Swaziland’s failed democratisation
By Kenworthy News Media, 17
September 2017
The reason for the lack of
democracy in the tiny absolute monarchy of Swaziland is an authoritarian
reinvention of tradition, and a lack of both internal and external pressure on
the regime, writes Swazi activist Bheki Dlamini, writes Kenworthy News Media.
If you are looking for
books on political solutions in Swaziland in your local or university library,
or in bookstores or on Amazon, you won’t find much to enlighten you.
A young Swazi activist and
student of Public Administration at the University of Bergen, President of the
Swaziland Youth Congress Bheki Dlamini, has tried to fill this void by writing
his Master’s Thesis about “Democratization in Swaziland.”
“When doing the research
for this thesis, I realized the huge void that exists in the literature about
the political situation in Swaziland. Most of the writings about the political
situation in Swaziland have focused on the domestic actors,” Dlamini tells me.
“My motivation was based on
the ultimate legitimacy and support that the Swazi regime has received
internationally, even from those external actors (USA, EU, SADC, AU) who claim
to pursue democracy and human rights beyond their own borders, because I
understood that the Swazi struggle cannot be isolated from the regional, continental
and global trends.”
Failed to democratize
Amongst other things, the thesis focuses on the failure of Swaziland to
democratize, while its neighbours, with their one-party states and others
non-democratic systems, did so in the early nineties.
Unlike other African
countries, whose regimes are or were based on one-party authority, military
rule, or religion, Swaziland is an absolute monarchy.
Many other countries in
Africa and elsewhere repealed their independence constitution and established
an absolute and centralized power, Dlamini argues. The main difference was that
Swaziland banned all political parties, centralized and based its regime around
culture and tradition, and failed to subsequently democratize.
The thesis also focuses on
the role of external and internal forces in ensuring that Swaziland will become
a democracy in the future – according to Dlamini, because especially the study
of the external dimension of regime transition in regard to Swaziland has been
neglected.
This fact is important in
properly diagnosing the struggle for democratic change in Swaziland, Dlamini
writes. Because the present understanding leads those who wish to understand or
help the democratic movement in Swaziland to emphasize the weakness of this
movement, and not the lack of international support, in explaining why
Swaziland has failed to democratize.
Divide and rule
British colonialist and settlers changed the social and political fabric of
Swazi society, with an apartheid-like rural-urban divide, a land-partition that
kept most of the arable land in the hands of British settlers, and a two-tier
governance model. They thereby enabled the Swazi monarchy to create a royal
supremacy “that is at the centre of the undemocratic nature of the regime,”
Dlamini emphasises.
This was a traditional
system, based on a “superficial culture carefully created by both colonialism
and King Sobhuza [father of the present king Mswati], as a form of political
control and for capital accumulation,” in a more classic “divide and rule”-strategy,
which was employed throughout much of Africa.
“The shortage of land,
because of the 1907 Land Appropriation Act, meant that land became a scarce
resource,” says Dlamini. Suddenly, chiefs, who were previously judged on
whether they could distribute land fairly and abundantly, realised that control
over land allocation meant power.
“The alliance between
traditional leaders and the colonial administration left the masses helpless,
as they were now exploited by both the traditional leaders and the white settlers.
This situation has not changed.”
An absolute monarchy
Today, King Mswati controls Swazi society. He
appoints the Prime Minister, the government, ten MP’s and most of the senate,
the Chief Justice and judges, and members of the Public Service Commission, who
are responsible for recruiting civil servants. And he controls over half of
Swaziland’s economy, which is based to a large extent on Swaziland’s lucrative
sugar industry and mineral rights.
This he does, Dlamini
points out, through the Tibiyo taka Ngwane fund, which was established to buy
back land for resettlement of ordinary Swazi’s, in trust for the Swazi people.
It is currently being used by the King on prestige projects, in partnership
with foreign companies, and to finance his extravagant life style, however.
And there is seemingly no
united opposition to challenge his rule.
Political parties are
banned and divided amongst themselves, and most of the middle class in
Swaziland, including some members of the democratic forces and trade union movement,
“rely on the state or political networks to maintain its privilege,” and is
thus “compromised by its proximity to the regime,” according to Dlamini.
Swazi’s living in the rural
areas amount to about two thirds of the population, who are mostly subsistence
farmers struggling to survive. They are controlled by a system that amongst
other things enables chiefs, who act on behalf of the king, to evict them from
their land if they cause any trouble.
Foreign friends and foes
But the fact that King Mswati pretty much runs Swaziland as a 17th
century feudal manor is not only due to matters internal to Swaziland, or
colonial issues from 50 years ago or more, Bheki Dlamini insists in his thesis.
“The regime is partly
reproduced by the support it receives from the external actors, politically and
financially. The proliferation of foreign capital into the country, and their
dealings with Tibiyo and the king, helps in the reproduction of the regime,”
Dlamini writes.
He names several external
actors as being particularly important, and able to influence Swaziland’s
stagnant democratisation process.
85 percent of Swaziland’s
imports and 60 percent of its exports come from neighbouring South Africa,
whose ruling party have historical economic interests in Swaziland, including a
partnership with Mswati in the mining industry. The ANC government may be
supportive of democracy in Swaziland, and pass resolutions to this extent, but
“has not done anything to pressurize Swaziland.”
The Southern African
Customs Union, which Swaziland has relied on since independence in 1968,
for a large part of its revenues, the Southern African Development
Community, which Mswati chaired last year, and the African Union
have not done much to pressurize the regime either.
The EU, one of
Swaziland biggest trading partners, “has publically condemned the authoritarian
regime in Swaziland” but this ”does not transcend into action” through e.g.
demands that Swaziland live up to the dictates of the Cotonou Trade Agreement
with the EU, that includes matters of human rights observance and good
governance.
“Our task is to engage,
‘put pressure’ is not the right word … I believe in constructive engagement
from all levels … in order to promote dialogue on democracy … the Swazi people
should not think that the EU is here to solve their problems,” as the EU
ambassador – interviewed by Dlamini – put it.
The UK, Swaziland’s
former colonial power, “is not doing much in Swaziland since it closed its High
Commission office in 2005 … for economic reasons.”
Besides trying to broker
negotiations between the democratic movement and Mswati, the Commonwealth,
of which Swaziland is a member, “has done nothing to promote democracy in
Swaziland.
The USA, a big donor
and trade partner, has condemned Swaziland’s lack of democracy and poor human
rights record and actually acted on this in removing Swaziland from the list of
beneficiaries of the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2015 for human
“rights abuses.” The USA has also supported arrested pro-democracy activists.
Observer mission reports
from the African Union, EU and the Commonwealth have declared Swazi elections
not free and fair, unlike SADC.
Walk the walk
But the fact that Swaziland’s trade partners and other external actors may play
a positive role in the democratisation of Swaziland by pressurising Mswati’s
regime through trade and aid is clear, just look at Malawi and Zambia in the
early 1990s, and Swaziland to a degree 20-odd years later, says Dlamini.
“The wave of protests in
2011 and 2012 in Swaziland [calling for democratic change] was a direct
response to the reduction of government revenue coming from SACU … and only
last year, Swaziland lost preferential trade (through AGOA) with the USA for
failure to respect human rights.”
Swaziland subsequently
unbanned trade union federation TUCOSWA, is now looking into amending one of
the main offending laws in regard to AGOA, the Suppression of Terrorism Act –
an act that Amnesty International has called “inherently repressive.”
“Political pressure would
compel the regime to consider democratisation,” especially if the international
community focused more squarely on the critical questions of unbanning
political parties and multi-party democracy, although the external actors need
to coordinate their actions better, to be effective, says Bheki Dlamini.
For this political pressure
to materialise, solidarity movements around the world will have to pressurize
governments and companies that prop up Mswati’s regime, as well as mobilise
financial resources for the democratic movement in Swaziland.
Like solidarity
organisations Afrika Kontakt in ACTSA, who support civic education and advocacy
work in Swaziland, or the Danish International Development Agency, who support
political parties PUDEMO and SWADEPA.
Democracy begins at home
Because however much external forces can and may help democratise Swaziland,
the main push must come from Swaziland’s democratic movement and mass
mobilisation.
“Democracy cannot be
embedded without the democratic forces growing strong inside the country.
External forces cannot create these forces where they do not exist. Democracy
cannot be imported from abroad, but the internal actors need solidarity from
the external in pursuit of democracy,” as Dlamini writes.
And here, Bheki Dlamini –
who has himself been tortured, imprisoned and exiled by the regime for his role
in Swaziland’s democratic movement – has a message for his colleagues and
comrades in Swaziland’s democratic movement: stop the disunity, infights and
antagonism, and bring people in the rural areas on board, if you want to defeat
the regime and bring about democracy.
“Presently, the democratic
forces and divided amongst themselves. Their power base is mainly in the urban
areas, and they are weak in the rural areas where the great majority of the
people reside. The rural people take the brunt of the repression and
exploitation of the regime. It is therefore central to mobilize these
magnitudes if the building of democracy from below is to be realized.”
Download the thesis here
See also
POLL
OBSERVERS: REWRITE CONSTITUTION
SWAZILAND
PM CONSTITUTION LIES
COMMONWEALTH CALLS FOR DEMOCRACY
Posts
