WHEN POVERTY BECOMES POLITICS: QUESTIONS OVER WHO BENEFITS FROM GOVERNMENT HOUSING PROJECTS

A heated exchange in Parliament between Senator Sicelo Qedusizi Dlamini and Deputy Prime Minister Thulisile Dladla has once again drawn attention to one of Eswatini’s most pressing issues: poverty, unemployment, and the distribution of government assistance.

The debate centered on a house built for Mlamuli Dlamini of Mtsambama under the Deputy Prime Minister’s housing programme for poor and vulnerable citizens. Senator Dlamini questioned why Mlamuli had been selected as a beneficiary, arguing that he appeared young and physically capable of working and building his own home.

The Senator’s intervention immediately raised broader questions about transparency, fairness, and the criteria used to determine who qualifies for government assistance in a country where poverty remains widespread.

Responding to the concerns, Deputy Prime Minister Thulisile Dladla defended the decision and clarified that the house in question was not an extravagant structure as some had suggested.

“It is a normal house with one bedroom. It’s just that some people view it as a double-storey,” she explained.

While the exchange may appear to focus on a single beneficiary, it highlights a much larger problem facing Eswatini.

The reality is that poverty has become so widespread that almost every government assistance programme is now vulnerable to scrutiny and controversy. With approximately 70 percent of the population living below the poverty line, thousands of families desperately need support. At the same time, limited resources mean that not everyone who qualifies will receive assistance.

This inevitably creates questions about who gets help and who is left behind.

However, the deeper issue extends beyond one housing project.

Why are so many young people in Eswatini unable to build homes for themselves in the first place?

The Senator’s argument assumes that being young automatically means being capable of providing for oneself. In a healthy economy, that assumption might be reasonable. But Eswatini is not operating under normal economic conditions.

Thousands of educated young people remain unemployed. Many survive through informal work, temporary jobs, or financial support from relatives. Others leave the country entirely in search of opportunities abroad. The scarcity of jobs has created a generation of young people who are willing to work but simply cannot find meaningful employment.

In such circumstances, poverty is not always the result of laziness or unwillingness to work. More often, it is the result of an economic system that has failed to create opportunities.

This is where the debate becomes uncomfortable for the government and the monarchy.

For years, leaders have spoken about economic growth, national development, and improving living standards. Yet despite these promises, poverty remains entrenched. Young people continue to struggle, and dependence on government assistance programmes continues to grow.

The housing programme itself is evidence of this reality.

If the economy were creating sufficient opportunities, fewer citizens would require state intervention to secure basic shelter. The fact that housing assistance remains in such high demand reflects a broader social and economic crisis.

Critics also argue that assistance programmes in Eswatini often lack sufficient transparency. Citizens frequently ask how beneficiaries are selected, what criteria are used, and whether political considerations influence decisions. These concerns are particularly important in a country where public trust in institutions remains fragile.

The answer cannot be to blame poor people for being poor.

Nor can the solution be limited to building a handful of houses while ignoring the structural causes of poverty.

What Eswatini needs is not only housing assistance but an economic environment that enables citizens to support themselves with dignity. That means job creation, investment in entrepreneurship, support for small businesses, improved education outcomes, and accountable governance.

Until those conditions exist, debates like the one witnessed in Parliament will continue.

The real scandal is not that a poor citizen received a house.

The real scandal is that after decades of absolute rule, so many citizens still need government assistance simply to have a roof over their heads.

That is the question Parliament should be asking.