REGISTRATION OPENS FOR SWAZI ELECTION

Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) says it is fully prepared for the forthcoming national election. Registration is open and runs to 17 June 2018. 

EBC Chair Chief Gija Dlamini has been talking up the election and says he expects people to ‘vote in their numbers’. A date for the election has yet to be announced.

He should hope that there is not a re-run of the chaotic registration process at the last election in 2013. Across the kingdom people turned up to register at 400 centres only to be turned away. Excuses given to them ranged from computer equipment not working to polling clerks not properly trained to perform their duties.  

The campaign to sign up voters was sluggish and the EBC struggled to generate interest so registration was extended by a week.

Eventually, the EBC announced 411,084 people had registered to vote out of the 600,000 people in the kingdom it said were eligible to vote. At the previous election in 2008, the EBC signed up 88 percent of the eligible 400,000 population. If it signed up a similar proportion in 2013, there should have been 528,000 people on the electoral roll.

A campaign to boycott the election may have affected registration numbers. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the parliament that is selected has no real power and acts as a rubber stamp for King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

In the past people only got to select 55 of 65 members of the House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. This time 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, no 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.

There was reported corruption during registration in 2013. The EBC said some people were offered bribes of E100 (US$10 at the then exchange rate) or E200 to register twice.

The EBC said it did not have enough money to run the election successfully as the Swazi Government had cut its allocation from E200 million to E100 million. It is claimed that it could not afford enough staff to monitor the registration of voters across the whole kingdom. 

The ability of members of the EBC to do their job was questioned. King Mswati appointed the EBC in 2008 and at the time many civil society organisations and pro-democracy campaigners criticised the choices because members were inexperienced. The Swazi Constitution demands that the EBC chair should be a qualified judge, but King Mswati appointed one of his half-brothers, Chief Gija Dlamini, who was variously described at the time as an electrician or electrical engineer, to the post, which he still holds today.

The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) shortly after the 2008 election reported, ‘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”’.

See also

VOTERS MISLED ON SWAZILAND ELECTION

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/voters-misled-on-swaziland-election.html

 

BILL TO GET WOMEN INTO PARLIAMENT

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/bill-to-get-women-in-parliament.html

 

EARLY ELECTION CAMPAIGNING ILLEGAL

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/early-election-campaigning-illegal.html

KING’S PAPER CLAIMS 97% POLL TURNOUT

One of King Mswati III’s newspapers has claimed a 97 percent voter turnout in the Swaziland election held on Friday (20 September 2013).

The Weekend Observer, one of a group of newspapers in effect owned by the king, reported, ‘about 400,000 voters braved the scorching sun and went straight to the voting centres to cast their ballots as early as possible’. 

But, official figures from the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) state that only 411,084 Swazis living in Swaziland had registered to vote.

If the Weekend Observer report was correct, 97.3 percent of registered voters would have gone to the polling stations.

The Weekend Observer which is widely regarded, even within Swaziland, as a propaganda sheet for the monarchy, has been talking up the success of the polling.

It wrote, ‘The nation witnessed remarkable improvement in the national secondary elections on Friday and all credit can be given to the Elections and Boundaries Commission.’

The EBC, whose members were appointed by the king and is headed by one of his half-brothers, came under intense criticism for the shambles surrounding the nomination process and the primary elections held in August.

King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, is keen to demonstrate the validity of the elections. Opposition groups called for a voter boycott because political parties were banned from taking part in the election and the parliament that is elected acts as a rubber stamp for the king.

King Mswati will choose the Prime Minister and his government and is not obliged to choose people elected to parliament.

It is important for King Mswati that there is a high voter turnout. At the last election in 2008 only 47.4 percent of the estimated 400,000 Swazi people eligible to vote did so. The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) in its report on the election attributed the low turnout in 2008 to a campaign for a boycott of the election by progressives in Swaziland.

It reported on the 2008 election, ‘The best indication we have of whether the boycott was a success or not is the voter turnout rate.’

It added, ‘In many ways the call by the trade unions, most of the political parties and many civil society organisations for a boycott of the election transformed the election into a referendum on the legitimacy of the new Constitution and the political order that it enshrines.’

EISA said, ‘From this we may conclude that large numbers of Swazis heeded the boycott call and thereby signalled their disenchantment with the current Constitutional dispensation.’

A low turnout in the 2013 election would confirm that.

See also

‘SWAZIS WANT CHANGE’ : POLL FIGURES

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/05/swazis-want-change-poll-figures.html

DATE SET FOR CONTROVERSIAL ELECTION

King Mswati III of Swaziland, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, has announced the controversial elections to the House of Assembly in his kingdom will be held on 20 September.

The ‘primary’ elections will take place on 24 August 2013.

In Swaziland political parties are banned from taking part in the elections. Only 55 of the 65 members of the House are chosen by the electorate: the other 10 are selected by the king. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected: of 30 seats, 20 are appointed by the king and the other 10 are chosen by members of the House of Assembly.

Swaziland is broken up into 55 tinkhundla or administrative districts and each of these makes up one constituency in the House of Assembly. One Member of Parliament is elected from each inkhundla at the secondary election.

This is how the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, explained the election process at the last poll in 2008.

‘Nominations: This is done at the Imiphakatsi (chiefdoms) regardless of whether there is a chief or not. A minimum of four people to a maximum of 10, are nominated. 15 registered voters should second each nominee. After being seconded he must express his willingness to represent the people at a higher level.

‘These nominees will then go for Primary elections, where out of the four in some cases or the 10 in others, one must come out victorious. These are still conducted at the Imiphakatsi. The winners will then represent their Imiphakatsi in the election for constituency representatives MPs.

‘Campaigning: It is in this stage that campaigning is then allowed. The Primaries winners are then taken to all the Imiphakatsi under that constituency and campaign publicly fielding questions asked as well as tell the people what he has in store for them. Only one person must come out the winner, so he can go for Secondary elections.

‘Secondary elections: These are the final elections where winners will then go to Parliament to represent their constituencies.’

The Observer did not point out that this process is controversial because of the amount of power it gives chiefs over the selection of candidates. Chiefs are the representative of the king in their chiefdom.

The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) in its observer mission report on the last election in 2008, stated, ‘The chiefdoms serve as a nomination base for the primary elections for the secondary phases. Here the chiefs have used their power to influence the nomination and election of candidates in the primary election in a way that is in conflict with basic democratic values and practices. They are in a position to coerce the voters.

‘The grouping of the chiefdoms into an inkhundla necessarily and unavoidably advantages candidates from chiefdoms with large populations over those with small ones.

‘Currently an inkhundla is established by the King on the recommendation of the Elections and Boundaries Commission.’

A campaign by prodemocracy groups to boycott the 2013 election is growing in Swaziland. At the 2008 election there was some evidence that a boycott might have been successful as only 189,559 people actually voted in the secondary election out of 350,778 people who registered to vote.

In 2013, the Elections and Boundaries Commission estimates 600,000 people are eligible to vote in the forthcoming elections.

See also

HUNGRY WILL SELL THEIR VOTES FOR FOOD

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/05/hungry-will-sell-their-vote-for-food.html

‘SWAZIS WANT CHANGE’: POLL FIGURES

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/05/swazis-want-change-poll-figures.html

‘SWAZIS WANT CHANGE’: POLL FIGURES

Supporters of King Mswati III’s autocratic regime in Swaziland say that the Swazi people accept the present political system and do not want change, but evidence from the way they vote suggests the opposite is the case.

As Swaziland prepares for a national election later this year, a campaign for a boycott is growing. Opponents of the election say that it is undemocratic because political parties are banned from taking part and the parliament that is elected has no powers, because King Mswati rules as an absolute monarch. 

The opponents have been silenced, often violently, by the king’s police and security forces. Police chiefs are on record saying that opposition to the election is a threat to state security. Some opposition leaders have been charged with sedition. 

Members of the Swazi Government, which is not elected by the popular vote, but selected by the king, say Swazi people, voicing their opinion through sibaya, want the present system to stay and do not want to hear opposition to the election.

Sibaya is an event where the king allows people to gather at the royal cattle kraal to voice opinions about matters they feel are important to them. It is suggested by the king’s supporters that sibaya is the supreme policy making body in the kingdom.

But, an analysis of how people vote at election time suggests that Swazi people do not support the present system.

At the last election in 2008, fewer than half the people eligible to vote actually did so. A report by the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) published shortly after the election, using official statistics, revealed that a although a record 88 percent of the 400,000 estimated eligible population registered for the elections, when it came time to vote fewer than half these people (47.4 per cent), actually did so.

In its analysis called Election Observer Mission Report, EISA recorded that in 2008, 350,778 people actually registered to vote, but only 189,559 (54 percent) of those people went on to vote.

EISA also noted that the numbers of people voting at elections had fallen since 1993, the first election in Swaziland where registration of voters took place. National elections in Swaziland take place every five years. It reported the turnout of registered voters who actually voted in 2003 was 57.9 percent; in 1998 it was 60.4 percent; and in 1993 it was 61.0 percent.

EISA attributed the low turnout in 2008 to a campaign for a boycott of the election by progressives in Swaziland.

It reported on the 2008 election, ‘In many ways the call by the trade unions, most of the political parties and many civil society organisations for a boycott of the election transformed the election into a referendum on the legitimacy of the new Constitution and the political order that it enshrines.

‘The King’s response to the boycott call was to summon the nation to the royal cattle byre and urge the people to register for the election and to vote. The government’s response has been to pour resources into the election to enable the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to conduct it efficiently and to ensure that voters were able to vote.

‘The chiefs for their part mobilised their subjects in the rural areas to register and to vote.’

The report added that the Swazi people turned up in large numbers to register, ‘reversing the apathy that characterised the 2003 election: a record 88 percent of the 400,000 estimated eligible population registered for these elections’.

It added, ‘The best indication we have of whether the boycott was a success or not is the voter turnout rate.’

It added there was, ‘a slight but steady decline (3 percent) in the number of voters casting their ballots between 1993 and 2003.

‘However, in the 2008 elections, despite the large number of voters who registered for the election and efforts of the authorities to galvanise voters, the turnout actually dropped by nearly 4 percent, 1 percent more than over the previous three elections together. Thus only 47.4% of the 400,000 estimated eligible voters actually voted.’

‘From this we may conclude that large numbers of Swazis heeded the boycott call and thereby signalled their disenchantment with the current Constitutional dispensation,’ the report said.

See also

GOVERNMENT WRONG ON ELECTION FREEDOM

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/05/govt-wrong-on-election-freedom.html

HUNGRY WILL SELL THEIR VOTES FOR FOOD

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/05/hungry-will-sell-their-vote-for-food.html

SWAZILAND ELECTION DENOUNCED

Following the news yesterday (3 October 2008) that the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) observers had declared Swaziland’s election free and fair comes a report from the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) that denounces the poll because political parties were not allowed to take part.

The AFP news agency reports Mary Mugyenyi, the head of the Pan-African Parliament mission, saying, ‘The non-participation of political parties makes these elections extraordinary from any others but we hope with time things will change.’

She added, ‘What we see here is people choosing their leaders to represent them in parliament. They are not from any political parties.’

A spokesman for the Elections Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) said Swaziland electoral laws were different from any other African country.

‘The electoral process is difficult to understand. We are aware that the two months leading to the elections have seen intensified campaigns to end the system,’ said EISA’s Victor Shale.

See also

ELECTIONS

SWAZILAND ELECTIONS 2008 BLOGSITE

SWAZILAND RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS

An Archbishop in Swaziland has criticised the way members of parliament (MPs) use the radio to ‘chat’ to their constituents, rather than going to see them and talk face to face.

He also said that the MPs talk about ‘non issues’ such as mourning the dead rather than about matters that affect the people who elected them.

The comments from Archbishop Jameson Mncina, head of the Efiliphi Church in Zion, were published in the Swazi Observer newspaper yesterday (Wednesday 20 February 2008).

The Observer reported the Archbishop saying that MPs rely on the national radio to ‘chat’ with their constituencies. He was referring to a series of programmes that recently started on the state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting Information Service (SBIS) radio. Each MP is being given the chance to go on radio at 6.15 in the morning to talk about matters that interest them.

The Observer reported the Archbishop saying, ‘Instead of going to the people at the grass-roots level where they were elected, they now create a barrier by talking to the people over the radio. They no longer have contact with the people. How many people listen to the 6.15 morning programme?’

The Archbishop was further reported saying that after MPs were elected they were expected to return to the people and organise meetings with them rather than talk to them ‘through gadgets of mass communication’.

The Archbishop went on to criticise MPs for talking about ‘non issues’ such as food aid distribution and, he was reported saying, they mourn dead members of society ‘and they give a colourful picture of the effects of destitution’.

The Archbishop has a point if MPs are deliberately avoiding their constituents by going on the radio. A conscientious MP would both appear on radio and visit the grass roots.

But radio should not be ignored by MPs. Radio is a very important medium in a developing country such as Swaziland. Radio is by far the best way of getting messages out to the largest number of people in the kingdom.

Figures contained in the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, published recently by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter report estimate that SBIS, which has two channels, can reach about 95 percent of the population (of about one million people).

Radio is broadcast in the local language siSwati, as well as in English. This means that just about everyone in the kingdom can understand what is being broadcast. Unlike when reading newspapers, the listener does not have to be literate to understand what is being said on the radio.

The programme that includes MPs is a new programme and it is no coincidence that it has been started in the run up to Swaziland’s national elections which are due to take place later this year (2008). Sceptics might say that this is giving sitting MPs the chance to remind their constituents who they are so that they will vote for them again when the elections come.

SBIS should be congratulated for thinking about how it can give good coverage to the election. After the last election in 2003, SBIS received mixed responses over its coverage.

As I wrote before in a report on the way the election was conducted the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) praised SBIS for allowing all candidates to canvass in the airwaves for about five minutes.

However, the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) in a report found broadcasting coverage of the election in Swaziland ‘disappointing’.

SBIS carried short items by the candidates early in the morning, but there was little news about the election and in the week up to the poll and the CET said it heard no discussion programmes or any other substantial coverage.

The CET also criticised radio coverage on the election day itself, because the fact that it was election day was not even mentioned on the early morning news.

The date of the election day in 2008 has yet to be announced, but it is widely expected to be in October or November. This gives SBIS time to organise coverage and to make sure that people in Swaziland get a proper chance to be educated about the election itself and also to hear from candidates and others about the main issues that people should be considering when choosing an MP.

To be truly useful to people in Swaziland at the time of the election, SBIS must provide air time to all candidates and allow them to be questioned by listeners. Radio phone-in shows could be a good way of doing this. SBIS must also choose a number of topics that are important to ordinary people in the kingdom and produce programmes around them. For example, programmes about health, education, water roads as well as the ever-present topic of corruption could be broadcast.

These programmes should allow people of all opinions (not just the ruling elite) to debate the topics and SBIS should not be afraid to allow dissenting voices (and not just the traditionalists) to be heard.

SBIS has a golden opportunity to prove to people in Swaziland - as well as to the listening world outside - that it is capable of behaving in the same way as radio stations in democratic countries.

See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?

SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE

Swaziland will hold its unique form of elections later this year (2008). I say ‘unique’ because although the ruling elites in the kingdom believe the elections to be democratic, just about nobody else does.

The date for the elections has not been set, but it is generally accepted they will be towards the end of the year, possibly in October or November.

As in elections anywhere in the world, the media will play an important part in keeping people informed about what is going on. In the free world it is generally accepted that the media have a prime responsibility to examine what government is and is not doing, by reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing citizens’ opinions, setting the agenda for government action, and socializing citizens about politics and encouraging a political culture to evolve.

This is even more important at election time when voters go to the polls to elect a new government.

In Swaziland where political parties are banned, candidates are only allowed to stand as individuals. You can learn more about the Swazi electoral system here.

Most of the time the Swazi media are not very good at calling political leaders to account and this is especially so at election time. In this, the first of an occasion series of posts about the media and the forthcoming Swazi elections, I want to look back to the last elections in 2003 and see how the media performed.

In a report of the Swazi media coverage of the 2003 elections the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) found that the print media in Swaziland played an important role in keeping the voters and all stakeholders informed about the elections by their extensive coverage of the elections but the broadcast media were less good.

Here is an extract from the report.

We observed however that the approach the two main dailies; the Times of Swaziland and the Observer took was different from one another.

The Observer, seeing that it was government owned, took a conservative approach to the elections whereas the Times of Swaziland, a privately owned paper, took a progressive approach and tended to sensationalise the issues.

With regard to the content of their coverage we noted that the eight cases that arose from the primary election disputes, received more coverage in both dailies than pertinent electoral issues that are aimed at informing the electorate. The local observers and media personnel indicated that coverage by the broadcasting media on the other hand was scant. There were no programmes or any other discussions on
elections in the few weeks leading to the polling day.

The response from the contesting candidates regarding access to the media varied. Some individuals commented that there had been unfairness in terms of giving people equal access; that candidates with financial influence had greater access to the print media. And usually those featured were mostly the popular candidates, which tended to marginalise those in rural communities with no assets.

Others however commended the broadcasting media for providing equitable access.

The Swaziland Broadcasting Information Service (SBIS) they noted, allowed all candidates to canvass in the airwaves for about five minutes.

Reports from the local observers as well as representatives from the media indicated
that the use of the media by the Elections Office was very limited. Most commented that there was very little feedback from the Elections Office to the various media outlets regarding the election process.

Local observers blamed this lack of communication on the mistrust the Election Officers had for the media.

That said, at least one representative from the media outlets commented positively on the interventions of the Elections Office to ensure that pertinent information regarding the election process was regularly fed to the media.

In a related matter, we observed that there was no monitoring mechanism within the Elections Office to assess the media’s coverage of elections. This would have ensured that the media played a more constructive role in the elections.

Most media personnel commented that they were not aware of a policy, law or even a commission that ensures that elections were covered effectively and fairly or one that allocates fair and free time to all candidates.

The Commonwealth Expert Team which observed the elections in 2003 came to similar conclusions about the media. It liked the ‘vigour’ print media coverage, but also criticised the Times of Swaziland for being sensational. The report said, ‘we hope that it will do more in future to discuss issues as well as to report on personalities’.

The report found broadcasting coverage of the election in Swaziland ‘disappointing’.

It went on,

‘The limitation on resources was quoted in explanation. Radio Swaziland told us they carried short items by the candidates early in the morning, but there was little news about the election and in the week up to the poll we heard no discussion programmes or any other substantial coverage. This mattered because the majority of Swazi citizens have access to the radio, so this is the perfect medium for conveying information and
creating awareness. Although the state broadcasting media had internal guidelines there was no Code of Conduct regarding the behaviour of the media. There was no allocation of broadcast “free time” for candidate.’

The Commonwealth Expert Team also criticised Swaziland Radio coverage on the election day itself. ‘The fact that it was election day was not even mentioned on the early morning news,’ the report stated.

The report concluded that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’.

Such a code of conduct is not in place, but I’ll be writing in future posts about why a code would be useful and what the code could usefully include.


See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND

SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND

Swaziland is due to hold elections later this year (2008). Elections in the kingdom are held every five years, but the exact dates for this year’s election have not been set but it is generally expected that they will be held towards the end of the year, possibly in October or November.

To help readers who are unfamiliar with Swaziland’s unique form of ‘democracy’ here is a short background to how the system works. The information is taken from the Swaziland Election Dossier 2003 No.1 from the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) and is based on the situation as it was at the last election in 2003. I am not aware that the Constitution which came into force in 2006 has changed any of this. Political parties remain banned in Swaziland and representation in the kingdom is based on individual candidates.

If anyone knows differently, please let me know.


The current electoral system is known as the ‘Tinkhundla’ system which has been rejected by many groups for lack of democratic credentials. The Tinkhundla system is the electoral system operational use in Swaziland today – the Kingdom uses it to elect its parliamentarians by holding regular parliamentary elections under a no-party dispensation.

The Tinkhundla system is a system that has been operating purely for the basis of providing a semblance of public representation in Parliament. Parliamentary representatives are initially elected from specific constituencies or Tinkhundla through a three stage electoral process.

There are a total of 55 constituencies (Tinkhundla) in the Kingdom of Swaziland, and each constituency is further divided into several chiefdoms.

The first stage of the process entails public nominations of candidates usually between four and ten in each chiefdom.

Technically in this stage, each chiefdom chooses the candidate who will represent it at the Tinkhundla / constituency level, by secret ballot. The elected candidate in the primary elections is then expected to compete in the secondary elections, after they have been dutifully introduced to the constituents. The election process ends with those candidates receiving the most votes representing the constituency in the National Assembly.

The elected parliamentary representatives conclude the process by becoming members of the bicameral parliamentary system constituted by the National Assembly and the Senate.

The National Assembly is constituted from the 55 members elected through the Tinkhundla and ten King’s appointees. These members then elect ten members to the Senate which consists of 30 members in total; the rest of which are appointed by the King.

Public representation is also dutifully administered at the local level through a local council, also known as the Inkundla – the second level of government.

The electoral system described above has been operative since 1993. Prior to this, elections were conducted under a slightly different system. After the repeal of the Constitution in 1973, which had provided for a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, Swaziland experienced a five year break during which period no elections were held until the establishment of the Parliament Order in 1978.

In the absence of any electoral laws, the Parliament Order was introduced without much opposition. It was this Order that ushered in the unique traditional electoral system commonly known as the Tinkhundla.. Elections under this system were conducted on a non-party basis at the primary elections stage through public queuing – each voter wishing to voter for a particular nominee queued behind their favourite candidate who normally would be sitting at a gate, and the counting officer counted the voters as they each passed the gate.

Winners of these elections would then form an Electoral College from which the House of Assembly was constituted. Their only responsibility, once elected was to select 40 members from the public to make up the Parliamentary numbers. The obvious shortcomings of this system, most notably the lack of a secret ballot, necessitated a review; and this resulted in the establishment of the current system through a number of minor legislative amendments.

Needless to say, the system currently in place has its own limitations; the most serious of which, given the variation in size of the constituencies, is that usually the candidate from the largest constituency wins the secondary elections. Moreover it lacks accountability, it is non participatory and it is the least competitive form of representation in both Parliament and government.

You can read much more about politics in Swaziland and other aspects of the kingdom here.