Swaziland People Not Allowed To Elect Government

By Richard Rooney

 

The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) in Swaziland (recently renamed Eswatini) is deliberately misleading voters into believing they are voting for a government when they are not.

It is spreading false messages on social media platforms urging people to go to the polls so they can determine their own future and that of their families. The first round of voting takes place on 25 August 2018.

Swaziland is not a democracy and is ruled by King Mswati III as one of the world’s last absolute monarchs. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the King chooses the Prime Minister and government. People are only allowed to vote for 59 members of the House of Assembly. The King appoints a further 10. No members of the 30-strong Swaziland Senate are elected by the people.

There is nothing new about this and it is not a secret. The Swaziland Constitution that came into force in 2006 sets out the political system in the kingdom known as tinkhundla. In 2013 King Mswati renamed this ‘Monarchical Democracy’ which he called a system formed by merging the will of the people with the monarch. Voters are only permitted to vote for people as individuals. A government by definition is a collection of people who want to achieve common goals in areas such as the economy, health, education and so on. In a democracy people get the chance to weigh up different policies presented by different parties and choose the one to form the government.

As I wrote in my recently published study Organised Certainty, Why elections in Swaziland are not democratic  the European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM), one of a number of international groups that monitored the conduct of Swaziland’s election in 2013, made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy undermined democracy. It reported, ‘The King has absolute power and is considered to be above the law, including the Constitution, enjoying the power to assent laws and immunity from criminal proceedings. A bill shall not become law unless the King has assented to it, meaning that the parliament is unable to pass any law which the King is in disagreement with.’

The EEM was not alone in saying Swaziland is undemocratic. The Institute for Security Studies in 2012 said tinkhundla elections could essentially be defined as ‘organised certainty’, since they reproduced the prevailing political status quo in Swaziland. It went on to say, ‘The ruling regime enjoys an unchallenged monopoly over state resources, and elections have increasingly become arenas for competition over patronage and not policy.’

This view is not confined to the ISS. The 2013 election observation report of the Commonwealth Expert Team questioned the elections’ credibility because they resulted in ‘a Parliament which does not have power’, because of the ban on political parties. 

The United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a report on Swaziland in 2013 said there was no effective democracy in Swaziland. ‘The King has the power summarily to appoint and dismiss ministers, all parliamentary candidates require the approval of their chief (who is dependent on the monarch for wealth and power) and while political parties are not forbidden, they are banned from participating in elections. All candidates must run as independents.’

In its report on conduct of the 2013 election, the African Union (AU) mission called for fundamental changes to ensure people had freedom of speech and of assembly. The AU said the Swaziland Constitution guaranteed ‘fundamental rights and freedoms including the rights to freedom of association’, but in practice ‘rights with regard to political assembly and association are not fully enjoyed’. The AU said this was because political parties were not allowed to contest elections.

The AU urged Swaziland to review the constitution, especially in the areas of ‘freedoms of conscience, expression, peaceful assembly, association and movement as well as international principles for free and fair elections and participation in electoral process’.

In its report on the 2013 elections, Commonwealth observers recommended that measures be put in place to ensure separation of powers between the government, parliament and the courts so that Swaziland was in line with its international commitments.

They also called on the Swaziland Constitution to be ‘revisited’. The report stated, ‘This should ideally be carried out through a fully inclusive, consultative process with all Swazi political organisations and civil society (needed, with the help of constitutional experts), to harmonise those provisions which are in conflict. The aim is to ensure that Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal.’

See also

Organised Certainty, Why elections in Swaziland are not democratic

https://www.scribd.com/document/384752084/Organised-Certainty-Why-Elections-in-Swaziland-Are-Not-Democratic

Swaziland: Elections Without Democracy

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/08/swaziland-elections-without-democracy.html

Swaziland Police Force Worshippers From Churches to Attend Election Nominations

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/07/swaziland-police-force-worshippers-from.html

Swaziland: Elections Without Democracy

Kenworthy News Media, 8 August 2018

SOURCE

Swaziland will hold national elections on September 21. But according to reports that examine the country’s last national elections in 2013 and many Swazis, Swaziland’s political system is undemocratic and only serves to keep its absolute monarch in power, writes Kenworthy News Media.

Organised Certainty, a new study published in July by journalist and former associate professor at the University of Swaziland Richard Rooney, concludes that Swaziland’s last national elections in 2013 were “not democratic” and that “the political system exists to keep the ruling absolute monarchy in power”.

According to Rooney, bribery, corruption and election blunders were widespread in 2013, women were banned from nomination for wearing trousers, Swaziland’s police and state forces clamped down on peaceful political and social dissent, media coverage in the Swazi media failed to report opposition views, and it took the Election and Boundaries Commission over three years to formally release the election results.

Voters in Swaziland will elect 59 of Swaziland’s 69 members of the country’s House of Assembly at national elections on September 21. Absolute monarch King Mswati III picks the remaining ten, as well as most of the Senate, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Political parties are barred from participating in the elections.

The king is above the law
“The lack of democracy in Swaziland is well documented”, Rooney writes in his report. Many other reports point to this fact, as well as to an increase in repression and human rights abuses towards those who advocate a boycott of the elections and campaign for multiparty democracy.

Elections in Swaziland have “increasingly become arenas for competition over patronage and not policy,” African NGO the Institute for Security Studies wrote in a report before the last national elections 2013.

The Commonwealth Observer Mission Report, who sent over 400 international and local observers to monitor the 2013 elections, concluded that the election had showed “major democratic deficits”, amongst other things because “parliamentarians continue to have severely limited powers, and political parties continue to remain proscribed … there is considerable room for improving the democratic system”.

The EU’s Election Experts Mission, who sent over 150 observers, said in their report that the elections showed that the Swazi state was unwilling to tackle “fundamental problems [with] the system of government and the respect for the principles of separation of power, rule of law and independence of the judiciary”.

These problems included that “the King has absolute power and is considered to be above the law” and that “a bill shall not become law unless the King has assented to it”, the Election Experts Mission concluded.

The latest annual Freedom in the World-report from independent watchdog organisation Freedom House gives Swaziland its lowest score of seven in regard to political rights. The report concludes that “political dissent and civic or labor activism are subject to harsh punishment under laws on sedition and other offenses. Those who criticize the monarchy can also face exclusion from traditional patronage systems”.

And Human Rights Watch concluded in their 2017 report that “Swaziland continued to repress political dissent and disregard human rights and rule of law in 2017”.

Growing dissatisfaction
Many Swazis are becoming increasingly disaffected with their political system.

In a poll conducted in 2015 by pan-African independent research institute Afrobarometer, only a third of the population saw Swaziland’s political system as democratic and only 28 percent were fairly or very satisfied with how democracy works in Swaziland (down from 36 percent in 2013).

Another Afrobarometer poll from 2016 revealed Swaziland to be one of the 36 African countries polled that have seen the biggest positive change in favour of democracy in the previous five years. In July, another Afrobarometer poll found that less than four in ten Swazis approve of the job performance of Swaziland’s Prime Minister and MPs.

Current elections legitimise King’s rule
Political coordinator of the Swaziland United Democratic Front, Wandile Dludlu, is adamant that this year’s elections will in fact only serve to legitimise the power of Swaziland’s absolute monarch King Mswati III.

“The power to govern and to determine the destiny of Swaziland rests upon the King and therefore Mswati is always the victor in every election”, he says.

According to a report from Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission, 41 percent of the estimated 600,000 Swazis who were entitled to register voted in the 2013 elections (although the report chooses to conclude that 61 percent of the 414,704 voters who registered to vote actually did so). Less than the 47 percent who voted in 2008.

For this downward trajectory to change, Swaziland’s needs democratic reform says exiled editor of Swaziland News, Zweli Martin Dlamini.

“These elections are meaningless and nothing will change in the country for as long as absolute powers vests with the King. The voters will elect MPs who will be accountable to the King not to the people, and until we adopt democratic reforms, nothing will change”, Zweli Martin Dlamini concludes.

That many people register to vote simply shows that people are afraid not to, according to President of the Swaziland Youth Congress Bheki Dlamini.

“The Swazi elections do not allow any change in the distribution of political power. More and more people are aware of the uselessness of the elections, but because of fear of reprisals from the regime’s agents they still register to be part of the elections”, Bheki Dlamini says.

The report Organised Certainty can be downloaded free-of-charge here https://www.scribd.com/document/384752084/Organised-Certainty-Why-Elections-in-Swaziland-Are-Not-Democratic

See also

All Public Events Banned in Swaziland on Day of Primary Election

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/08/all-public-events-banned-in-swaziland.html

 

Swaziland Police Force Worshippers From Churches to Attend Election Nominations

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/07/swaziland-police-force-worshippers-from.html

New Study Shows Why Swaziland Elections Are Not Democratic

Swaziland voters go to the polls on 21 September 2018 for the national election but we can already name the winner – it will be the absolute monarch King Mswati III. In the kingdom’s tinkhundla political system political parties are banned from taking part and people are only allowed to elect 59 members of the House of Assembly, the King chooses another ten. No members of the 30-strong Senate are elected by the people. When the election is over King Mswati will choose a Prime Minister and cabinet. He also chooses top judges and civil servants.

 

As a measure of his power in April 2018 on his fiftieth birthday and in the year that Swaziland marked its fiftieth anniversary of independence from Great Britain the King announced unilaterally that Swaziland would henceforth be named Eswatini. No public debate took place and a legal notice was signed. 

A system of ‘Monarchical Democracy’ invented by King Mswati in 2013 to justify his power exists in Swaziland. He called it a system formed by merging the will of the people with the monarch. He tried to sell this a new idea but he later admitted to Reuters news agency (13 September 2013) that it was just another name for the tinkhundla system that already existed.

European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM), one of a number of international groups that monitored the conduct of Swaziland’s election in 2013, made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy undermined democracy. It reported, ‘The King has absolute power and is considered to be above the law, including the Constitution, enjoying the power to assent laws and immunity from criminal proceedings. A bill shall not become law unless the King has assented to it, meaning that the parliament is unable to pass any law which the King is in disagreement with.’

A new study called Organised Certainty, Why elections in Swaziland are not democratic  examines Swaziland elections and demonstrates that power rests with the King regardless of who the people put into the House of Assembly. It is available free of charge online at Scribd <<https://www.scribd.com/document/384752084/Organised-Certainty-Why-Elections-in-Swaziland-Are-Not-Democratic>>

People do not elect the government and have no way of influencing its policies. The report follows the last poll in 2013 step by step from the period running up to it and through the long-drawn out election process that includes registration, nominations, a primary election and a final (secondary) vote.

Section one details the political landscape of Swaziland. The Institute for Security Studies called the tinkhundla elections ‘organised certainty’ because they changed nothing and allowed the ruling regime to have an unchallenged monopoly over state resources.

Section two reviews the work of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) that was launched in 2008 under great controversy. Chief Gija Dlamini, an engineer and one of King Mswati’s half-brothers, was appointed chair although the Constitution stated the position should go to a judge. The EBC has been under constant criticism since because of its inability to competently run elections. The section also details the election process from registration through to the final (secondary) election.

Section three covers the period running up to the 2013 election which was characterised by increasingly violent and abusive behaviour of police and state forces. International observers such as the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa reported that the state was unable to accept that peaceful political and social dissent was a vital element of a healthy democratic process. The Swaziland United Democratic Front and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign said police in Swaziland had become a private militia. The section using contemporary sources details a number of cases of meetings and prayers being disrupted and prodemocracy campaigners arrested.

Section four looks at registration and nominations in the 2013 election. Registration was characterised by blunders by the EBC and corruption. Nominations descended into chaos across Swaziland as equipment failed and some candidates who wanted to be nominated were prevented because electoral officers would not allow it. Women were banned from nomination because they wore trousers to nomination centres.

Section five examines the primary election. This takes place at chiefdoms and at the end of the process one candidate is selected to go forward to the secondary election at tinkhundla / constituency level. Bribery and corruption allegations were widely reported and the primary elections were riddled with problems including incorrect ballot papers issued, alleged tampering of ballot boxes, wrong results announced, campaign laws broken and residents threatening to boycott the poll. In at least one case riot police had to escort ballot boxes from the polling station.

Section six reviews the secondary election, the stage of voting where the member of the House of Assembly is finally elected. Election observers reported it went more smoothly than the primary election but the vote was marred by instances of violence. Police brutally stopped a peaceful march after voters at one constituency protested the result and there were fears of election rigging elsewhere. Nine people including an 85-year-old woman were taken to hospital when voters at a Lomahasha polling station reported stampeded.

Section seven reports the election results and the aftermath. Although the names of winning candidates were promptly announced it took the EBC more than three years to formally release the results. Only four in ten people entitled to vote did so at the secondary election. Shortly after the election, King Mswati named two princes, a princess and three members of his own Dlamini clan among his 10 appointees to the House of Assembly. He also appointed six members of his family to the Senate, where he picks 20 members. He then appointed another 16 members of his Royal Family to top political jobs; effectively carving up public life in the kingdom in his favour. There were nine princess and princesses and a further seven from the family Dlamini in the 24-strong Liqoqo (the Swaziland National Council), the most powerful of the committees that nominally advises the King. There were four princes and princesses and four Dlaminis in the Ludzidzimi Council, which advises the Queen Mother. The Border Restoration Committee which exists to try to get South Africa to give some of its territory to King Mswati had three princes and princesses and five Dlaminis among its 14 members. King Mswati also reappointed Barnabas Dlamini as Prime Minister.

Section eight explores media coverage of the elections. Nearly all broadcast media are state controlled and censored. One of only two daily newspapers in the kingdom is in effect owned by King Mswati. The media told their audiences and readers that it was their duty to support the King by voting. Often media reported that people were electing a government when they were not. International media were more revealing, often reporting the opposition view that the election was a fraud. 

Section nine looks at disputes and court procedures. The 2013 election did not end with the announcement of the winners. The Swaziland High Court was kept busy with a number of claims of malpractice. A total of 31 election cases were brought before the High Court for determination by prospective and actual candidates for election and 23 cases were dismissed.

Section ten offers some final words by reprising human rights reports from international organisations for the year 2017 (the most recent available). Among a long list violations are arbitrary interference with privacy and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech, assembly, and association; denial of citizens’ ability to choose their government in free and fair elections; institutional lack of accountability in cases involving rape and violence against women and criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct.

Appendix one is an extract from the Commonwealth Observer Mission Report on the 2013 election. The EBC accredited more than 400 international and local observers to witness the poll. In its report, the EBC listed good practices and areas for improvement highlighted by observers but it ignored the fact that many groups declared the election was not free and fair because Swaziland was not a democracy. The extract from the Commonwealth Observer Mission offers a more complete picture. It concludes, ‘that the entire process could not be deemed credible, due to major democratic deficits’.

Organised Certainty Why Elections in Swaziland Are Not Democratic by Richard Rooney on Scribd