King Mswati III, the
absolute monarch in Swaziland, has signed what amounts to a decree to formalise
his unilateral decision to change
the kingdom’s name to Eswatini.
It demonstrates how much
the kingdom is under his control and signals a reminder that elections due to
be held later this year have no validity.
A Legal Notice No 80 of
2018 was released on Thursday (17 May 2018) confirming the name-change came
into force on 19 April 2017. It was then at an event to jointly mark his 50th
birthday and the 50th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from
Great Britain, King Mswati announced his proclamation.
The Legal Notice states
that, ‘reference in any written law or international agreement or legal
document to Swaziland shall be read and construed as reference to Eswatini’.
The King’s announcement in
April was received with mixed emotions. The heavily-censored news media in
Swaziland welcomed the move joyously. Meanwhile, critics argued that the King should not make the change without first consulting the
people and parliament.
The King’s decree is a
reminder that Swaziland is not a democracy. On Sunday (13 May 2018) voter
registration began ahead of national elections later this year. Political
parties are banned from taking part and the King picks the Prime Minister and
Government. At past elections people only got to select 55 of 65 members of the
House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. At this election there will be
an additional four seats for people to vote for. It has not been announced how
many members the King will choose but the Swaziland Constitution allows him to
pick up to ten.
As in previous years, none
of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate will be elected by the people; the King
will choose 20 and the other 10 will be chosen by members of the House of
Assembly.
The European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM), one
of a number of international groups that monitored the conduct of Swaziland’s
previous election in 2013, made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy
undermined democracy.
In
its report it stated, ‘The King has absolute power and is
considered to be above the law, including the Constitution,
enjoying the power to assent laws and immunity from criminal proceedings. A
bill shall not become law unless the King has assented to it, meaning that the
parliament is unable to pass any law which the King is in disagreement with.
‘The King will refer back the provisions he is not in
agreement with, which makes the parliament and its elected chamber, the House
of Assembly, ineffective, unable to achieve the objective a parliament is
created for: to be the legislative branch of the state and maintain the
government under scrutiny.’
The EEM went on to say the ‘main principles for a
democratic state are not in place’ in Swaziland.
It stated, ‘Elections are a mechanism for the popular
control of government and ensure the government accountability to the people.
The King appoints the Cabinet. A
vote of no confidence in the prime minister and government
from more than two-thirds of the members of the House, in October [2012], was
easily reversed although the Constitution provides that in such cases the prime
minister shall be removed from office.
‘In this context, an analysis of the legal framework
for elections seems quite a redundant exercise, as the main principles for a
democratic state are not in place. Although the electoral legal framework
contains the technical aspects required for the proper administration of
elections, it does not conform to international principles for the conduct of
democratic elections, as it does not respect one of the fundamental rights for
participation –the freedom of association.’
The EEM was not alone in recognising Swaziland as
undemocratic. In its report on conduct of the 2013 election, the African Union
(AU) mission called for fundamental changes to ensure people had freedom of
speech and of assembly. The AU said the Swaziland Constitution guaranteed
‘fundamental rights and freedoms including the rights to freedom of
association’, but in practice ‘rights with regard to political assembly and
association are not fully enjoyed’. The AU said this was because political parties
were not allowed to contest elections.
The AU urged Swaziland to review the constitution,
especially in the areas of ‘freedoms of conscience, expression, peaceful
assembly, association and movement as well as international principles for free
and fair elections and participation in electoral process’.
In its report
on the 2013 elections, Commonwealth observers recommended that
measures be put in place to ensure separation of powers between the government,
parliament and the courts so that Swaziland was in line with its international
commitments.
They also called on the Swaziland Constitution to be
‘revisited’.
The report stated, ‘This should ideally be carried out
through a fully inclusive, consultative process with all Swazi political
organisations and civil society (needed, with the help of constitutional
experts), to harmonise those provisions which are in conflict. The aim is to
ensure that Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal.’
It also recommended that a law be passed to allow for
political parties to take part in elections, ‘so as to give full effect to the
letter and spirit of Section 25 of the Constitution, and in accordance with
Swaziland’s commitment to its regional and international commitments’.
In 2015, following a visit to Swaziland, a Commonwealth
mission renewed its call for the constitution to be reviewed
so the kingdom could move toward democracy.
The constitutional review has not taken place.
Richard
Rooney
Legal Notice No 80 of
2018
See also
NO
NAME-CHANGE YET IN SWAZILAND
GOVERNMENT
NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE REVERSED
https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/govt-no-confidence-vote-reversed.html
No comments:
Post a Comment