I got an email today from http://www.swazirevolution.blogspot.com/ responding to my post ‘How a Swazi King is Made’ and directing me to the blogsite where there is a lengthy ‘explanation’ on the real guidelines for succession.
To find out more go visit http://www.swazirevolution.blogspot.com/
A decision by the Swazi Government to increase the salaries of civil servants could not have come at a worse time.
Just as the Swazi media were reporting that government was to spend an extra E300 million (more than 4 million US dollars) on civil servants pay comes a survey from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that states, ‘When the rest of sub-Saharan Africa was growing over the last decade, the economy of the Kingdom of Swaziland stagnated.’
The report published in IMF Survey Magazine on Monday (28 July 2008) states, ‘The slow growth may have worsened already difficult conditions in the tiny, landlocked country where in 2001, the latest year for which there are data, about two-thirds of its 1 million residents lived in poverty and 20 percent of the population claimed two-thirds of the income.’
The report identifies a number of issues that need to be addressed, including reforms in the banking and finance sector.
Chief among the problems facing Swaziland is the size of the kingdom’s civil service. The IMF report calls on Swaziland to ‘scale back government’ and reduce wage bills. This will in time allow ‘government to fight HIV AIDS’ and promote investment.
None of this is new. For many years the IMF has been calling on the Swazi government to modify its economy, by allowing wealth to be more evenly distributed within the kingdom, to reform land policy so the people (and not the Swazi king) can own and control the land and to cut back the unnecessarily large civil service.
As I have written before the government ignores this advice and continues to mislead Swazis into believing the economy is improving when it is not.
Earlier this month (July 2008) the state-controlled radio SBIS reported Prime Minister Themba Dlamini saying that the Swazi economy was in good health and that the PM was looking forward to an IMF report that would confirm this health.
I don’t know which IMF report he had in mind, but it certainly isn’t this one.
To see the full IMF report click here.
See also
FALSEHOODS ON THE SWAZI ECONOMY
It seems my departure from the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) has set people thinking about what will happen to journalism education in the kingdom after I’ve gone.
Sikelela M. Dlamini, who contributes articles to Swaziland’s independent comment magazine, the Nation, is a frequent critic of the university.
He wrote the following article which appeared in the Swaziland Solidarity Network Forum yesterday (29 July 2008).
I think it is an interesting contribution to the debate not only about journalism in Swaziland, but also about what role a university (any university) should play in the kingdom.
On the parts of Dlamini’s article that address me, I can confirm that I quit UNISWA because it is impossible to get anything done. This is not particular to JMC; for example, there have been attempts to launch a diploma course in Portuguese that has been around for about 10 years.
The JMC degree as proposed is not ‘revolutionary’, but it is modern. The programme was devised after extensive consultation with media houses. The programme contains a lot of practical work and some academic courses (including one on ‘human rights’). (If you are interested in the details of the JMC programme email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com and I’ll send you a copy of the proposal document.)
The most unusual aspect of the JMC programme is its teaching and assessment methods. The methods proposed are common in universities across the world but are seen as challenging at UNISWA where it is all too common for ‘lessons’ to consist of someone standing in front of a group of students dictating notes. Assessment at present is mostly based on memory tests and three hour exams.
I believe there is room for a rational discussion about the role of UNISWA that deals in empirical fact. We should try to avoid subjective opinion and (such as Dlamini’s comments on the UNISWA registrar) personal attacks. I have collected data that suggests that UNISWA has issues regarding academic quality and might have trouble justifying its title ‘university’. We already know that UNISWA qualifications are not widely recognised outside of Swaziland (not even in South Africa, where the present JMC Diploma is worthless). In the UK, for example, no UNISWA undergraduate degree is recognised. Instead, the degree that took four years for a student to complete is seen as the ‘equivalent’ of one year’s undergraduate study at a UK university.
On the specific case of the Chair of Council’s car: this is not a matter for the University Council. The Commission of Inquiry on UNISWA that reported in 2006 said that UNISWA had no right to pay for such a car since the chair of council is not an employee of the university.
I welcome further debate on UNISWA. I am myself attempting to write a paper for an academic journal on UNISWA that addresses the role of a university (any university) in Swaziland. This subject is particularly relevant at present with the news that at least two private ‘universities’ could set up in the kingdom in the next few years.
Uniswa cannot have a proper journalism course!
In the January 2008 issue of the Nation magazine I wrote that the University of Swaziland (Uniswa) was a mere extension of the country’s undemocratic Tinkhundla system of governance. I questioned the qualifications of the incumbent VC and Registrar; the purchase of a Mercedes for the long-time royal chairman of Council; and the veracity of Uniswa’s claim to academic freedom given royal interference and the institution’s reliance on state subventions. In April, a fuming Registrar retorted that the VC satisfied all the qualification requirements for the position; that Uniswa’s Registrar did not need a PhD; and that the purchase of the Council chairman’s Mercedes was an exclusive Council decision and expenditure. The overall impression was that Uniswa is autonomous enough to carry out its mandate to teach, research, and disseminate information and knowledge to its stakeholders.
A four-year journalism degree course that should be commencing this August has stalled allegedly because the Deans Committee, a Senate sub-committee that sanctions academic programmes, among its functions, has yet to sort out infrastructural, administrative, and other such hurdles before the programme takes off, hopefully in the 2009/2010 academic year. The degree programme aims to replace a three-year diploma and enhance Uniswa’s Journalism and Mass Communication (JMC) department’s ability to produce journalists that will take their rightful place in charting the socio-economic and political course of a Swaziland at a crossroads. A prominent proponent of the paradigm shift has been Professor Richard Rooney who recently did not renew his contract, citing bureaucratic red tape as the major hindrance toward implementation of the revolutionary journalism programme. I argue that Uniswa is sorting out much more than just classroom space, equipment, personnel, etc., with regard to implementing the degree programme. It is simply not in the interest of Uniswa and its principal (the state) to expedite a proper course in journalism in the mould envisioned by the likes of Prof. Rooney; at least not just yet. Below are the reasons.
A proper journalism course would give rise to ‘sniffer-dog’ journalists who would not be satisfied with a superficial explanation that a person who does not qualify for the position of VC in February miraculously does so in April. It would produce investigative journalists who probe what Uniswa implies by arguing that the purchase of a Mercedes for its chairman of Council was an exclusive Council affair. It would produce hardnosed journalists who stop at nothing to find out exactly what makes it OK for Uniswa to have a non-PhD Registrar much against the overwhelming trend elsewhere. The Registrar’s is an important office whose overarching function includes academic staff development. The JMC degree course would flood Swaziland with journalists who would want to know how a non-PhD holder is well equipped to encourage his juniors to pursue such a qualification. They would want to know if the incumbent’s under-qualification isn’t partly to blame for the ever-rising rate of unsuccessful PhD degree pursuits by Uniswa staff. They would want to know if the Registrar doesn’t sniff with egotistic satisfaction at every protracted or failed PhD attempt because “what were they trying to prove anyway?” He simply hasn’t a clue what the rigours of PhD study entail to be able to provide the necessary psychological, etc., support that such an exacting academic undertaking demands. Proper journalists would want to know if Mr Registrar is cool with addressing his subordinates as “Dr So-and-so”. In other words, they would want to know if petty personal insecurities and jealousies don’t creep in to interfere with professional judgment. Common sense dictates that it is illogical for the boss to be less educated than the junior; unless the boss owns the company of course.
Yes, proper journalists would want to know if Uniswa can live totally off government subventions and still exercise its independent research mandate, including being critical of the monarchy and government where the need arises as per its presumed guiding principle of academic freedom (Uniswa isn’t just financially dependant on government, but King Mswati III, who is executive head of state and government, is Uniswa Chancellor. His half-brother, Prince Phinda, has been chairman of Council for at least a decade now). They would want to know if obvious royal, and by extension, government influence, does not in fact fly in the face of the very principle of academic freedom that on paper Uniswa professes to uphold and live by. A proper journalism course would produce journalists who wonder if journalism, as it is currently constituted and practised, is not implicated in the slow progress toward a truly democratic dispensation in Swaziland. For instance, local journalists have done a sterling job of exposing corrupt practices in government in recent years, but only to negate their admirable efforts by not insisting on punitive action for fear of stepping on the wrong toes and risking unemployment. These, in my considered opinion, constitute some of the real but never-to-be-acknowledged reasons for Uniswa’s efforts to frustrate the mooted degree programme; at least until such time that radical foreign influences such as Prof. Rooney are out and the right personnel are hired to run a more politically agreeable degree programme. Let us not forget that Uniswa has since the early 1980s engaged in a cold war with its own Social Sciences faculty for doing a good job of producing politically aware and critical students who have been in the vanguard of perennial student unrest at the country’s sole highest institution of learning.
Sikelela M. Dlamini
(PhD candidate, University of Cape Town)
Managers in Swaziland’s notorious textile industry are forcing women to have sex with them in return for jobs.
Others are forced to pay bribes of up to E100 (about 13 US dollars) to be considered for a job.
A personnel manager from one company was caught in the act, according to the Times of Swaziland.
The newspaper reported on Monday (28 July 2008), ‘At times the managers demand sexual favours in return for work.
‘This, according to desperate job seekers found outside one company and further confirmed by independent investigations by this publication, is the order of the day.’
The Times gave a distressing insight into the plight of poor women in Swaziland.
‘A number of desperate people have fallen victim to the manager who, it is alleged, demands E50 for himself and another E50, which he claims is for another officer who would ensure registration into the company payroll.
‘Faced with tough economic conditions, people would rather risk facing the full measure of the law by bribing their way into employment.’
The Times reported that with women forming the majority of job seekers, ‘reports of sexual abuse are rife though they could not be verified during independent investigations by this publication’.
Times journalists posed as job seekers to investigate a firm that the newspaper declined to name pending investigations by the Swazi labour department.
The Times reported, ‘A long queue was already formed outside the company as early as 7am by mostly young women. Desperation was written all over the faces of some while others appeared to have been exhausted probably due to lack of a good night’s sleep. Some were already showing signs of sleepiness as they rested their heads on their laps as they patiently waited.
‘The few males on sight were basking in the morning sun. The young men expressed their frustration at being unemployed.
‘“These guys expect us to pay them upfront before we get employed. Who on earth can lend me E50 knowing that I am unemployed?” said one of the men, speaking of how they are forced to raise the bribe money to make it to the employment list.’
The Times report continued, ‘The women pitied themselves for being female because one of the personnel managers tasked at one point to recruit them invited some to his house.
‘“I know one girl who last week came fuming to the manager demanding instant employment before all hell broke loose,” she alleged, adding that after the said confrontation other women demanded employment too as they claimed to have done certain favours for this official.’
This is not the first expose of conditions at textile factories in Swaziland.
In March 2008, the Swazi Observer newspaper reported that workers were so badly paid that many of them existed ‘close to starvation.’
In June 2008, Swazi MPs called for an end to the ‘slave wages’ being paid by textile firms.
Earlier this year (2008), police brutally attacked workers who were legally striking for higher wages.
I have written extensively about the textile industry. To see more posts click here.
I know that Swazi journalists surf the Internet to find stories that they can download and use in their newspapers. I know also that there is a lot of information they choose to ignore. Subjects vary, but one that is avoided like the proverbial plague is criticism of the monarchy and the status quo generally. For that reason I am sure that you won’t be reading the following article in the Swazi media anytime soon.
The Botswana newspaper Mmegi (The Reporter) interviewed Siphasha Dlamini, the Secretary General of Swaziland’s People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), a political party banned in the kingdom.
Mmegi put the article on the Internet yesterday (28 July 2008).
Here is an extract from the interview. To access the full interview, click here
MMEGI: Swaziland is an absolute monarchy. What does this mean for a political party such as yours?
DLAMINI: We are a banned organisation because, according to the constitution, political parties are illegal.
M: How do you run an illegal organisation successfully? Where do you get funding? How do you measure the level of your following?
D: We just depend on our own personal earnings to sustain the movement. We have a major problem because people feel threatened to come out and support even if they follow us. The monarchy is very powerful and for anyone to take membership in our party they would have to forgo a lot in their personal and professional life. However, we know that we have a substantial following because the position we hold is what the majority of Swazis support.
M: We know that the situation in Swaziland is perhaps similar to that obtaining in Zimbabwe. Why is it so difficult to get the world’s attention on the Swaziland situation even though it has been unfolding for a long time?
D: Zimbabwe is a mess just like Swaziland. But I believe Swaziland is worse because it does not even have any pretence to adhering to some democratic system. In Zimbabwe there was a time when some sort of democratic system was used whereas in Swaziland none of that ever happened and the repression is at the same level if not worse.
The reason why the Swaziland issue has not captured the attention of the world, the Western world in particular, is because the monarchy serves the interests of the former colonisers. The monarchy is not a threat to Western interests. Remember that even the Zimbabwean issue never captured global attention until Mugabe became a threat to the corporate and imperialist interests.
But also you have SADC,[Southern Africa Development Community] which has shown the same lukewarm attitude toward the state of democracy in Swaziland. I mean Swaziland is a signatory to so many SADC protocols on elections and democratic governance. They do not even uphold any of those principles and yet you won't hear any complaint from SADC.
M: How far are you from reaching your goals especially that of a democratic Swaziland?
D: There is progress minimal as it is especially regarding our major goal [the establishment of a multi-party democracy system in Swaziland]. But you know, we do not just measure our progress with real changes to the system we are contend to have more and more people showing a dedication to our vision. We are working on a long-term change. Ultimately the challenge would be on the Swazi people to say enough is enough and change the system.
M: However even where the country is relatively peaceful and economically stable, a majority of people still wallow in poverty. Look at Botswana, or South Africa, countries that are consistently praised for rapid economic growth, a majority of the people still live in poverty. What is the cause of this discrepancy between the praise by the international community and the hopeless situations of poverty?
D: The policies are designed for the interests of only a few together with their international supporters. That is the problem. So you find the disjuncture between what the international community says about the country and what the majority of the people feel because the people do not enjoy the benefits of the success.
M: As a woman, and a leader in such a big organization how do you view the position of women in Swazi society?
D: Swaziland is a patriarchal society. Women are also relatively reserved as a result. We do have women in leadership positions and others who are specifically dedicated to addressing women issues. Our movement has taken the position of giving the people's issues more attention because we think everyone is oppressed; so we are fighting for everyone's liberation.
See also
PUDEMO ALL THE FACTS ARE HERE
I wrote briefly yesterday (28 July 2008) about the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) misleading people into thinking it had secured the services of a Fulbright Scholar for its journalism and mass communication department.
The university had applied to have a distinguished scholar but nobody wanted to come.
But it is not all doom and gloom on this front. The chemistry department at the university has recently said farewell to a Fulbright professor who visited for 10 months.
Jim Yoder has now returned to his base at Hesston College in the United States of America where he has taught for 35 years.
Yoder has been telling his college newspaper about his experiences in Swaziland. He is mostly upbeat, but he also talks about the class boycotts that frustrated the university during the dispute over semesterisation.
He also acknowledged how HIV AIDS is a disaster in the kingdom. He told the newspaper that ‘every student’ is ‘hoping to find a cure for HIV/AIDS, an overwhelming, ever present cloud over that country and the whole region of South Africa’.
You can read more about Yoder’s experiences in Swaziland by clicking here
See also
THE UNSWAZI BOY IS BACK IN TOWN
News that King Mswati III has invited Zimbabwean despot Robert Mugabe to his birthday bash will leave an indelible stain on Swaziland.
Already some of the world’s media have used it as an excuse to remind people about the king’s lavish lifestyle and love of expensive cars and the fact that Swaziland is not a democracy.
It was the Swazi News on Saturday (26 July 2008) that first broke the news of Mugabe’s invitation.
The Swazi News reported, ‘Mugabe’s invitation to the 40/40 Double Celebrations definitely sets a sour tone for the party billed for September this year,’ but it did not explain why it was ‘sour’.
It could possibly be because the invitation highlights the kind of company Swaziland’s undemocratic leader keeps.
The 40/40 celebrations are due to take place in September to mark the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Great Britain and also the king’s 40th birthday, both of which occur in 2008.
Mugabe became president of Zimbabwe after an election that most people consider to have been stolen (although I have to say not everyone admits this publicly). The Swazi News said, ‘The defiant Mugabe has been slapped with sanctions by the international community to go abroad to attend international functions. The 40/40 party could get him his groove back having been boycotted by the international community.’
Whether Mugabe gets ‘his groove back’ or not, the decision to invite him to the birthday party has gained international attention.
The international news agency AFP on Saturday (26 July 2008) quoted an unnamed official in Swaziland saying that ‘that a fleet of new German-made cars were on their way to Swaziland and would be unveiled during the double celebrations popularly known as 40/40.
‘“New cars for the King, the Queen Mother, his wives and other senior royal family members have already been ordered and they should be arriving mid-August,” the source said.’
Among other news organisation’s, South Africa’s Mail and Guardian carried the report, as did ZimOnline, billed as Zimbabwe’s ‘independent’ news agency.
King Mswati III is well known for his lavish lifestyle and his love of cars. He has been widely criticised in international circles in the past for spending huge sums of money on himself and his wives at a time when about 70 percent of people in Swaziland live in dire poverty, struggling to survive on an income of less than one US dollar a day.
It is not yet certain that Mugabe will accept the offer to attend the party. Mugabe doesn’t have much respect for the king, especially after the king criticised the way the Zimbabwean election was handled. Mugabe told King Mswati that as an autocratic monarch of a kingdom where political parties are banned he couldn’t teach Mugabe anything about democracy.
The Voice of America (VoA) reported yesterday (28 July 2008) that the invitation was ‘generating intense criticism in the Southern African sub region’. VoA said that some political analysts believe Mugabe’s invitation is an attempt by the Swazi king to make peace with the Zimbabwe leader after the offence he caused by criticising the Zimbabwean election.
The VoA also extensively quoted Mario Masuku, the leader of Swaziland’s banned political party, the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
Masuku told VoA that ordinary Swazi were against the huge cost of the celebrations, which are estimated to cost anything up to E50 million (about 7 million US dollars).
‘We are not only frowning on the invitation of Robert Mugabe. The celebrations themselves are unwarranted, it is just a waste of money for the Swazi nation, but worse still we now believe they are all people of the same team for King Mswati to invite a dictator that has violated fundamental human rights of the people of Zimbabwe to be brought here.
‘“It is an insult or adding salt into wounds of the people of Swaziland. Already people of Swaziland who are poor and unemployed are unhappy about the celebration. But the invitation of Robert Mugabe is adding salt into the wounds, and as far as PUDEMO is concerned, we think it is completely unnecessary and an affront to the fundamental rights of the people,” Masuku said.
VoA reported, ‘Masuku described the estimated cost of the planned celebration as completely unjustified, which he said shows the kings profligacy of spending the people’s money without caring for the suffering masses.
‘Masuku said, “I believe that the money could have been used into improving of the stand of living of the people of Swaziland. Currently, there are people who are suffering from the drought, people who are unemployed the money could have gone into improvement of the health facilities, the money could have gone into the improvement of the education standards of Swaziland. We believe that the king if he wanted a birthday for himself, he could have done so from his own resources, but not from the people’s taxes.”
The 40/40 celebration shave come under intense attack from some newspapers within Swaziland. In May 2008, the Swazi News reported that huge sums of money were being spent on equipping Swaziland’s armed forces in preparation for the celebrations. The official line was that the bullets and guns were needed to protect visiting dignitaries. The army was also deployed across the kingdom, raising suspicions that they might be used against civilian populations if there was any public dissent during the celebrations.
Also in May 2008, the Times of Swaziland’s managing editor, Martin Dlamini wrote in his own newspaper that the celebrations should be called off because the kingdom couldn’t afford them.
I have already written myself that if the 40/40 celebrations go ahead King Mswati III will once again be reviled in the eyes of the international community for spending money irresponsibly. He will also be seen to be out of touch with the realities of life in his own kingdom. This will do him immense personal harm and it will also damage Swaziland because it will make international donors reluctant to do business with the kingdom (something the IMF has already identified as happening).
Inviting Mugabe to his birthday bash also reminds the international community that King Mswati III is an authoritarian ruler and he keeps very strange bedfellows. Can you image what international donors will say once a photograph of Mswati and Mugabe ‘getting their groove back’ (as the Swazi News likes to put it) circulates around the world?
See also
SWAZILAND 'PREPARES FOR WAR'