By Nondumiso Hlophe
The Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) believes that a “cultural boycott” – by musicians invited to perform in the Kingdom of Swaziland – is an effective way to address political opinions in Swaziland. Do you?
Last year, the South-African based organisation SSN called on artists to boycott Swaziland by refusing to perform in the country, as a means to further their cause célèbre of political reform for the country. Zahara, a newcomer to the music scene, was one of the earlier noted artists to cite the boycott as a reason for her failing to show up for a performance in Swaziland. More recently, on March 2 2012, seasoned singer Ringo Madlingozi cancelled his appearance at the popular Swazi hot spot, House on Fire, citing the ‘ongoing’ “cultural boycott”. This has led to much confusion in South Africa-Swaziland cultural affairs, concerning whether 1) there is indeed a “cultural boycott” going on; 2) South African political parties support the notion; and 3) diplomacy is truly being exercised on the issue that the “cultural boycott” is for (i.e. politics).
Here’s what we have come to know: the ANC denies any involvement in the boycott, citing their foreign policy stance on Swaziland (being one more of mediation rather than outright pressure) for political reform. The ANC Youth League, on the other hand, has gone against its parent association’s stance and supported this action wholeheartedly. The culmination of the “cultural boycott” issue and the merits of it was debated on Metro FM in a show that was hosted by Melanie Bala and Glen Lewis (Tuesday March 13), but cultural boycotts are not new. An exemplary period when the arts and politics enjoyed a ‘complicated’ relationship status was during the Cold War. The Cold War gave rise to differing ideas (politically, economically and socially) in both states, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USA and the USSR represented diverging philosophies on a way forward post-World War II, capitalism versus communism respectively. However, whether intended or not, the very competitiveness and efforts towards suppression led to a period rich in expression and innovation. From science to sports, each side of the Iron Curtain flourished. For instance, scientifically, the Soviets succeeded in launching the Sputnik 1 satellite in 1957, sending the first man – Yuri Gagarin – to orbit the Earth. Sports-wise, Bobby Fischer’s victory dethroned Boris Spassky and interrupted the unbroken chain of Soviet world chess champions dating back to the 1948 World Chess Championship, widely viewed as an American victory.
Culturally speaking, both sides traded heavy ‘artillery’ via formalised cultural exchange programs. Both sides recognised the value in learning from one another on homegrown cultural milieu, at home and abroad, on a practical level. Hence, these exchanges came to influence the way in which “cultural diplomacy” was exercised between states, officially and unofficially. Undoubtedly, the arts were an effective weapon on both sides of the cultural war. The use of artistic licence to convey thoughts on issues of the day varied from artists as it did from medium to audience. However, for every artisan who was singing out loud, writing about and acting out against ideas policing the arts, policies and practices were established to limit the influence of just such works. Nevertheless, I like to think that musicians in particular had a lasting impact on culture. They found ways to convey (political) messages succinctly in a song. These songs provided a much-needed ‘breather’ from weighty debates of the day, merely through the escapism captured in song. These songs transcended practice and policy and today stand as timeless testaments to the times they were written in. However, with more aggressive acts of political will entering one’s freedom of association and expression, it is clear that when one is needed to cross state lines, these freedoms may be tainted, even lost, in the act of boycotting. The issue of Swaziland’s “cultural boycott” calls for one to pay more attention to its political affairs, but is this necessarily a means to an end – a political end, if you will? South African DJ Black Coffee, in an interview with the Swazi Observer (dated Monday March 5 2012), said he wondered why the SSN strove for boycotts rather than using artists to create a platform for awareness and to further their agenda. Instead, the DJ saw that such endeavours were also depriving Swazis of the opportunity to enjoy artists at work. It is a position I agree with, as well as noting the loss of employment, enjoyment and revenue from such events for Swazi nationals.
The exercise of artistic and cultural expression is sensational in that, ideally, it provides a platform for persons (irrespective of colour, creed and caste) to coexist, with music eliciting emotion from one’s core. If we call for its cessation, citing ‘political reasons’, are we not attacking the very organic premise for artists passionately doing what they do? Furthermore, if artists themselves allow for their artistic licence – the one that sees them as both custodians and defenders of these freedoms – to be sanctioned, are they not aiding and abetting the death of the artiste, whose music stood for and appealed to the consciousness of freedom to its fan base? Is the reaction incited by this matter (the debate on artistic freedom) compatible with the action being taken – or, in this case, not taken (the “cultural boycott”) – in the country to promote the real issue (political reform, in case you forgot what the issue being debated truly is)?
I ask you to ponder on the issue of politicisation of the arts. When does it cross the line? Is it when it engages arts and culture in such a manner, as a matter of cultural diplomacy?
Nondumiso (Noni) Hlophe is a global citizen with a Swazi passport. She is a MTN One Young World Ambassador from the Kingdom of Swaziland. Follow her on Twitter (@nonihlophe) and read her blog at www.mtnoyw.co.za.
It seems very easy to call for all sorts of boycotts when your own bread and butter bases are covered. Most of the artists that would visit Swaziland are seeking to broaden their sales and earn more from their efforts. How easy is it to say boycott Swaziland but we seek no alternative income for our artists.
Fighting the political battle is not the task of artists they can include messages in the lyrics of their music that expresses their own views, but it remains the responsibility of the government of the day to show guidance in this matter, and not give, subsidise, and lend cash to Mswati and his bunch of thugs.
As usual it is the little people that must take up the battle while the power sits back and does nothing not in Zim not in Swaziland not anywhere else.
Wow! Who knew memory could be so short? Or perhaps in such a young, young world Noni needs to read up on some of the history that was breathing down Swaziland’s neck 30 years ago. History about cultural boycotts, sports boycotts, political boycotts and the international sanctioning of SA. In several countries South African passports weren’t welcome; the UN shunned us, SA business couldn’t borrow a cent from outside the country or list on any foreign stock exchange.
What all South Africans learned was that these measures, while they increased hardship at all levels of society, eventually began to strangle the economy. If Swaziland really wants change, the Swazis, en masse, need to go for broke and beg even SA not to lend them anything.
While I don’t condone apartheid, sanctions made SA far more self-sufficient and our manufacturing sector blossomed, fed by local needs. What incentive does our present government have to increase manufacturing levels? It understands the need to get better prices for end products, but when it can import whatever it wants from China at half the cost, what is the point to provide impetus?
Bad governments need ongoing wake-up calls. Where the apartheid government was seen as a threat to its people, SA is now only considered a useful market and people abroad have no incentive to force the ANC to care about its people.There must be a lesson in this somewhere, but whether that would change your opinion, I cannot know.
What happened to freedom of association and freedom of speech. The SA artists charge big moneys for Swaziland gigs and trust me they are also deprived some income and doing what they like most. I doubt if this is fair to them. Again the people whom this is intended to support are pissed off to the bottom because they didn’t send the SSN to carry such a mandate.
Moreover the people this is intended to punish do not feel even a small pinch. If they want live band entertainment they can just book a flight to overseas or Cape Town, enjoy themselves to the fullest and come back to Swaziland without a hassle. So the masses down there get bored.
Trust me that is not going to make any one rebel againts the State simply because the masses know quite well who is behind this. It is for that reason that most people just hate this SSN. Messages are conveyed through music and art. Encouraging the SA Dee Jays or Musicians to compose supporting songs againts what they believe in or the current status in Swaziland could suffice. Music brings people together because we can all sing at once, but can’t talk at once. Using ancient means to solve todays problems won’t work in todays life. We see things differently and that won’t change.
This Cultural Boy Court therefore is just a non-starter in MY OPINION & OBSERVATION. It is just depriving innocent citizens means to be happy and forget their worries.
No artist can deny that culture has become a weapon of politics in todays society. Cultural workers are easy victims of corrupt political practice, being bought & sold on ‘Arts and Culture’ platforms for political gain. It is a beautiful vision that sees the arts as free from this type of manipulation, that pictures artists as purely able to create for themselves & for the realization of the happiness of others. This is a utopian ideal in a world where culture is used to create spaces for corruption & oppression to be hidden.
“The Arts” is meant to include many mediums of expression that purport to be ‘free’, implying that they do not exist to serve any agenda other then that of self-expression & artistic communication, & that this collective must protect itself from any outside influence that might taint this purity of purpose. This is the ideal, not the reality. The reality must take into account that “The Arts” includes in many of its messages a critique of the society that gives it its support base. It is never purely ‘escapist’ (i.e. denying reality its hold) in the sense that part of an attempt at ‘escape’ is a recognition of ‘entrapment’. “The Arts” does not exist without the society it represents, and if that society is suffering, then “The Arts” are suffering with it, & both should be defended.
It is the power of “The Arts” as both an agent of corruption & a force against it that is being recognized here.
In addition: The point of a cultural boycott is isolation, not collective punishment. Once a corrupt government allows its country to be subjected to this isolation it invites a stark focus onto the corrupt practices that invited such action. This serves to strengthen the internal resistance to this corruption, and this is why it is crucial to recognize that the call for boycott came from Swazi citizens, from people who will suffer from it but are willing to do so.
“The Arts” should never be used as a drug to placate and pacify the people, allowing them to ‘escape’ their reality while they continue to suffer. “The Arts” should either be used to openly oppose this corruption (a theme that I imagine is missing from most house music) or should be used to deny any corrupt regime the opportunity to ‘normalize’ its oppressive practices.
Its a lovely thought this ‘cultural boycott’, but it is completely ineffective.
As previous comments have already stated, the people this affects the most are to lay citizens of Swaziland not the ruling class.
The people bringing in these artists do so a great costs to themselves, they spend large sums of money on promotions only to have the artists pull out on the eve of a performance, so in effect what the boycott is doing is killing the entertainment industry in Swaziland while making zero political impact.
The artists themselves are not being brought in for political reasons, stopping a Black Coffee performance does not in any way change the political landscape in Swaziland. And the Swazi people themselves are quite adept at making the best of a less than stellar situation. We make a plan, and we keep the party going.
As for the SSN, how many of their members live in Swaziland? I live and work here, it is my home. I am not happy with how things stand, but I view it in the same manner I would a math equation. If I can not fully understand the problem I am presented how do I hope to come up with a solution?
The political situation in Swaziland is far more complex than people want to admit. It is far too easy to lay the blame at the Kings feet ignoring the myriad other issues involved. All these people who feel we need a change in our system need to present a workable alternative with which they will replace what we have now. I for one am not in favour…
one ineffective, corrupt, bumbling system of governance for another.
What is it they will do differently that will improve the lot of our needy? I fear that we will be saddled with more of the same. I see no difference between the so called ‘progressives’ and our current government. i am afraid, the light at the end of the tunnel has grown very dim and in my humble opinion the SSN is doing nothing to turn that light back on.
Boycott all the artists you want, it will not affect change. What it will do is annoy people, and lose people money in an already struggling economy, in a country where the entertainment industry is already struggling due to the high police presence. Meanwhile the ruling class continue to do their thing completely oblivious that there is such a boycott in place.
The SSN tilts and windmills, they need to stop and do something that will truely affect change otherwise they’re just wasting their time and they owe me money for all the tickets I have bought for shows that end up cancelled.
It is pointless really.
BTW Nice article Ndumi. Read the other one as well, well written pieces.
Excellent piece! You raise a very valid point – that musicians would be better to raise awareness than simply to boycott the kingdom, but I cant help wondering if this would be possible in Swaziland? I doubt a performer would be allowed to hold a concert and openly encourage the people to seek political reform. Like Dubai, that musician would be fined or arrested and thrown out the country. By boycotting, perhaps a musician is simply showing that, on a personal level, they disagree with the policies of the government in the country they’re boycotting and dont want to appear to be endorsing them by performing there.