Africa-Press – Eswatini. The nation is now forced to live under a state of fear and uncertainty, there are unknown groups or and individuals who are running the country remotely(ghosts).
They failed not to renounce political violence and preferred to describe democracy as terrorism. They are destroying our education system and the country’s economy. Businesses are losing millions in the process. Some are considering a number of options, while nursing hope that it will come to an end, knowing the history of the country. PEACE, SECURITY, STABILITY and FREEDOM.
Their mission is clear it is not, all about the dialogue. They don’t want to dialogue. They resort to violence, including terror, to force the states to recognise their demands, in ignorance of our Constitution, and/or to influence the terms or the agenda of the negotiations.
These extremists threaten peace, security and stability. It is unfortunate that their business interest is mostly in our neighboring countries. Hoping to loot our minerals once their assassination plan unfold.
They have nothing to offer except for political egotism (self-centredness), unrests, civil strives, arson attacks and assassinations. These has elements of terrorism, we appreciate that even SADC TROKIA has noticed such as a serious threat to Africa. Insurgency through and through. The actions of a minority group within a state who are intent on forcing political change by means of a mixture of subversion, propaganda and military pressure, aiming to persuade or intimidate the broad mass of people to accept such a change. It is an organised armed political struggle, the goals of which may be diverse.
Some insurgencies aim for a straightforward seizure of power through complete revolutionary takeover, while others attempt to break away from state control. ALL IN A YEAR OF DIALOGUE.
In November 1998, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 53/22 naming the year 2001 as The UN Year of Dialogue Among Civilisations. The resolution also ‘reaffirmed’ the UN’s commitment ‘to strengthen friendly relations among nations, remove threats to peace and taster international cooperation in resolving international issues of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character.” Within a month of this announcement, however, President Clinton had authorised a new round of aerial attacks on Iraq, code named ‘Operation Desert Fox.’ The appeals made by Amnesty International and other human rights groups expressing concern about civilian casualties were simply ignored.
Limitations of Dialogue
Inspite of many initiatives, dialogue continues to be presented as a response and an alternative to conflict. But, what are the limitations of dialogue? Is dialogue always-already preferable and superior to other means of addressing deep social, political, cultural, and economic problems and conflicts? Can dialogue be a substitute for conflict? Can it replace the ‘language of force,’ with the ‘language of reason’?
Is dialogue free of force and coercion? Can it bring about a more ‘communicative’ rather than ‘strategic’ conceptualisation ? The conditions of dialogue are informed by historical (and prevailing) patterns of structural inequalities, and hegemonic norms and practices,
Dialogue as What?
Dialogue remains a form of deliberation that seeks ‘communicative rationality’ in order to address the problem. It is then suggested that while dialogue will not overcome some differences, it may at least ‘yield minimum agreement’ about common grounds and shared principles. Dialogue is also seen as a response to the ‘blasphemies’ committed by those who ‘perceive diversity and ‘otherness’ as a threat to them. As such, dialogical approaches seek to bridge or reconcile difference, and one of the key objectives of the newly founded forums is to initiate dialogue ‘between those who perceive diversity as a threat and those who perceive diversity as an opportunity for betterment and growth.
In the face of what has been referred to as ‘the fetishisation of dialogue, it seems necessary to examine the limits of dialogue, and to problematise some of its basic assumptions. For one thing, despite the ideal of inclusivity, all three expressions of dialogue (inter-state, inter-faith, and inter-civilisational) reflect, to varying degrees, deliberation at the elite level,]” and often but not necessarily always fail to take into account multiple expressions of differences.
Moreover, if conflict is to be understood as a product of ‘intolerance then a dialogical approach which deals with civilisational differences might seem rather appropriate as it may reveal the contingency of the Self/Other dichotomy and bring about ‘undemonisation of the real or perceived enemies.’
The dialogue as a political framework exchange information and viewpoints. Agreements that emerge out of deliberation are not always genuine.
It is contended that the conceptual and normative terms of the debate and the participants’ understandings of them are ‘deeply influenced by premises and terms of discourse that make it difficult to think critically about social relations or alternative possibilities.
Within deliberative forums certain groups feel that the ‘acceptable channel of communication’ restrict their ability to express their concerns, the dominant group to the disadvantage of the underprivileged often effectively manipulates these channels.
We can consider, for example, the condition of reasonableness and the way in which it places certain marginalised groups (that is people with no or low levels of education) in positions of disadvantage.
The UN General Assembly’s statement on the year of Dialogue among Civilisations calls for a kind of dialogue that is ‘inclusive in nature.’ The call for inclusivity appears to be a call for recognition of difference. The usefulness of dialogue is the way of reconciling difference and a means of promoting empathy and understanding for others.
Dialogue, search for truth and, as such, it does not aim ‘to hide’ the deepest differences of the participants and cannot separate the political and social realm from the real existential condition of the human being. However, while a dialogue among civilisations may give recognition to civilisational identities and differences, it may also hide other important sources of identity and difference.
Conditions for Dialogue
Genuine communication requires the participants to have an awareness ‘of the ways in which they might be manipulated or coerced and an awareness of the ways in which differential power is operative in the society. ‘Similarly, ‘authentic communication’ as one which is ‘free of coercion and open to all ways of seeing in context,’ and makes a case that often such communication is difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Similar goals are also pursued through non-violent measures. socially marginalised groups ‘to organise, articulate their interests, and obtain political power.
Conclusion
Can dialogue prevent conflict? Perhaps. But, the question that advocates of the dialogue must answer is this: why would the powerful subject themselves to questionings about and challenges to their power and their conduct. Moreover, even if they accept to engage in dialogue with others, would the powerful accept a demand that involves ending relations of domination and exploitation?
Simply, however, dialogue might serve to conceal existing power relations. Who is powerful between the pushers of Insurgency and or the State is for the reader.
Who has power to close and open school, Businesses willy-nilly – POWER. Government Dialogue delay Position is now clear . Actually if there is any thing to be done by SADC leaders, it would be to strengthen security in ESWATINI against these Powers. ALL this war signal in a year of dialogue
For More News And Analysis About Eswatini Follow Africa-Press
