The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has
gone into propaganda overdrive in reporting the current election in the
kingdom.
On Thursday (22 August 2013), it quoted extensively from
a report made by the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) into conduct
at the last election held in Swaziland in 2008.
According to the Observer, EISA said the
Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), the body set up by the king to
oversee the election process, ‘managed to achieve notable progress despite the
lack of time and by comparison to the previous election [in 2003].’
EISA did indeed make such an observation, but it also went on to say this, ‘There is much yet
to be done, for the Swazi legal and constitutional framework is sorely
deficient and Swaziland falls far short of the standards that would have to be
met in order for the country to be classed as a democracy.’
King Mswati rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last
absolute monarch. Political parties are banned from taking part in the election
and opposition groups to the king are branded ‘terrorists’ under the Suppression
of Terrorism Act. Democracy advocates have been arrested and charged with
sedition.
EISA made a scathing critique of the EBC and its
relationship to the King.
‘Almost all the stakeholders regarded the members of the
EBC as royal appointees.
‘Stakeholders did not regard the EBC as independent and
believed that the EBC operated under the instruction of the King. Stakeholders
also expressed the view that the EBC was not representative of society as a
whole, but was drawn exclusively from government officials or members of the
aristocracy.
‘Most believed that the Commissioners do not meet the
qualifications laid down in the constitution in Article 90(6): “The chairperson,
deputy chairperson and the other members of the Commission shall possess the
qualifications of a Judge of the superior courts or be persons of high moral
character, proven integrity, relevant experience and demonstrable competence in
the conduct of public affairs”’.
EISA added, ‘Most stakeholders were of the view that the
EBC was lacking in transparency and secretive in its operations. They felt that
even information that should indisputably have been in the public domain, such
as the election timetable, was given out piecemeal and very late in the day.’
In its report EISA made several recommendations, and this
was its first:
‘Enormous
power is concentrated in the hands of the King. The direct active role that the
King plays in the political life of Swaziland has polarised the
Swazi people. This is in direct conflict with his higher and more crucial role as
the living embodiment of the Swazi nation and of its culture:
‘Executive authority is vested in the
hands of a hereditary monarch and not in the hands of a
democratically elected office-bearer who is answerable to the electorate. The Team recommends that
executive power be vested in a Prime Minister who should be answerable to the House of Assembly as
the elected representatives of the citizens of Swaziland.
‘One third of the members of Parliament
are appointed by and answerable to the King, who is not an
elected office-bearer. The Team recommends that the number of
executive appointees be drastically reduced and the purpose of the appointments
be clearly defined in the Constitution. All such appointments
should be made by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister and
ratified by the House of Assembly ...
‘The King effectively has the power to
veto legislation and Parliament cannot override the veto. The Team recommends that the
King have the power to veto legislation only once and that vetoed legislation
can then be passed by Parliament in a constitutionally determined process and by a
constitutionally determined majority.
‘There is an almost universal perception
amongst stakeholders that the King has undue powers in regard
to the appointment of the members of the EBC and in its day
to day functioning, so that its independence from the executive
is brought into question.
No comments:
Post a Comment