Traditionalists in Swaziland have been gloating that
because ‘only’ 36 percent of people surveyed
in the kingdom wanted
political parties it proved the present system of autocratic monarchy was
the preferred system of government. They have missed the point spectacularly.
In Swaziland political parties are banned
from contesting elections and King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last
absolute monarch, chooses the government. All debate about alternate political
systems is banned in the kingdom. Meetings
to discuss political reform are routinely
broken up by police and security forces; prayer meetings are closed and
advocates for reform are jailed. Political parties and prodemocracy groups are
banned under the Suppression
of Terrorism Act.
The media, which are mostly state-controlled under
the King, do not allow debate for political reform and schools teach the
present ‘tinkhundla’ system as the ‘Swazi’ way of government. Even children at
the annual Reed Dance at which ‘virgins’ dance half-naked before the King are taught
to sing songs against political parties.
With all this going on, it is close to a miracle
that as many as 36 percent of the population still say they want political
parties. It does not take a leap of the imagination to suppose that if the
Swazi people were given the space to genuinely discuss alternative political systems,
the 36 percent would quickly grow to a majority and King Mswati’s absolute
monarchy would come to an end.
Monarchists and traditionalists in Swaziland are
dishonest about political parties. They say they bring division and chaos, but
that does not stop them accepting charity and aid from nations that are multi-party
democracies.
As recently as 2 November 2015, the Swazi media
praised King Mswati when he returned
from India with promises of business loans from that country. What the
Swazi people were not told was that India is known as the largest democracy in
the world (because of the size of its population) and has a multi-party system.
Taiwan,
which set up numerous businesses in Swaziland to exploit the kingdom’s (now
withdrawn) special trading relationship with the United States, is a
multi-party system.
South Africa, Swaziland’s neighbour and largest
trading partner, is a multi-party democracy. Without the
support of South Africa, Swaziland would not have an economy.
King Mswati gladly receives charity for his kingdom
from the European
Union, an economic bloc that consists entirely of multi-party democracies.
The United States –
another multi-party democracy – also provides aid and charity in abundance.
It is the economic and aid support from multi-party
democracies that keeps Swaziland functioning. But traditionalists refuse to
openly discuss why it is that all these multi-party democracies have such
successful political systems that they can afford to be charitable to
Swaziland, while Swaziland, where parties cannot contest elections, cannot
support itself.
Tens of thousands of Swazi people are predicted
to go hungry during the present drought that grips southern Africa.
Swaziland will only stop its people from starving because food will be donated by
multi-party democracies.
While the Swaziland Government runs around
like headless chickens unable to cope with the drought, which recurs year
after year, other, multi-party democracies in the area have put in place schemes
to cope with the crisis.
In Botswana (a
multi-party democracy) for example, dams and pipelines take water from areas
with water to those without. Financial schemes are in place to compensate
farmers when crops fail and livestock die.
The government has worked on this for years, not
only because it believes it is the right thing to do, but also because it knows
that if it fails the people will throw it out at the next election and vote in
an alternative government to meet their wishes.
People in Swaziland have no such choice. In the
Swazi system the people elect only 55 of the 65 members of the House of
Assembly; the King appoints the other 10. No members of the Senate are elected
by the people. King Mswati choses the Government: the Prime Minister Barnabas
Dlamini was not elected to parliament by the people, nor did they choose him to
be the government leader.
There is nothing the people in Swaziland can do. It
makes no difference who they vote for. Whoever they elect into parliament, the
decision-making remains with the King and nothing will change.
Richard
Rooney
See also
THE
CASE FOR POLITICAL PARTIES
ONE
IN THREE WANT POLITICAL PARTIES
SWAZIS
WANT DEMOCRACY - SURVEY
EU
TELLS KING: ‘FREE PARTIES’
UK
CALLS FOR PARTIES TO BE UN-BANNED
NO
PARTIES AT SWAZILAND ELECTION
No comments:
Post a Comment