Nearly E6 million of
public money is to be pumped into the controversial football tournament in
Swaziland created to honour the kingdom’s absolute monarch King Mswati III.
The Swazi Ministry of
Sport, Culture and Youth Affairs has been given E5.8 million (US$580,000) by government
to fund the so-called King’s Super Cup.
The money will be
diverted to the tournament scheduled for 18 July 2015 that features two of
South Africa’s top clubs, the Orlando Pirates and the Kaizer Chiefs.
The money has been diverted
from a number of government departments in the cash-strapped kingdom, where
seven in ten of the 1.3 million population have incomes of less than US$2 a
day.
According to local media in Swaziland
the money will have to be repaid after the tournament, but this would only be
possible if the event is a financial success.
The winner of the tournament
will reportedly take E1 million prize money. The cheapest tickets will
be E250, which is out of the reach of most Swazi people.
Meanwhile, one of the
groups opposing the tournament on the grounds that it
would be seen as supporting the King who has been criticised globally for the poor
human rights in his kingdom, has promised what it calls a ‘revolution’ in
Swaziland if the tournament goes ahead.
The Swaziland
Solidarity Network (SSN) was widely
reported in South African media saying it had ‘underground’ plans to
dispatch a revolution if the South African clubs went ahead.
Lucky Lukhele, the SSN spokesperson, was reported saying ‘All systems are in
place underground and overground in South Africa and in Swaziland should they
[Pirates and Chiefs] decide to ignore us.’
He added, ‘Our revolution will not be peed on
by ignorant people. We have a network of people who are helping us and we are
ready for anything.’
The Swaziland National Union of Students has attacked the
Swaziland Solidarity Network and its official spokesperson Lucky Lukhele
following SSN’s handling of criticism about the organisation’s exaggerated
claims concerning the support it has from Swazis for its call for revolution in
the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
It follows an Internet blogpost by Peter Kenworthy on his
stiffkitten site, in which he drew
attention to exaggerated claims being made by SSN and some other prodemocracy
groups. Kenworthy is also associated with Africa Contact, a Danish-based NGO
Lukhele responded with what SNUS calls ‘bile’.
The SNUS statement was posted on its Facebook site. Here
it is in full
SNUS STATEMENT: CHUCK
LUCKY OUT OF SSN OR DISMANTLE SSN
The Swaziland National Union of Students is amazed and
angry at the bile spewed by one self-imposed exile called Lucky Lukhele.
This is so because, due to intellectually malnutrition,
he failed to read and understand the article written by one internationalist
and true solidarity friend of the oppressed people of Swaziland, Peter
titled ‘’the democratic movement that cried wolf’’.
This is so because had he been clever and intelligence
enough, he would had seen that the article was a constructive criticism of the
broad, mass democratic movement in Swaziland.
Truth be told, the students movement do not take kindly
to the unwarranted attack of Africa Contact especially when the president of
the students union, Maxwell Dlamini is dragged into the attack. We want to put
on record that Africa Contact did contacted SNUS about the release Maxwell
campaign and explained why they wanted to use him as the face of all political
prisoners.
Had he taken time to read about the struggle of South
Africa, he would have known that the ANC did the same thing with Nelson
Mandela. It is not that ANC was neglecting the other political prisoners but
they wanted to focus on a particular person to profile correctly the struggle
of South Africans.
But we can’t blame Lucky, he wasn’t good in history that
why he is suffering from the political intellectually dehydration. Had Lucky
understood the struggle in general, he would have known that you can’t be in
solidarity with yourself. That why he would have refused to be the face of a solidarity
network.
Secondly, Africa Contact is a true solidarity partner of
the Swazi people, unlike SSN which talks more
and acts less, they have contributed immensely in the building and
strengthening of the mass democratic movement.
This is so because they have contributed in the
financially and otherwise in the strengthening of SNUS, SUDF etc which are
organizations that have shaken tinkhundla to the core. The less said about SSN
the better. It has now turned out to be an organization of statements and has
lost focus. Jack Govender and Musa must be turning in utter disgust by what Lucky
is doing in SSN.
Lucky Lukhele and together with the chairperson of SSN,
Solly has actually destabilized the mass democratic movement. He first tried to
sponsor comrades of Pudemo to oust Mario Masuku and he failed dismally on that.
He then tried to sponsor a coupe to take over Pudemo in
Elijah Mango, but again he failed not withstanding that he had brought in an
armed renegade to take pudemo. After failing in all this attempts he then
sponsored comrades to degrade pudemo and its leadership in public, he again
failed on that one that is why now he had sponsored division by forming and
supporting Communist party of Swaziland, which has been formed by the same
individuals who tried to take over Pudemo illegally.
As a matter of urgency, SNUS will write a letter to
PUDEMO NEC to review their relationship with SSN.
We can’t allow our struggle, leaders and partners to be
ridiculed in public in the name of solidarity. SSN must either shape out and
allow us who are in the firing line to lead the struggle. If they fail to do
that, we will disassociate ourselves from them and dismantle.
We will demand that Pudemo implements the Westville
resolution that exiles must be kicked out of solidarity networks. We do
not own anything to SSN. In fact of late they have been a liability to the
struggle of Swaziland hence a need to seriously look at their role and
relevance at this hour.
SNUS has actually lost the little respect they had for
this organization. If needs be, a new solidarity block that will seek to
profile the struggle of Swaziland internationally and render solidarity to the
people of Swaziland must be formed to organize the individuals who truly want
to assist the people of Swaziland to earn liberation.
And Lucky in the current juncture must go and upgrade his
marks so that he will be accepted at tertiary institutions to further his
studies otherwise he will be a driver in the new democratic dispensation since
we will need people with qualifications to actually take the country forward.
Swazi students
denounce solidarity network foul-mouth
“The Swaziland
National Union of Students is amazed and angry at the bile spewed by one
self-imposed exile called Lucky Lukhele. … The article was a constructive criticism of the broad, mass
democratic movement in Swaziland. The Swaziland National Union of Students (SNUS) will write
a letter to the PUDEMO NEC
to [ask them to] review their relationship with the Swaziland Solidarity Network
(SSN). … Lucky Lukhele and the chairperson of the Swaziland Solidarity Network
(SSN), Solly, have actually destabilized the mass democratic movement,” the
Swazi student organisation SNUS said in a statement issued by Secretary General
Samkeliso Ginindza today [April 28 2012].
The reason for the strongly worded statement from SNUS
was the nature of the wording made by the SSN’s Lucky Lukhele and the Swazi April 12
Uprising Facebook campaign in replies to an article I wrote.
The article was about the predictions of these
self-professed revolutionaries – most of whom are apparently based in South Africa
– and the rhetoric of the democratic movement.
Especially as the predictions, that promise “a hundred
thousand people on the streets” and a subsequent “revolution” turn out to be
pretty far from the truth. King Mswati unfortunately still wields the executive
power in Swaziland, regardless of the more levelheaded and realistic attempts
to bring democracy to Swaziland by many brave and focused members of the
democratic movement. I therefore thought a little constructive criticism was in
order.
Funnily enough, freelance journalist Louise
Redvers made pretty much the same point in the Mail & Guardian on April 20,
apparently without being attacked. “Some people are starting to question
whether Swaziland’s democracy movement has not become too much of a willing
victim, happier to cry foul than to take part,” she wrote.
I, on the other hand, was instantly attacked by the
Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) and the anonymously led Swazi April 12
Uprising Facebook campaign. Lucky Lukhele of the SSN referred to my article as being “ludicrously unfounded” and
“bullshit,” and my organisation, Africa Contact, who has worked in partnership
with the democratic movement in Swaziland for over ten years, was called a
“pitiful excuse for a solidarity partner.”
The Swazi April 12 Uprising also called the article “bullshit,” and referred to it as being
“outrageously far from the truth”, “an outrageous distortion,” and myself as
being a “con-thing.” They then went on to rhetorically ask, “where is the
documentation of the fact that Swazis were beaten, abducted and in some cases
raped by the state’s armed forces [on April 12 2011 and] how much has this
con-man done to highlight the fact that our most vocal elements, the youth, had
their leaders arrested on that date under false ‘explosive charges’?”
Unfortunately, they hadn’t done their homework. In fact I
wrote five articles that were published on my blog, Africa Contact’s website, Newstime Africa and in other news media that documented the
brutality of the regime on April 12 2011, as well as several follow-up articles
(and I have written many articles – over 100, in fact, containing over 75.000
words – about Swaziland and its democratic movement).
In the articles about April 12 2011, I wrote, amongst
other things, that “Swaziland’s police and security forces have detained, and
probably manhandled, several members of the Swazi democratic movement and several
members of the international press even before today’s announced uprising in
Swaziland, inspired by similar events in North Africa, has begun,” “The police
in Swaziland continue to arrest, detain and generally try and scare people from
joining the announced mass demonstrations in Swaziland today,” “Swazi police
are trying to crush the Egypt and Tunisia-like uprising in Swaziland by
teargassing and firing rubber bullets at demonstrators,” and “Swazi security
forces are trying to shut down the uprising with water cannons, tear gas and
random beatings and arrests.”
I also helped instigate a campaign for
the release of Maxwell Dlamini and Musa Ngubeni, the two student activists who
were charged with possession of explosives. And I wrote a chapter for a book called
“African Awakening: the emerging revolutions” about the April 12 2011 uprising
that was published by Pambazuka Press. Here, ironically, I quoted Sikelela
Dlamini, employed by the Swaziland United Democratic Front at the time (and falsely
accused by other agitators of having been fired from the organisation for
having pinched money from their coffers), who remonstrates with the Swazi April
12 Facebook campaign by making exactly the point I was making in my article.
“While Swaziland remains predominantly rural with limited
Internet connectivity, the hype around an uprising managed to filter throughout
the country,” said Sikelela Dlamini. “It generated unrealistic excitement and
anticipation on the part of a general citizenry, who became spectators while
the bulk of those who generated the Facebook hype also resided outside the
country and could not coordinate activities on the ground to actuate their
cyber aspirations.”
And perhaps Sikelela Dlamini has hit the hammer on the
nail here. Perhaps the problem is that the people within the SSN and the Swazi
April 12 Uprising want to remote-control, so to speak, the masses in Swaziland
to dance to their revolutionary tune from their offices in South Africa – a
tune that calls for a violent uprising in Swaziland.
Just listen to the statement from the Swazi April 12 Uprising campaign in
reply to my article: “The April 12 Uprising is first and foremost the
aspiration of the most radical elements within the country’s democratic
movement … these elements will always be two steps ahead of the masses … and being
ahead of the masses they take the role of masterminds and strategists who
propose a way forward and demand that the masses revolt.” And listen to Lucky
Lukhele from the SSN in his response to my article today: “The state understands no
other language but the force of violence.”
The problem for the SSN and the Swazi April 12 Uprising
is that neither the masses nor the democratic movement at large seems to be
buying it, as the press statement from SNUS and lack of support for their
Marxist revolution in Swaziland clearly shows. Not the self-righteous and
unrealistic revolutionary rhetoric that in effect insists on the exclusion of
the masses from the planning of what ought to be a mass-based struggle, nor the
claims that they are not ‘crying wolf’ when they continue to claim that the
revolution will come ‘today.’
Even people on the SSN online forum don’t buy it. “As a matter of fact, people do constantly ‘cry wolf’ in Swaziland,” wrote former Cosatu employee Dominic Tweedie on the forum, in a reply to the tirade from Lucky Lukhele.
Should South Africa help Swaziland out of its self-inflicted economic doldrums without setting conditions for democratic reforms, it will be an insult to the oppressed Swazi people and the ANC-MK cadres who sacrificed their lives in Swaziland.
The adage that if you are too close you can’t see the real picture applies to President Jacob Zuma and South Africa’s Nobel Peace Prize laureates for not reacting when they see commercials on TV screens alluding that Swaziland is the destination paradise of half-naked virgins coerced and choreographed to dance for the attention of suitors.
No one realises that construing Swaziland as Africa’s cultural museum, means Swazi citizens and posterity remain predestined by the world to be an exhibition of how Africans survive under absolute monarchies.
Hence the unfortunate and lame argument by pro-monarchy economists that it is the SA Customs Union (Sacu) revenue that has brought Swaziland’s economy to its knees.
Whereas South Africa, also subjected to Sacu solely by virtue of being a democratic state, whose economic growth estimate has been upgraded to 4% this year by the IMF, Swaziland’s is headed for economic disaster with a budget deficit of 14.3% of GDP.
Before the banning of political parties, the Swaziland economy was vibrant and always maintained a budget surplus. The economic woes have always been associated with the recycled present Prime Minister Sibusiso “The Landlord” Dlamini when he was finance minister in the 1980s.
History will testify that since 1983-84, the Peoples United Democratic Movement (Pudemo) withstood various forms of persecution while peacefully arguing that the growing dependence on Sacu by the Tinkhundla system of government and its inherent lack of transparency, accountability and checks and balances would destroy the economy.
In fact, the signals were very clear – 25 years later in 2008-9 the time had come when Sacu’s actual revenue, forecast at R31.3bn, declined to R22.8bn.
As echoed by Pudemo, few nations have such a high level of dependence on one source of revenue that comes essentially as a flow from abroad, save for economies that have been rendered inefficient by the mammoth cultural task of sustaining a monarchy, as is the case in Lesotho and Swaziland.
Grynberg and Motswapong (2009) argue “the revenue-sharing formula that was negotiated in the apartheid era renegotiations of the Sacu agreement in 1969, created a politically, if not economically, unsustainable formula”.
“This revenue dependence has continued and worsened, and has fostered a significant measure of mutual resentment in Pretoria and other Sacu capitals in the post-apartheid era.”
We can go on and on blaming the Sacu formula and so forth, the bottom line is that the economy is not stupid. Mswati cannot lie about the GDP because it reflects on the miserable living conditions of the masses in Swaziland which contrast with his life style.
The high dependence by Swaziland on Sacu revenue is a result of skewed and mind boggling economic strategies premised on pyramid schemes, begging, aid from regional and international agencies, and praying for rain and miracles from ancestors.
As the unlimited financial aid from Muammar Gaddafi and the Kuwait royal family is no longer forthcoming, the IMF and South Africa are the lenders of last resort.
Why is Swaziland turning out to be the most affected? Why are global giants like Sappi, which owns one of the world’s largest man-made forests in Swaziland, packing and leaving Swaziland?
The answer is simple and straight forward: it is a fiefdom that is run by an absolute monarchy and the risk is very high for investors.
“When the rest of sub-Saharan Africa was growing over the last decade, the economy of the kingdom of Swaziland stagnated,” wrote the IMF in 2008.
“For example, in 2001 about 75% of residents lived in poverty and 20% of the population claimed two-thirds of the income. A major contributor to the stagnating Swazi economy has been its monetary policy, which has taken, steps backward in the past decade,”
Monetary policy in Swaziland is only focused on ensuring that Mswati’s Forbes ranking improves at the expense of the overall growth of the economy without addressing poverty, income equality and financial accountability. Mswati’s underhand dealings in the economic meltdown are a result of his affinity for luxury and vanity.
It is worth reminding all and sundry that the writing was on the wall during his coronation when he disregarded traditional regalia, instead dressing as Michael Jackson.
The Sacu card is one being repeated over and over by detractors of the quest to democratise Swaziland. While Mswati has amassed a fortune estimated at $200m (R1.37bn) “the government has been surviving by running up $180m in domestic arrears and eating into the central bank foreign reserves, which now stand at $570m, or just 2.6 months of import cover”. (Croply, 2011) Lucky Lukhele is the spokesperson for the Swaziland Solidarity Network.
Edward Zuma, the eldest son of South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma, has given an outspoken newspaper interview about Swaziland King, Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
He called King Mswati a ‘stubborn lunatic’ who ‘sucked up’ to the British.
He called on South Africa to put pressure on King Mswati to introduce democratic reforms and to impose sanctions on the Swazi Royal Family. Zuma accused King Mswati of stealing from his own people to attend the recent British Royal Wedding.
One of the president’s sons has declared King Mswati an enemy and believes South Africa can pay more than lip service to the Swaziland situation. Amanda Khoza reports
EDWARD Zuma, 34, the eldest son of President Jacob Zuma, has chastised Swaziland’s King Mswati III, describing him as a “stubborn lunatic” who stole from his people and who “sucked up” to the British. He also said Mugabe was better than Mswati.
Zuma said he was aware that people would wonder why the president’s son was speaking about the issue. “I was born there. I understand where they are coming from and it has nothing to do with being the president’s son. My father knows my views. I told him as a father, not as the president. “He knows my stance and can’t change me or how I feel.”
The young Zuma said he had been born in Manzini, Swaziland, but had shunned the country because “it didn’t deserve a cent of my tax”. Zuma, a former member of the Swaziland Solidarity Network, said he had told his father how much he detested Mswati. “I hate him so much that when he came for my father’s inauguration, people stood up to show respect but I didn’t. That’s how little I respect him.”
Zuma said change happened when people began to talk about issues. “They will cut your mouth in Swaziland when you talk about issues. I am not scared of Mswati. Given the same forum to speak to him, I will bring up the very same issues with him... I challenge him to engage in dialogue,” said a fuming Zuma.
Zuma questioned why the South African government was not putting pressure on Mswati’s regime to adhere to democratic change. “We have spearheaded democratic change all over Africa and yet our neighbour is the one in need of democratic change. People complain about Mugabe and yet he has a more legitimate country because there is a democratic process. Mugabe is far better than Mswati,” said Zuma.
Zuma said although he loved Swaziland, Mswati’s actions made him feel embarrassed to have been born there. “Mswati is a lunatic who should rather join the social scenes,” he said. Although Zuma comes from a polygamous family, he criticised the lavish lifestyle of the king and his 13 wives and 23 children.
“I believe South Africa need to sanction Mswati and his many wives because what do they do besides shopping in Sandton City?”
He lambasted the manner in which Mswati handled the HIV/AIDS crisis in 2000, when he reportedly announced in a parliamentary debate that all HIV positive people should be “sterilized and branded”.
Zuma’s comments come amid an accelerated push by the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) to have the regime changed.
Zuma said Mswati’s invitation to the recent British wedding showed he was “sucking up” to the English.
“Who is Mswati trying to impress? He stole from his own people because he used their tax to go the wedding”, he said.
Referring to recent protests in which unions called for Mswati to step down, Zuma asked South Africans what they had against Mugabe when Mswati has “illegitimately” appointed ministers. Zuma labelled Mswati’s government a “family committee”. It did not deserve to be called a government, he said, because it didn’t come from any democratic process.
“If you are not a Dlamini in Swaziland, you are a nobody”, said Zuma.
An emotional Zuma said what Mswati was doing was painful, personal and made him very angry – and had prompted him to speak out. “I have suppressed this anger for many years and this is the first time I am publicly speaking about it in detail”, he said.
Zuma also said there were deeper problems hidden by Mswati and his dynasty.
The office of the presidency’s spokesman, Zizi Kodwa, said the president’s son had the right to voice his personal opinion without any comment from his father in his capacity as head of state.
COSATU’s Zwelinzima Vavi welcomed Zuma Jr’s comments, saying the Labour Federation and its affiliates had long been calling for reforms in Swaziland.
“We have been one of the few who have been demanding freedom from blockages and arrests. Our people have been arrested; we can only welcome Zuma’s stance”, said Vavi.
Lucky Lukhele, of the SSN, backed Zuma up when he called Mswati to “stay out of politics”.
Lukhele said as of the end of this month, Mswati “won’t be able to pay his civil servants”.
Lukhele called upon the Swazi people to stand together and called for the intervention of the Southern African Development Community and the African Union.
Political analyst Sylvester Maphosa said South Africa had great leverage to influence the political dynamics in Swaziland.
“it is important for King Mswati to begin to appreciate that times have changed and it is crucial in his epoch to begin to incorporate values and principles of democratic dispensation into traditional values of governance”, said Maphosa.
This report did not appear online. This version is from the printed version of the newspaper
The Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) has issued a response to an article critical of it that was published in Swaziland’s Nation magazine this month (May 2011).
The Sunday Independent newspaper in South Africa today (10 April
2011) published the following report ahead of Tuesday’s banned proposed
protests in Swaziland.
Protest leaders say
they will defy a ban on the protests.
This report appeared
in the print edition of the Sunday Independent, but not online.
Uprising will go ahead despite ban
Swazi union leaders vow
Maureen Isaacson, Sunday Independent, Johannesburg, 10 April
2011
The April 12 Uprising in Swaziland will go ahead on Tuesday despite a banning
order and intimidation by Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini, and a meeting by the
Swazi regime with union leaders on Friday to call an end to protests against
sub-Sahara’s last remaining absolute monarchy.
Mduduzi Gina, the secretary-general of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions,
said yesterday that the meeting with advisers to King Mswati III may have
yielded an agreement to back down on certain socio-economic issues – such as
the hike in electricity tariffs and the question of grants to the elderly.
“They said they would get the government to engage us on the question of
cutting the salaries of civil servants. But the issue of the dissolution of the
current government and its replacement by a transitional government, a move
towards forming a multiparty democracy was non-negotiable,” he said.
He was joined by other leaders and civil society groups who said they would
defy threats of force to stop the planned pro-democracy protests that would
continue for three days.
Some protests were planned independently of the April 12 Uprising, styled on
the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts, touted by “a faceless” Facebook group
claiming to be “the voice of the people”, with “no political affiliations”.
April 12 is traditionally a day of protest by civil society. It marks the
suspension of the constitution and introduction of the rule of Swaziland by royal
decree 38 years ago.
“It will be a pity if force will be used. We have applied for permission in the
sense that we have reported concerns in terms of our labour relations act. We
acknowledge that Swaziland is a kingdom. Mswati may remain as a monarch, but
not as an absolute monarch, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are calling
for a process of democratisation and the work towards a multiparty democracy.”
Vincent Ngcongwane, the secretary-general of the Swaziland Federation of
Labour, joined in a call for an end to corruption, the cutting back of
exorbitant pay cheques for the royal and government elites, the provision of
basic necessities, grants for the elderly, free tertiary education and the
provision of medication in state-owned hospitals.
On Friday Zodwa Mabuza, the chief executive of the Federation of Swaziland
Employers, said: “We don’t know about an uprising. We heard about the uprising
informally and nobody has approached us about it. The formal position we have
from unions is that there will be protest action. We are concerned about the
safety of business and the economy.
So concerned is the regime that Swaziland’s Foreign Affairs Minister Lutfo
Dlamini was in Pretoria this week to speak about his country’s economic crisis
and the possibility of imposing civil servant pay cuts.
He was reportedly looking to endorse a bailout in the event of a deepening
crisis on account of the protests.
Maxwell Dlamini, the president of the Swaziland National Union of Students, said:
“We are aware of what we want and nobody is going to stand in our way. Members
of the police force as well as the army are actually oppressed and so we will
mobilise them for this uprising.”
Lucky Lukhele, the spokesman for the Swaziland Solidarity Network, a network of
activists operating from South Africa, said: “It’s now or never.”
He called for all progressive forces to join hands on Tuesday. He said the
solidarity network “unashamedly supports the April 12 Uprising”.
Steve Faulkner, SA Municipal Workers’ Union international officer and
co-ordinator of the South African chapter of the Swaziland Democracy Campaign
(SDC), said none of the constituent organisations of the SDC – a broad-based
body which represents all trade unions, faith-based bodies, civil society and human
rights bodies – had aligned themselves with the uprising.
“The SDC firmly believes any uprising must be organic and must come from
accountable organisations,” he said. “We always said the propagandising of the
uprising would lead the security police to start fishing around.” This week it
was reported that Nkolisi Ngcamphalana, a member of the youth wing of PUDEMO (People’s
United Democratic Movement), was tortured ahead of the scheduled April 12
Uprising.
Today at 10am the Swaziland Democracy Campaign will bring together 40
representatives from Swaziland to link up with Cosatu and its affiliates, human
rights bodies and campaign groups, to develop a new “plan of action”. The
programmes of action will be unveiled at a special Swazialand Demicracy Rally
at the Civic Theatre in Braamfontein.
