By Richard Rooney
As Swaziland (eSwatini) marks the 52nd anniversary
of its independence from Great Britain I can’t help but wonder what happened to
all the optimism that was voiced in 1968?
In 1968, the New York Times reported ‘Swaziland
achieves independence today with much brighter immediate prospects than the
other two former British High Commission territories in south Africa.’
It added, ‘It is smaller (area 6,705 sq miles: population 400,000) than
Botswana or Lesotho, but commands far greater natural resources and a robust
foreign trade and payments surplus.’
Those prospects were soon extinguished. Even before
the present coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency all but destroyed the economy the International
Monetary Fund was reporting Swaziland’s economic situation was dire. In
February 2020 the IMF reported the economy in Swaziland continued
to be in free-fall. Public debt was still rising, domestic arrears had grown,
and international currency reserves had fallen ‘below adequate levels’.
The growth in private investment was slowing and declining external
competitiveness was hindering the kingdom’s growth prospects. Now, 40 percent
of the 1.1 million population are living in extreme poverty and unemployment is
high.
The political situation is equally dire. In 1973 the then king, Sobhuza
II tore up the constitution and began
to rule by Royal Proclamation. Despite a
new constitution that came into effect in 2006 that proclamation has not
been repealed.
The present king, Mswati III rules as an absolute monarch. Political parties are barred from contesting elections and groups that advocate for democratic reform are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.
The present king, Mswati III rules as an absolute monarch. Political parties are barred from contesting elections and groups that advocate for democratic reform are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.
People only elect 59 of the members of the House of
Assembly; the King appoints a further ten. None of the 30-member Senate are
elected by the people. The King chooses the Prime Minister and his Cabinet as
well as top judges and civil servants.
King Mswati and his family
continue to use public money to fund their own lavish lifestyles.
Back in 1968, people hoped for so much more (no, expected so much more
from Independence). The New York Times
reported (6 September 1968), ‘Swaziland achieves independence today with much
brighter immediate prospects than the other two former British High Commission
territories in south Africa. It is smaller (area 6,705 sq miles: population
400,000) than Botswana or Lesotho, but commands far greater natural resources
and a robust foreign trade and payments surplus.
‘This is not to suggest that the Swazis lack problems. Their position as
almost an island within South Africa would by itself insure long-range
headaches. They currently enjoy political stability under the shrewd if
traditional leadership of King Sobhuza II and the royalist Imbokodvo party of
Prime Minister Mahkosini Dlamini.’
Swaziland was seen as a stable, peaceful country. Much of the credit for
this was put at the feet of the then king, Sobhuza II.
The New York Times reported.
‘The 69-year-old King has been on the throne since 1921. He personifies his
country: one foot in the past and the other in the future.
‘The king of the Swazis, once one of Africa’s great warring tribes, is
equally at home in formal Western clothes or Mahia, the colourful national
costume. He is reported to have about 170 wives and platoons of children.
Statistics are sketchy, but the records do show that the king took his 50th
bride in 1933.’
The Financial Times, London,
UK, reported, ‘If, then, today [1968] the King reigns supreme in this tiny
country ... it is very largely because it was he, and not some populist
movement, that provided the impetus, back in 1960, which set his country on the
road to independence.
‘This is important, for it meant that the King and his men were able to
a large extent to call the tune in their negotiations with the British
Government – the one attempt to impose a Whitehall-inspired constitution in
1964 was very short lived. Furthermore, by being identified from the start with
the ‘struggle’ for independence in the minds of the people, the Imbokodvo has
been able to stay one jump ahead of any local opposition – notably the
Pan-Africanist Ngwane National Liberatory Congress – and in the end to
annihilate it.’
It was the control exerted over Swaziland by King Sobhuza that for many
was the key to the stability in Swaziland.
The Financial Times pointed
out that it is arguable that the Whites in Swaziland would not have been
willing to abandon their demand for an entrenched representation in parliament
without the influence of Sobhuza.
‘There can be little doubt that Swaziland’s Whites draw great comfort
from the knowledge that a conservative monarch who makes little secret of his
appreciation for the White’s continuing economic contribution to the country is
in charge.’
It was generally recognised internationally that ‘democracy’ in
Swaziland in 1968 had shortcomings. The Financial
Times put it like this, ‘In theory, he [King Sobhuza II] is only a
constitutional monarch, and as Head of State he will have to live with a
Parliament consisting of a 12 man Senate and a 30-man House of Assembly. But,
in practice, it is very difficult to see the legislature going against the
king’s wishes; for in practically every sense it is the King’s Parliament. To start with, all 24 elected members in
the Assembly belong to the Royalist Imbokodvo National Movement, founded in
early 1964, and headed by Prince Makhosini Dlamini, a member of the Royal
family and now Swaziland’s first Prime Minister.
‘Secondly, the King has the power to appoint six Senate members with the
remainder being elected by the House of Assembly.
‘Thirdly, there is his influence in the Swazi National Council, the body
of chiefs and elders through which kings have traditionally governed the Swazi
nation. And as long as Swaziland retains its unitary tribal structure, the SNC
is likely to remain an important body for it is here that the vast majority of
the people will make their grievances immediately felt, which will then be
transmitted via the king to parliament, rather than the other way round...’
History
tells us that this confidence in Sobhuza was misplaced. In
1973, after the people of Swaziland freely elected members of parliament of
whom he disapproved, the King abandoned the parliament, tore up the
constitution and ruled by decree. Swaziland is still (technically, at least)
ruled by this decree.
The total lack of democracy in Swaziland, the banning of political
parties and the stripping of power from Parliament dates from 1973. Most of the
kingdom’s present day shortcomings can be directly attributed to the crushing
lack of democracy that stifled debate and penalised those who dare to have a
view contrary to those of the ruling elite.
The lack of political sophistication in Swaziland was noted by the Financial Times, ‘the very lack of
political sophistication in the country – no small reason for the King’s strong
hold over its affairs – is likely to bolster this stability in the short term.’
Even in 1968 there were concerns about whether the people of Swaziland
were being truly represented in Parliament. Elections in 1967 had seen the
Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) get 20 percent of the vote, but no
seats.
The Financial Times reported
with more foresight than it probably realised at the time, ‘Votes came mainly
from the tiny, but growing, white-collar urban working class.
‘Moreover, with hindsight it is now apparent that the vote was not so
much for the NNLC but against the Establishment, so that even if Dr Zwane
[the NNLC leader] disappears from the scene, the forces which had been
channelled through his party, will remain.’
See also
Anniversary of day Swaziland
stopped being a democracy and became absolute monarchy
Swazis did not choose
political system
