Why Bother with a Country Like Swaziland?
ACTSA (Action for Southern
Africa) Swaziland is a small country but that does not make it unimportant. The
international community should apply serious pressure on the King’s regime so
that it respects human rights and develops a genuinely democratic constitution.
Nigeria, Somalia and South
Sudan are experiencing some of the worst human rights crises in Africa, writes Sunit Bagree of Action
for Southern Africa. In all three countries, civilians are
constantly and deliberately targeted by belligerents. Countries where civilians
are not getting systematically burnt, shot or blown up tend to get much less
attention – even if serious human rights violations are still taking place. And
if these countries are small then they are hardly ever spoken about.
Take Swaziland, whose
ruler, King Mswati III, is Africa’s last absolute monarch. As my organisation,
Action for Southern Africa, outlined in a paper published last year, civil and political rights
are consistently denied in the country. Political parties are banned from
taking part in elections, the largest opposition party is proscribed under
anti-terrorist legislation, and the King has a firm grip on the government and
judiciary. Swazi political activists and human rights defenders frequently
endure harassment, threats and violence. The latest (November 2017) Mo Ibrahim
Foundation Index of African Governance confirms this analysis, placing Swaziland 50th out of 54 countries for
‘participation and human rights’.
Moreover, as a result of
mismanagement and corruption, the economy is in a dire state. An estimated 64% of the population lives below the poverty line, and a recent study by the Brookings Institution names Swaziland the
most unequal country in the world in terms of income distribution. On top of
this, Swazis face the world’s highest HIV/AIDS prevalence. Yet the King does not seem to
want to give up his taste for palaces, private jets, sports cars and
expensive shopping trips.
Certain laws and cultural
norms severely discriminate against women and girls. As a result, many of them face social, economic
and political marginalisation. Some women are trying to organise and mobilise
to claim their rights, but they receive little support from external actors.
Indeed, the international community has not sufficiently engaged with
authoritarianism and human rights abuses in Swaziland. Unsurprisingly, this
often leads progressive forces within the country to believe that Western
countries and multilateral institutions condone the actions of the King and the
elites close to him.
At times, foreign actors
have actually caused harm. For example, inviting Mswati III to the Queen’s
diamond jubilee celebratory lunch
in 2012 conveyed the impression that the UK endorsed the Swazi monarch. The
following year, a Commonwealth observer mission monitoring Swaziland’s elections
recommended that the constitution be revisited, which was
ironic considering that the Commonwealth helped the country to develop its
undemocratic constitution in the previous decade. As for the European Union
(EU), its aid to the country has long been criticised for lacking political nous and as a result
providing opportunities for the Government of Swaziland to ignore its
obligations to its citizens.
It is true that the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU) have done
little to challenge Swaziland’s ruler. Appallingly, Mswati III was even the chairperson of SADC until recently. Yet this is no excuse for
democratic nations outside of Africa or multilateral institutions that advocate
democracy to ignore their responsibilities. Only 7% of Swazis feel free to join any political
organisation according to a survey published at the end of last year. The
international community should offer greater financial, technical and
diplomatic support to those within the country who are seeking to build a
strong and united movement to transform their society in favour of democracy
and human rights.
In addition, the likes of
the UK, Commonwealth and EU need to apply significant external pressure on the
King to complement internal action for change. For example, if the EU was to
withdraw Swaziland’s trade preferences as the US has done (although it is
disappointing that the US may soon reverse this decision), it would send a powerful message
to the regime. Similarly, subjecting Swaziland to international monitoring and
accountability mechanisms, such as the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group
and the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, would
help to keep Swaziland in the spotlight.
The UK and wider
international community tend to start paying serious attention to countries
that they perceive to be ‘unstrategic’ only after things have become really bad
in those countries. This is both morally wrong and unpragmatic. Swaziland is a
small country but all of its approximately 1.4 million people deserve leaders
that are elected and accountable just as much as anyone. And if Swaziland
descends into a full-blown crisis then the cost to the region and beyond will
be huge compared to what can and should be done now.
Sunit Bagree is
Senior Campaigns Officer at Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA)
See also
UK
UNIONS BACK SWAZI RIGHTS CAMPAIGN
KING
‘TO BLAME’ FOR WOMEN’S INEQUALITY
CALL
FOR GLOBAL PRESURE ON GOVT
No comments:
Post a Comment