IS GOVERNMENT PROTECTING GOOGLE OR PROTECTING EMASWATI?

Information, Communication and Technology Minister Savannah Maziya has urged Eswatini to handle a proposed deal with Google professionally, warning that upsetting the technology giant could have serious consequences for the country.

Speaking during a workshop for Members of Parliament, the Minister reportedly emphasized the importance of maintaining a good relationship with Google, describing the company as one of the world’s largest digital monetization platforms. She suggested that future opportunities for emaSwati to earn income through social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube could depend on how the country manages its relationship with the technology giant.

According to the Minister, reckless conduct or negative publicity directed at Google could potentially jeopardize critical services and digital opportunities that connect Eswatini to the rest of the world.

While there is no doubt that digital investment and technological partnerships are important, the comments raise deeper questions about the relationship between multinational corporations, governments, and citizens.

No reasonable person would argue against attracting investment. Eswatini desperately needs economic opportunities, especially for young people who are increasingly turning to digital platforms to earn a living. In a country struggling with high unemployment, access to monetization tools on YouTube, Facebook, and other online platforms could create opportunities for thousands of content creators, entrepreneurs, educators, and small businesses.

That is the positive side of the discussion.

The concern arises when government officials appear more focused on protecting the interests of powerful corporations than protecting the interests of citizens.

For years, ordinary emaSwati have been told to sacrifice, to be patient, and to trust that economic opportunities will eventually arrive. Yet many continue to face poverty, unemployment, poor service delivery, and limited access to economic opportunities.

Now they are being told that they must also be careful not to upset global technology companies.

The imbalance is striking.

Governments exist to represent citizens, not corporations.

The role of government should be to negotiate agreements that benefit the people, ensure transparency, protect consumers, and maximize opportunities for local businesses and creators. It should not be to create an environment where multinational companies appear beyond criticism.

Google is a powerful company. It has transformed communication, education, business, and entertainment around the world. Millions depend on services such as Gmail, YouTube, Google Search, and Google Maps every day.

But Google is not above scrutiny.

Neither is Facebook.

Neither is any multinational corporation operating in a sovereign country.

Healthy partnerships are built on mutual respect, accountability, and transparency. They are not built on fear.

The suggestion that criticism of a company could somehow threaten a country’s connectivity also highlights a broader issue. It demonstrates how dependent modern societies have become on a small number of global technology firms.

That dependence should concern policymakers.

Instead of simply celebrating foreign technology companies, governments should also be thinking about digital sovereignty, local innovation, data protection, cybersecurity, and ensuring that citizens retain control over their digital future.

For Eswatini, the real opportunity is not simply gaining access to monetization tools. The real opportunity is creating an environment where young people can build businesses, develop technology, create content, and participate fully in the digital economy.

That requires infrastructure, education, affordable internet access, and policies that encourage innovation.

It also requires transparency.

If a proposed Google deal is truly in the national interest, then citizens deserve to understand what it involves, what obligations it creates, what benefits it delivers, and how it will improve the lives of ordinary emaSwati.

Unfortunately, in an absolute monarchy where major decisions are often made without meaningful public participation, transparency remains a persistent concern.

The question therefore is not whether Eswatini should work with Google.

Of course it should.

The question is whether such partnerships will benefit ordinary citizens or simply become another arrangement negotiated by political elites while the public remains excluded from both the process and the rewards.

Technology should empower the people.

It should not become another tool used to justify secrecy, silence criticism, or concentrate power.

If the proposed deal is truly beneficial, government should not ask citizens to trust blindly.

It should show them the evidence.