News that Swaziland’s Prime Minister Themba Dlamini isn’t standing for parliament in the forthcoming election in the kingdom confirms that the poll is undemocratic.
Dlamini isn’t standing for parliament, but that doesn’t mean he is giving up politics, Government Spokesperson Percy Simelane was quoted by the Times of Swaziland on Monday (4 August 2008)
In a democracy the announcement that the sitting prime minister was not running for office would be major front page news. It might even get into the international media. But Dlamini’s decision was hardly mentioned inside Swaziland and as far as I can tell has been completely ignored outside the kingdom.
The reason for this is simple. Dlamini didn’t stand for election to parliament last time. Dlamini was appointed as prime minister by King Mswati III. That means, quite simply, that Dlamini was never elected by anyone.
And, he was chosen by a king who was himself not elected by anyone either.
The king didn’t even decide to choose someone from among the elected members of parliament to lead the government. He chose a complete outsider.
If you need proof of how meaningless the Swazi parliament is, there you have it.
Newspapers in Swaziland have been calling the election that takes place later this month (August 2008) a ‘mockery’. They are right, but they are right for the wrong reasons. They are citing examples of mismanagement and confusion. The nominations that took place this past weekend were called at short notice and there was confusion about who could and who could not be nominated.
There is also a long running argument about whether the members of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) who are tasked with running the election are qualified (in terms of the new Swazi Constitution) for the job.
And, even under the constitution, political parties are banned in Swaziland.
All these things make the election a ‘mockery’, but the biggest ‘mockery’ is the nature of ‘democracy’ in Swaziland.
I tend to follow what I like to call the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) position on this. Regular readers of this blog will remember that after the last election in 2003, the CET, which had been ‘observing’ the elections in Swaziland, reported, ‘we do not regard the credibility of these National elections as an issue: no elections can be credible when they are for a Parliament which does not have power and when political parties are banned’.
In June (2008) the European Union (EU) Ambassador to Swaziland Peter Beck Christiansen said the EU would not be ‘observing’ the forthcoming election. He was reported by the Times of Swaziland saying there are ‘shortcomings in the kingdom’s democracy’.
The Times reported Christiansen saying, ‘It is noted that the Prime Minister is not elected by Parliament.’
He added, ‘The same applies to Cabinet Ministers.’
He also said, ‘It’s clear that the [Swazi] constitution has some shortcomings.’
There has been a heated debate among ‘progressives’ in Swaziland about whether they should take part in the election or boycott it. Those in favour of participation believe that it is possible to reform the system from within (although I have yet to see a coherent explanation of how in practical terms this change will take place).
People on the other side of the argument believe the election is bogus (as the CET does) and that taking part in the election encourages people inside Swaziland and in the international community generally to believe that Swaziland is presently a democratic country and its only fault is that the democracy needs a bit of fine tuning to make it work better.
(If you want to follow some of the debate among the progressives click here to go to the Swaziland Solidarity Network forum.)
It is right to boycott the election. It has no validity and it confuses people. The truth is that Swaziland is not a democracy and is run by an autonomous monarch who is allowed to organise the kingdom in any way he wants. If you doubt this just think again about the way the prime minister is appointed.
But democrats should not ignore the election. We should take every opportunity to point out to Swazis and to the international community exactly why this election is ‘a mockery’. We should argue that for there to be a genuine democracy in Swaziland, the powers of the monarch have to be curtailed and political parties ‘unbanned’.
We should have a free media that allow debate on the real issues in Swaziland to take place and give space for discussion of policies that could divert the kingdom from the road to destruction it is presently following.
Only once these things have happened can we begin to talk about who should be elected to parliament.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS 2008
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
IS SWAZILAND’S ELECTION CREDIBLE?
SWAZI ELECTION ‘A MOCKERY’
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS 2008
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
IS SWAZILAND’S ELECTION CREDIBLE?
SWAZI ELECTION ‘A MOCKERY’
On the issue of the Prime-minister's not participating in the elections: An old but wise man explained in thus.
ReplyDeleteKing Mswati wanted to appoint a new MD for his royal purse (Tibiyo), an MD that would understand that money is meant to be spent - espicially for useless gadgets like pplanes and fancy cars. his The ideal candidate was Ndumiso Mamba, the archetype big-spender, the man known to have mall-like underground parking for his many flashy cars.
The dillema was "how do we get rid of this spendthrift without making it appears like he's been fired.
So they "promoted" the big man to the post of prime minister where he's been fumbling along ever since. The man has no passion, or any interest for that matter, for politics. Why then would he want to come back for the "elections".
My ealier post had so many spelling errors. My grade-school gramma teacher would cry if she saw this. So I decided to redo it.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of the prime-minister's not participating in the forthcoming elections, an old but wise man explained it thus.
King Mswati wanted to appoint a new M.D. for his royal purse(Tibiyo taka Ngwane), an M.D. that would understand that money is meant to be spent lavishly - especially for useless gadgets like planes and fancy cars. His ideal candidate was his friend and confidante, a general manager within the organisation, the archetype big-spender, Mr Ndumiso Mamba.
The dillema was," How do we get rid of this spendthrift - Mr A.T. Dlamini, without him appearing as if he is being fired."
The answer was simple: he was "promoted" to the post of prime-minister. The differences between the two men are extreme. Ndumiso's first act in charge was purchasing a 20 million emalangeni villa in England(its purpose has never been ascertained) and the termination of many social expenditures like bursaries fo university students.
Mr A.T. ,on the other hand, soon found out that politics is taxing, unlike his relatively quiet and more lucrative previous employment. He has been fumbling from day one. Clearly, the man had no intention of being a politician. Nothing about him indicates any interest in politics beyond serving his employer - the king. Should we be surprised that he isn't participating in this year's elections? No way.