A watchdog is monitoring media coverage of the
upcoming election in Swaziland to promote ‘equitable and ethical journalism’.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) intends to
publish quarterly reports for editors and journalists throughout 2018. The
national election is due this year at a date yet to be announced by King Mswati
III, the absolute monarch in Swaziland.
The elections
are undemocratic, political parties are not allowed to
take part and the King chooses the Prime Minister and government minsters.
MISA has already shared guidelines that it said, ‘address
the concerns raised by the [past] election observers about the failures of the
media to ensure free, fair and transparent elections’.
It is not clear how MISA expects the media to ‘ensure
free, fair and transparent elections’. It is true that in a democracy it is
generally recognised that at election time the news media play an important
role in informing the public about the intended policies of the political
parties. They offer space for the policies to be discussed and thereby allow
the electorate to make rational decisions on who to vote for.
A range of events are organised by the media and / or
the political parties to facilitate this. Typically, political parties hold
media conferences to announce and discuss major policies they would pursue if
elected. A number of other events, including rallies, speeches, visits to
shopping malls, workplaces and ad hoc ‘photo opportunities’ take place.
Newspapers and broadcasting organisation interrogate political party leaders
and in some countries debates among party leaders are broadcast.
These activities are typical in democracies at
election time. But, Swaziland is not a democracy and none of the above applies
to the kingdom.
Very little of what would be recognised in a democracy
as ‘election campaigning’ takes place in Swaziland. Political parties are
banned and in the tinkhundla / monarchical democracy that exists in Swaziland
candidates are expected, if elected, to represent only the interest of their
local constituents. The consequence of this is that there is no debate about
which social, political or economic policies a new government should pursue.
The people in Swaziland are not appointing a government: that is the
prerogative of King Mswati.
Consequently, the media in Swaziland only reported the
process of the election. In the 2013 election, typically, this meant they
covered the registration of voters, the nomination process, and the numbers of
people turning out at the primary and secondary elections.
Campaigning by candidates is outlawed until the
results of the primary elections are announced. Although there was evidence
that this law was not consistently enforced it meant that election campaigning
‘proper’ only took place between 24 August and 19 September 2013.
Broadcast media severely restricted coverage of the
election and a directive from the state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting and
Information Services (SBIS) restricted access to the airwaves by candidates who
had to be approved by the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) before they
were allowed on air.
There are only two daily newspaper groups in Swaziland
and they gave extensive coverage to the election in terms of space, but it was
limited in scope. By far the most important aspect of the election for the
newspapers was to demonstrate to readers the election’s legitimacy. After
previous elections, official
election observers reported on deficiencies in the Swazi
political system. Prominent on the list of concerns were the banning of
political parties, the lack of power the parliament has and the autocracy of
the Swazi monarchy.
The newspaper and broadcasting houses in Swaziland
support the status-quo and it was an imperative for them to continually show
support for the political system of tinkhundla / monarchical democracy.
There was no subtlety in this. To the newspapers it
was the duty of the people to support the election process because it was the King’s
will. On the eve of the secondary election, an editorial in the King’s own
newspaper the Swazi Observer (19
September 2013) put it this way:
‘It is the measure of the faith of the Swazi people on their system, and
on their right to choose their candidate and usher them straight to parliament.
This remains the eighth wonder of the world!
‘…. As His Majesty has said countless times, we need to vote for the
right people tomorrow. The right people, he has advised, are the selfless
individuals who can transform the fortunes of this country by bringing change.’
‘He said participating in the upcoming national elections was compulsory
for them because it was the King’s order that the country should go to
elections this year.
‘He said he had heard that some people thought that registering and
participating in the elections was by choice.
‘“I have been told that some of you thought that participating in the
upcoming national elections is for those who like it. That is not true; it is
for every Swazi citizen. The only people who have a choice of participating are
foreigners, not you,” he said.’
Newspapers confused readers about the nature of the
elections: constantly claiming that they were to elect a ‘government’, when
they were not. The media extolled the virtue of tinkhundla / monarchical
democracy emphasising that this ‘unique democracy’ placed the individual non-party
candidate at the centre of the political process, but at the same time asserted that in some
never-defined way that these individuals would also work collectively once
elected to parliament and form a government. In fact, King Mswati appoints
government ministers and he is not obliged to choose from among the elected
members of parliament when doing so.
The media did at times criticise the efficiency of the
election process. Mostly, this was the shortcomings of the EBC which ran the
election.
The criticisms were always framed in terms of the EBC
commissioners letting down the King by their inefficiencies. No mention was
made of the fact that the King appointed the EBC and Chief Gija Dlamini, one
his half-brothers, chairs the commission, even though, in terms of the
requirements of the Swaziland Constitution, he
does not have the credentials to do so.
But, by the day of the secondary election both
newspaper groups uncritically reported the EBC’s assertion that all would be
well on the day of the secondary elections.
Newspaper coverage of the campaign itself was sparse.
Almost certainly a lack of resources prevented journalists from travelling to
all 55 constituencies across the kingdom. However, in the coverage they did,
they showed bias towards favoured candidates. This meant that they would extol
virtues of their favourites, but make no mention of the other candidates
standing against them.
A typical case was Lutfo Dlamini, the outgoing Minister
of Labour and Social Security, who had also held other posts in
government, and was known to be a close personal friend of the Queen
Mother Ntombi. He received
fawning coverage in the newspapers and many constituents
were quoted in his support. However, in Swaziland, the support of the
newspapers is not enough: Dlamini
lost at the secondary election.
Observers, even from within the local media industry,
have for many years reported that journalists
in Swaziland have low capacity and this was notable
during the election coverage. Even outside of the election period, media in
Swaziland are partisan, inaccurate and generally unprofessional and they are
turning into an irrelevant vehicle for public discussion. Journalists lack
credibility. Content in the Swazi newspaper is compromised by a lack of
professionalism in writing and editing. Interesting news stories are watered
down by the incomprehensible way they are written, leaving the reader confused
and bewildered.
Comment articles expose readers to un-researched
opinion pieces that have compromised journalistic standards and some journalists willingly work
as propagandists, especially at the SBIS radio.
All the above was in evidence in the election coverage. Journalists
sensationalised news and often reported as facts, pure conjecture. The day
after the election, the Weekend Observer
(20 September 2013), for example, reported, ‘about 400,000 voters
braved the scorching sun and went straight to the voting centres to cast their
ballots as early as possible’.
This was clearly untrue: the total number of people registered to vote in
Swaziland at the election was 411,084. If 400,000 had voted, the
turnout would have been about 97 percent, an extraordinary figure for an
election and even more so when it is known that at the previous election in
2008, the turnout was only 54 percent.
In fact, the real story about the election turnout was
that the EBC did not release the figure. The newspapers made the same mistake after the primary
election, reporting it as a ‘success’, with ‘overwhelming’ turnouts. (Swazi Observer, 26 August
2013; Times of Swaziland, 29 August
2013).
But, no complete statistics for voter turnout at the
primaries was available to the media when these stories were written (and are
still not publicly available), so the reporting had to be based on a mixture of
speculation and wishful-thinking.
After the secondary election, newspapers were
unanimous that the people had voted ‘for change’. This was based on information
that six of eight government ministers standing in the election were defeated
and of the 55 members of the House standing for re-election, 43 lost.
Newspapers reported the election result as if it were
a vote of no-confidence against the out-going government. (Swazi
Observer, 23 September 2013; Times
of Swaziland, 23 September 2013).
But, they provided no evidence for this. The media in Swaziland want it
both ways. On the one hand they say that under Swaziland’s tinkhundla /
monarchical democracy system of government the people elect MPs as individuals
who support their constituencies and on the other they say the people have
elected a group of MPs who they believe collectively will bring them change.
No media outlet in the kingdom suggested that if
people had voted for change it might be a change in the political system and a
move to democracy that they seek. The media would better serve the people of
Swaziland if they led this debate.
Richard
Rooney
The
full report on the 2013 election coverage is available here
See
also
Swaziland
Media Need Code of Conduct for Covering Elections
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127917864/Swaziland-Needs-Election-Code-of-Conduct-for-Journalists
