NEWSPAPER CALLS KING, ‘OPPRESSOR’

A newspaper in Botswana has criticised Swaziland’s King Mswati III calling him an ‘oppressor’ of the Swazi people. 

Mmegi, in an editorial comment, on Thursday (11 May 2017) called on the Southern African Development Community (SADC) which Mswati chairs to review the kingdom. It said, ‘SADC should prepare for a tough assignment the day the Swazis say enough is enough and stand up to their King to demand democracy.’

King Mswati rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and King Mswati’s subjects are only allowed to pick 55 of the 65 members of the House of Assembly; the other 10 are appointed by the King. None of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people; the King appoints 20 members and the other 10 are appointed by the House of Assembly.

The King choses the Prime Minister and cabinet members. Only a man with the surname Dlamini can, by tradition, be appointed as Prime Minister. The King is a Dlamini.  

Earlier in May 2017, the globally-renowned charity Oxfam named Swaziland as the most unequal country in the world.

In its editorial comment Mmegi said King Mswati III had been in Botswana for a two-day tour of the SADC Secretariat which is based in Gaborone. The King brought at least two of his wives and family in addition to his entourage.

The newspaper called King Mswati III, ‘an oppressor who does not allow press freedom, multiparty democracy, trade unionism and any dissenting voices are crushed with a disproportionate force.’

It added, ‘In Swaziland, judges take instructions from the King and they comply unconditionally, something, which we are fighting hard in Botswana. The independence of the judiciary, the independent press, and dissenting voices are a measure of commitment to democracy. It is disturbing that SADC has allowed King Mswati III to be the chairman of the bloc yet he does not believe in their democratic values and principles.

‘SADC should review some of its agreements to ensure that it remains relevant to the youth, majority of whom believe in democracy, freedom of expression and the fact that Africa is part of the global village.’

It added, ‘France recently elected its youngest President ever at the age of 39, and the whole world was watching including the youth in Africa and particularly in Swaziland where they are not allowed to say a word about the expenditure of their public funds amongst others.  SADC should prepare for a tough assignment the day the Swazis say enough is enough and stand up to their King to demand democracy.’

Mmegi said, ‘We want the youth of Swaziland to have same ambitions and dreams as their regional counterparts to one day take part in the affairs of their country and even lead it. SADC should put more pressure on Swaziland to formulate a new constitution to usher in democracy and keeping the Royal family as a ceremonial institution.’ 

See also

BOTSWANA OPPOSITION REJECTS KING

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/09/botswana-opposition-rejects-king.html

ABSOLUTE KING TAKES CHAIR OF SADC

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/08/absolute-king-takes-chair-of-sadc.html  

‘DICTATOR KING NOT FIT TO CHAIR SADC’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/08/absolute-king-takes-chair-of-sadc.html

BOTSWANA UNION AGAINST SWAZI KING

A major trade union in Botswana has resolved to help the people of Swaziland to remove King Mswati III from power.

Botswana Land Boards, Local Authorities and Health Workers Union (BLLAHWU) at its annual meeting last weekend (3 December 2011) said it was planning a trip to Swaziland to share ideas on mobilisation and how to stage successful campaigns.

Mmegi, a Botswana newspaper, reported that BLLAHWU called on the Botswana government to take a firm stand against ‘the dictatorship of Mswati’ to ensure democracy in Swaziland.

BLLAHWU secretary general, Ketlhalefile Motshegwa said King Mswati was living a lavish lifestyle while Swaziland’s economy was ailing.

The decision to help the people of Swaziland ‘topple’ Mswati has been widely reported in the Botswana media.

The Echo newspaper had the news as its main front page story yesterday (8 December 2011). In a story headlined ‘UNION TO HELP TOPPLE MSWATI’ it reported KesitegileKekgonegile, BLLAHWU president, saying the union did not want to see King Mswati ‘dethroned from his kingship’.

The Echo in a report that has not appeared online quoted Kekgonegile saying, ‘We are saying the people of Swaziland should be helped to usher in a democratically-elected government. By saying so we are not calling for regime change of a government that would have been democratically elected.

‘What we are talking about is for the Swazis to gain freedom of association and the right to choose whoever they want to have as their leader through the ballot and not a situation where people have not been given a chance to exercise that right.’

‘BOTSWANA SHOULD SUPPORT PROTEST’

14 April 2011

Another media editorial siding with the Swaziland protestors.

Mmegi, Botswana

SOURCE

Editorial

Swazi King must see writing on the wall

The authorities in Swaziland have shown their total disregard for human rights and the right of people to show dissent by violently breaking up the April 12 protests by using tear gas and water cannons.

Media reports indicate that the strike organisers and other labour leaders in Swaziland had been rounded up and imprisoned over the last three days although most of them have since been released. The Swazi monarchy needs to be condemned for the high-handed way that they treat protestors. The monarchy should learn lessons from what is happening in North Africa and some parts of the Middle East.

A regime whose time has come can never postpone its demise. A people who want to kick out a rogue regime can never be deterred, not even teargas or water cannons can forestall a revolution whose time has come. The protests, which have been planned for three days mainly from Swaziland's second city of Manzini, have largely been suppressed through intimidation and the use of force by security agents.

The protests now dubbed the "April 12 Protests" were somewhat modelled along the North Africa peaceful uprisings that brought down regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. The protests gained momentum, thanks to the social network Facebook and platforms. Many young people popularised the protests on Facebook until it became a reality that the Monarchy and the security agents could not ignore. We must state at the outset that the issues raised by the protestors are legitimate which any government can only ignore at its own peril.

The protests were partly meant to commemorate 38 years since King Sobhuza declared Swaziland a complete monarchy. Sobhuza suspended the constitution and transferred power to the monarchy.

Since April 12, 1973 the power to appoint the Prime minister, Cabinet ministers, judiciary and even the curtailment of press freedom and other democratic rights became the preserve of the King. In Swaziland today the right to associate and the right to free assembly and media freedom are exercised to the will and whim of the king. Protestors merely wanted to send a message to the king that this state of affairs is untenable and he should find better ways of addressing the issues. Instead of listening the King has reacted with violence.

This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Of course we are aware that Swaziland is a sovereign state, but when a regime visits violence upon its own citizens merely for protesting it becomes the concern of everyone. We in the SADC region and Botswana in particular should condemn the king and his security operatives for their undemocratic conduct. People of goodwill in Botswana should even go further and lend moral support to the protestors. Let's help the Swazis in their endeavour to democratise their beautiful land. It can never be okay to have a monarchy that lives in stupendous affluence when the vast majority of the people are wallowing in poverty, HIV/AIDS and other ills.

ANGER AT SWAZLAND 40-40 CONTINUES

Discontent about the lavish 40/40 celebrations held in Swaziland last weekend continues to rumble.

President Ian Khama of Botswana is under fire in his own country for attending King Mswati III’s bash to mark the King’s 40^th birthday and also the 40^th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Britain.

In an editorial comment Mmegi newspaper yesterday (11 September 2008) criticised Khama because his attendance sent the ‘wrong message’ to Swaziland.

The editorial says, ‘In our view, a presidential visit is more than just a gesture of goodwill. It goes far deeper than that. The President has raised people's hopes on how he intends to deal with issues of democracy and that is why he gained our unqualified support when he moved away from the beaten track of silent diplomacy.

‘We all remember how he made us feel proud when he refused to accept the sham presidential re-run in Zimbabwe. When the rest of Africa did not want to break with tradition and throw Mugabe under the bus, Khama courageously took a principled stand against Mugabe's tyranny. When he refused to recognise Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe, we believe he was guided by this country's democratic culture.’

The editorial goes on, ‘Out of concern for democratic culture, we believe it is out of step with this culture for President Khama to have visited Swaziland at a time when the country is embroiled in serious internal conflicts bordering on the abuse of power and denial of democratic practice.

‘We are not in any way saying that Botswana should dictate to Mswati the type of political system that they should practice. Swaziland has been a monarchy for so many years and it is only the Swatis who can decide whether they are happy with the monarchy or not.

‘We would, however, not be poking our nose into the affairs of a sovereign state when we show them that we do not approve of the heavy handed way the administration deals with those who hold opposing views to those held by the administration.

‘At the time when Khama visited the country, there were widespread strikes and demonstrations in Swaziland over misuse of millions of Emalangeni on lavish trips by the monarchy. There was agitation for free political activity and unbanning of political parties. There should be increased access to anti-retroviral drugs.

‘For President Khama to visit Swaziland at a time when these internal protests were occurring might have sent the wrong message. This looked like tacit support for the administration and a 'thumbs down' to the democratic efforts in Swaziland.’

To see more of the article click here.

Personally, I think now that the dust is settling on the 40/40 celebrations they are looking more and more like a public relations disaster for the King and his supporters.

As anyone who has been following the international media coverage of the event knows the King has been portrayed as a man out of touch with his people. He is seen as selfish and greedy. While he spends perhaps as much as ten million US dollars (it is impossible to get an accurate figure) on the celebration seven out of ten of his subjects earn less than one dollar a day. Six out of ten rely on international food aid and four in ten are moving from hunger to starvation. Swaziland continues to have the highest rate of HIV infection in the world.

Television stations across the world broadcast pictures of the opulence of the King’s banquet and the fancy top-of-the-range BMW cars that ferried around heads of state from across southern Africa, including the Zimbabwean despot Robert Mugabe. They then contrasted these scenes with pictures of ordinary destitute Swazis in their villages.

In the week before the celebrations police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters engaged in a two-day strike for democracy. In Swaziland the King rules, political parties are banned and the parliament has no real power. The King selected the present Prime Minister Themba Dlamini, even though Dlamini had not been elected to parliament.

As Swaziland heads for its national elections next Friday (19 September 2008) I hope the media scrutiny continues. The brighter the spotlight turns on King Mswati and his regime the more the world will realise the true nature of life in Swaziland.

See also

40/40 CELEBRATION

PUDEMO AND LIFE IN SWAZILAND

I know that Swazi journalists surf the Internet to find stories that they can download and use in their newspapers. I know also that there is a lot of information they choose to ignore. Subjects vary, but one that is avoided like the proverbial plague is criticism of the monarchy and the status quo generally. For that reason I am sure that you won’t be reading the following article in the Swazi media anytime soon.

The Botswana newspaper Mmegi (The Reporter) interviewed Siphasha Dlamini, the Secretary General of Swaziland’s People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), a political party banned in the kingdom.

Mmegi put the article on the Internet yesterday (28 July 2008).

Here is an extract from the interview. To access the full interview, click here

MMEGI: Swaziland is an absolute monarchy. What does this mean for a political party such as yours?

DLAMINI: We are a banned organisation because, according to the constitution, political parties are illegal.

M: How do you run an illegal organisation successfully? Where do you get funding? How do you measure the level of your following?

D: We just depend on our own personal earnings to sustain the movement. We have a major problem because people feel threatened to come out and support even if they follow us. The monarchy is very powerful and for anyone to take membership in our party they would have to forgo a lot in their personal and professional life. However, we know that we have a substantial following because the position we hold is what the majority of Swazis support.

M: We know that the situation in Swaziland is perhaps similar to that obtaining in Zimbabwe. Why is it so difficult to get the world’s attention on the Swaziland situation even though it has been unfolding for a long time?

D: Zimbabwe is a mess just like Swaziland. But I believe Swaziland is worse because it does not even have any pretence to adhering to some democratic system. In Zimbabwe there was a time when some sort of democratic system was used whereas in Swaziland none of that ever happened and the repression is at the same level if not worse.

The reason why the Swaziland issue has not captured the attention of the world, the Western world in particular, is because the monarchy serves the interests of the former colonisers. The monarchy is not a threat to Western interests. Remember that even the Zimbabwean issue never captured global attention until Mugabe became a threat to the corporate and imperialist interests.

But also you have SADC,[Southern Africa Development Community] which has shown the same lukewarm attitude toward the state of democracy in Swaziland. I mean Swaziland is a signatory to so many SADC protocols on elections and democratic governance. They do not even uphold any of those principles and yet you won't hear any complaint from SADC.

M: How far are you from reaching your goals especially that of a democratic Swaziland?

D: There is progress minimal as it is especially regarding our major goal [the establishment of a multi-party democracy system in Swaziland]. But you know, we do not just measure our progress with real changes to the system we are contend to have more and more people showing a dedication to our vision. We are working on a long-term change. Ultimately the challenge would be on the Swazi people to say enough is enough and change the system.

M: However even where the country is relatively peaceful and economically stable, a majority of people still wallow in poverty. Look at Botswana, or South Africa, countries that are consistently praised for rapid economic growth, a majority of the people still live in poverty. What is the cause of this discrepancy between the praise by the international community and the hopeless situations of poverty?

D: The policies are designed for the interests of only a few together with their international supporters. That is the problem. So you find the disjuncture between what the international community says about the country and what the majority of the people feel because the people do not enjoy the benefits of the success.

M: As a woman, and a leader in such a big organization how do you view the position of women in Swazi society?

D: Swaziland is a patriarchal society. Women are also relatively reserved as a result. We do have women in leadership positions and others who are specifically dedicated to addressing women issues. Our movement has taken the position of giving the people's issues more attention because we think everyone is oppressed; so we are fighting for everyone's liberation.

See also
PUDEMO ALL THE FACTS ARE HERE