, nor approve the trend in recent years (yes, this is new) to push for turning every government into a Democracy. To me it is in direct violation of our Constitutional and Declaration of Independence born principles; and is little removed from those who worked to spread communism in the past.

The best you can do is help to shape the conditions that allow a populace to shape their governance to the form they desire, and to bestow their legitimacy on the same. To attempt to control what that outcome may be, or who may lead it is to likely rob it of the very legitimacy it needs to succeed.

There is no perfect way to do this, but our efforts to control it are not helpful. To encourage and enable is good and noble, to control is selfish and makes our words and actions hypocritical.

[M-A Lagrange]

Frankly I neither understand, nor approve the trend in recent years (yes, this is new) to push for turning every government into a Democracy. To me it is in direct violation of our Constitutional and Declaration of Independence born principles; and is little removed from those who worked to spread communism in the past.

Well, Bob,

I think that you have here THE epicentral point of the problematic. Democracy is seen as the only solution (And was promoted as such) since Cold War was won by "Democracies" over the totalitarian "empire of Evil". Note by the way that the only ideological victory was the one of capitalist economy and not democracy... But I get lost.

And I think that the bias is coming from that voluntary very misinterpretation of the end of Cold War.
But now that we made the political decision (Cotonou for Europe in Africa; UN council for the rest of the world except those who disagree...) either we try to find the magic potion, either we make a different political choice.
Actually most of the difficulties we all face in State Building like operations comes from that statement: democracy is the only solution.

[Bob's World]

Personally I think the West set the conditions, but it was the populaces of Eastern Europe standing up to the illegitimate governances imposed over them; empowered through the emerging information age by the knowledge that they were not acting alone; that ended the Cold War.

We took the credit, not recognizing the real power at work; and then similarly not recognizing the effects of that same power at work in the Middle East and the growing popular unrest there as the rationale for Cold War imposed Western controls grew thinner and thinner each day that the fall of the wall receded into the pages of history.

We claimed credit for one in the name of Democracy; and then placed blame on the other in the name of Islamism. We over rate and misunderstand the role of ideology in such popular movements. Critical Requirement, certainly. Essential requirement or COG? No.

People who believe their government to be illegitimate, their situation to be unjust or disrespectful, or their plight to have no legal or certain hope for change are a simmering powder keg of power and change. Once they appreciate their situation is not the best they can hope for, once they realize they are not alone, they are far more apt to act out, regardless of the odds against them. History bears this out.

[Dayuhan]

The best you can do is help to shape the conditions that allow a populace to shape their governance to the form they desire, and to bestow their legitimacy on the same.

In places like Africa, alas, the noble intent may go awry, especially in "nations" composed of multiple populaces whose deepest and most heartfelt desire is to stomp the living $#!t out of the neighboring populace and take all the marbles for themselves (actually not exactly a situation unique to Africa). That doesn't mean self-determination is not worth pursuing, but the idea that self-determination will bring peace and stability is often illusory.

[M-A Lagrange]

That doesn't mean self-determination is not worth pursuing, but the idea that self-determination will bring peace and stability is often illusory.

Then what?
Actually self determination to bring stability is an illusion or an intellectual bias. Efficiency and social services delivery may help much more and have better results than empty elections...

[Bob's World]

In places like Africa, alas, the noble intent may go awry, especially in "nations" composed of multiple populaces whose deepest and most heartfelt desire is to stomp the living $#!t out of the neighboring populace and take all the marbles for themselves (actually not exactly a situation unique to Africa). That doesn't mean self-determination is not worth pursuing, but the idea that self-determination will bring peace and stability is often illusory.

Waging war or propping up dictators is no path to peace and stability either. There will indeed always be wars and rumors of wars. The insertion of "states" and European forms of governance has not done any favors for the people of Africa.

There are indeed no perfect answers. Any answer they sort out for themselves, no matter how bloody, will be more enduring and effective than any sorted out for them, no matter how bloodless. Best we can hope to do is temper the violence a bit as they sort it out.

[Dayuhan]

Actually self determination to bring stability is an illusion or an intellectual bias. Efficiency and social services delivery may help much more and have better results than empty elections...

Without a functioning economy delivery of social services depends on foreign assistance, neither sustainable nor healthy. Of course a functioning economy requires investment, which won't happen without some level of political stability, and around we go in circles. Call it the African shuffle; very difficult to find a practical intervention point.

Waging war or propping up dictators is no path to peace and stability either. There will indeed always be wars and rumors of wars. The insertion of "states" and European forms of governance has not done any favors for the people of Africa.

Agreed, though I'd add "attempts to impose democracy" to the list of things that aren't a path to peace and stability.

The question, of course, is how to achieve something akin to self determination and popular sovereignty without something resembling democracy, and to that I've no answer at all.

There are indeed no perfect answers. Any answer they sort out for themselves, no matter how bloody, will be more enduring and effective than any sorted out for them, no matter how bloodless. Best we can hope to do is temper the violence a bit as they sort it out.

Can't disagree with that; I've said it enough times myself. Of course there are cases where the process of sorting it out is going to crunch up against other interests, which may include ours, and that's when it gets sloppy.

[JMA]

In places like Africa, alas, the noble intent may go awry, especially in "nations" composed of multiple populaces whose deepest and most heartfelt desire is to stomp the living $#!t out of the neighboring populace and take all the marbles for themselves (actually not exactly a situation unique to Africa). That doesn't mean self-determination is not worth pursuing, but the idea that self-determination will bring peace and stability is often illusory.

There was no noble intent towards Africa.

The colonies were abandoned and then we saw repeats of "one man. one vote, once" Only South Africa remains as a beacon on the continent but is teetering on the brink as the new inner circle have their noses firmly in the trough.

The most shattering thing about Africa has been the early vociferous complaints about colonial boundaries only to find the OAU and now the equally useless AU demanding that no national boundaries be changed. You go figure.

[M-A Lagrange]

Without a functioning economy delivery of social services depends on foreign assistance, neither sustainable nor healthy. Of course a functioning economy requires investment, which won't happen without some level of political stability, and around we go in circles. Call it the African shuffle; very difficult to find a practical intervention point.

Dayuhan
Depends on what you call a functioning economy.
DRC never stopped to be an investing place and was much more profitable for investor when was at war.
In Liberia, the direct effect of the raw material crises in the 70 led to the total disruption of a functioning economy that led to a first revolution and the arrival of Samuel Doe in power. The fact that he did not even try to restore the social services favorise the military adventure of Charles Taylor who entered in the country without local insurgent network but 200 mercenaries (mainly Liberian).
In Zimbabwe, as the economy was completely dysfunctional, social services were still functioning and the country was stable despite having a war affected economy.

Economy is not the solution to initiate stability and create conditions for investment. Stability is. Only social services equally shared can provide such stability. Once you have fund the stability, then you are in much better position to bargain your investments in the country… But may be it is too social/populace/people oriented?

JMA:
As you pointed it, the problem is one man one vote, ONCE.
While it should be one man, one vote: several times.

[Dayuhan]

There was no noble intent towards Africa.

Of course not. I was responding to Bob's World's hypothetical "the best you can do" construct, not to actual conditions.

Dayuhan
Only social services equally shared can provide such stability. Once you have fund the stability, then you are in much better position to bargain your investments in the country…

How do you finance social services without somebody somewhere generating a taxable surplus... e.g. without a functioning economy?

[JMA]

How do you finance social services without somebody somewhere generating a taxable surplus... e.g. without a functioning economy?

Well if it were not for the income derived through the Southern African Customs Union Swaziland would be a real basket case. SACU link

Money for nothing.

[JMA]

[B]JMA:
As you pointed it, the problem is one man one vote, ONCE.
While it should be one man, one vote: several times.

Europe was just off loading the colonies and didn't care, in fact dealing with one man who had unlimited power suited them fine. And after the next coup they just opened a Swiss bank account for the new boss and then it was business as usual.

[M-A Lagrange]

Dayuhan:
How do you finance social services without somebody somewhere generating a taxable surplus... e.g. without a functioning economy?

I believe that we are in a somehow complex and unsolvable egg and chicken question: who came first, the egg or the chicken?

What I see is that Swaziland is in miniature what so many African countries could be: a heaven on earth. And that’s their curse.

Being naturally cynical, I would say that the aim nowadays is to build sustainable dictatorship (concept developed with/by T. Vircoulon from ICG on Zimbabwe case).
The sustainable dictatorship is the response to nonworking sustainable development:
- Strong dictatorial regime with regular popular consultation
- Capitalistic economy controlled by the first circle of power based on a communist like practice of economical control by the state but for personal enrichment.
- Regime legitimacy propaganda based on an external enemy: the classic paranoid state ideology
- A shift from population control from security to economy: use economical policies and terror to break middle class and opposition economical roots. Once the bourgeoisie and the upper middle class has understood that privileges come with political silence…
- Integration in the “party” or circle of power of any opposition party that manages to gain sufficient popular support to be a threat for the system. This to better isolate and corrupt it.

The variations of the model go from complete application in Zimbabwe to apparently lighter model as Uganda or Rwanda.
The main external back up of those countries was China but, at least in Africa, US and European countries have started to rethink their position on the need of democracy and good governance to have a stable environment for investments.

The thing in Africa is that you do not need a healthy economy for profitable investments. You just need a stable power and regime. Something that sustainable dictatorship does provide and is "easy to implement on that continent".
The case of Rwanda and Uganda is stunning: those countries have nothing to offer and they have been able to “develop” efficient social services. Not because of a healthy economy but through savaging DRC resources and international aid. They do not even had/have peace in the entire country. LRA use to burn North Uganda for decades. Or the Kamajor… The same for Rwanda: the FDLR “threat” which participates more to the propaganda of the external enemy than represent actually a real threat.
My point is that those models are:
1) Biased because the economical development was not internally generated but through an mercantile period of razzia of DRC resources. So there is no need of a healthy economy but a need of a lucrative market.
2) Rwanda and Uganda are/were dependant for more than 50% of their budgets on foreign aid… But they are stable. Politically non transparent and free but stable.

The question layes in how do you actually reach the take off point. You need to fund it. Internally or externally. Once your economy has taken off, then you can launch the rest and have tax surplus...

So, yes, I do believe that social services comes first to stabilise. But we may disagree on that and your points are as relevant as mine. The question is to choose between the chicken and the egg…

[JMA]

The best you can do is help to shape the conditions that allow a populace to shape their governance to the form they desire, and to bestow their legitimacy on the same.

How do you test the will of the people?