Search This Blog

Showing posts with label cia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cia. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 April 2020

Anniversary of day Swaziland stopped being a democracy and became absolute monarchy

It was 47 years ago today (12 April 2020) that Swaziland (now known as eSwatini) stopped being a parliamentary democracy and became an absolute monarchy.
On 12 April 1973 King Sobhuza II proclaimed a Royal Decree after he objected to his subjects electing members of a political party that was not under his control. He tore up the kingdom’s constitution that had been in place since Swaziland gained independence from Britain in 1968. Even though Swaziland adopted a new constitution in 2006, the kingdom, now ruled by King Mswati III, remains an absolute monarchy.  
In his decree King Sobhuza announced, ‘I have assumed supreme power in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself.’ 
He added, ‘The Constitution is indeed the cause of growing unrest, insecurity, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in our country and an impediment to free and progressive development in all spheres of life.’ 
He also said, ‘All political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the Nations are hereby dissolved and prohibited.’ 
He said, ‘Any person who forms or attempts or conspires to form a political party or who organises or participates in any way in any meeting, procession or demonstration in contravention of this decree shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding six months.’

In 1973 the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believed King Sobhuza had taken control from the Swazi Parliament because he feared people were becoming educated and would mount a serious threat to his power.
In 1968 Swaziland had what the CIA called a ‘British-imposed’ constitution with a formal ‘Western style’ parliament working alongside the Swazi National Council (SNC), ‘a group of chiefs and headmen dominated by the King’.
In a secret report which has since been declassified the CIA stated, ‘In theory the SNC only dealt with tribal matters but it always maintained a strong voice in governmental affairs.’
It added, ‘The veneer provided by the British-imposed constitution and parliamentary form of government left the King a great deal of room for exercising political power but it also left room for a substantial degree of political manoeuvring by non-traditional oriented political parties.
‘King Sobhuza staked his prestige on the formation of his own political party [the Imbkodvo National Movement] and won an overwhelming victory, sweeping 24 seats, during the country’s first post-independence election in 1967. During the next election in 1973, however, Sobhuza’s party lost three of the 24 parliamentary seats [to the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress] and the King dissolved Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and assumed power by decree.’
The CIA report added, ‘Most of the vote against Sobhuza’s party in 1973 came from an area that contained the capital city [Mbabane], much of the country’s developed industry, the civil servants, and almost half of Swaziland’s urban population.
‘While many observers did not feel that the loss of three parliamentary seats represented a serious threat to the King and his party, the King probably interpreted the vote as the initial stages of the breakdown of tribal authority.’
The CIA report stated, ‘As the Swazi people and the economy become more sophisticated, Sobhuza’s autocratic style is being viewed as an anachronism by growing numbers of educated Swaziland.’
A confidential cable (later declassified) from the US Embassy in Swaziland to the State Department in Washington dated 13 April 1973, the day after King Sobhuza’s proclamation, read in part, ‘King Sobhuza stated he had taken drastic action to prevent breakdown of law and order and to reverse process of disharmony, bitterness and division which existed in country. Prince Sifuba [head of the Swazi National Council], on behalf Swazi nation, had stated that nation wished King to know it had never been so divided as at present. King laid blame for present “very serious situation” in country directly to constitution which introduced “undesirable political activities” into country bringing bitterness and threats to peace, law and order.’
It added, ‘Extent of action surprised Western observers who perceive no serious threat to law and order. Non-Swazis and even some Swazis profess belief King yielded to pressures and over-reacted to insignificant opposition.’
The cable said the King repealed the Swaziland constitution, dismissed parliament and assumed personal control of the country as King-in-Council. 
The cable listed what it called some ‘fairly tame’ activities that had taken place in the previous months that traditionalists and monarchists said was disruptive. These included brief work stoppages at the Havelock and Ngwenya mines; some civil servants requested a meeting of all civil servants in December 1972 because they were dissatisfied with wage increases; modernization and proliferation of commerce and industry in Swaziland had led to attempts to organize unions; students had voiced complaints and grievances and there had been growing pressure in the rural areas for different rules for land tenure which, the cable said, implied a reduction in the real power of the local chief.
Political parties remain banned in Swaziland and the King choses all members of the government and the judiciary. He also chooses 10 members of the House of Assembly, allowing his subjects to select the other 59 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. 
In 2013, Swaziland’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini said there was no need to annul the Royal Decree
He was reacting to a report in the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland,  that traditionalists stopped the decree being repealed when Swaziland’s Constitution came into force in 2006. He believed the Constitution in effect annulled the Royal Decree.
According to the Times Sunday ‘influential traditionalists’ feared Swaziland ‘could become a republic if this law was repealed’.
The newspaper said preparations to abandon the Royal Decree in 2005 were far advanced and a gazette had been drawn up.
The newspaper quoted one of the traditionalists, Brigadier General Fonono Dube, who was a member of Liqoqo, an advisory council to the King, saying, ‘There was no way we could have revoked a law that establishes the country. We couldn’t have allowed the authorities of the country to annul the decree because that would have turned the country into a republic. We don’t need a president in Swaziland. We need the King.’
The anniversary of the Royal Decree is marked by pro-democracy advocates in Swaziland. It is usual for the State police and armed forces to intervene. The Suppression of Terrorism Act 2008 makes it illegal to campaign for democracy. 
See also
Swaziland state ‘terrorises’ its people
Swaziland ‘becoming military state’
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/swaziland-becoming-military-state.html

Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Anniversary of day Swaziland stopped being a democracy and became absolute monarchy approaches

It is approaching 46 years since Swaziland (now known as /eSwatini) stopped being a parliamentary democracy and became an absolute monarchy.

On 12 April 1973 King Sobhuza II proclaimed a Royal Decree after he objected to his subjects electing members of a political party that was not under his control. He tore up the kingdom’s constitution that had been in place since Swaziland gained independence from Britain in 1968. Even though Swaziland adopted a new constitution in 2006, the kingdom, now ruled by King Mswati III, remains an absolute monarchy.  

In his decree King Sobhuza announced, ‘I have assumed supreme power in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself.’ 

He added, ‘The Constitution is indeed the cause of growing unrest, insecurity, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in our country and an impediment to free and progressive development in all spheres of life.’ 

He also said, ‘All political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the Nations are hereby dissolved and prohibited.’ 

He said, ‘Any person who forms or attempts or conspires to form a political party or who organises or participates in any way in any meeting, procession or demonstration in contravention of this decree shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding six months.’ 

In 1973 the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believed King Sobhuza had taken control from the Swazi Parliament because he feared people were becoming educated and would mount a serious threat to his power.

In 1968 Swaziland had what the CIA called a ‘British-imposed’ constitution with a formal ‘Western style’ parliament working alongside the Swazi National Council (SNC), ‘a group of chiefs and headmen dominated by the King’.

In a secret report which has since been declassified the CIA stated, ‘In theory the SNC only dealt with tribal matters but it always maintained a strong voice in governmental affairs.’

It added, ‘The veneer provided by the British-imposed constitution and parliamentary form of government left the King a great deal of room for exercising political power but it also left room for a substantial degree of political manoeuvring by non-traditional oriented political parties.

‘King Sobhuza staked his prestige on the formation of his own political party [the Imbkodvo National Movement] and won an overwhelming victory, sweeping 24 seats, during the country’s first post-independence election in 1967. During the next election in 1973, however, Sobhuza’s party lost three of the 24 parliamentary seats [to the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress] and the King dissolved Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and assumed power by decree.’

The CIA report added, ‘Most of the vote against Sobhuza’s party in 1973 came from an area that contained the capital city [Mbabane], much of the country’s developed industry, the civil servants, and almost half of Swaziland’s urban population.

‘While many observers did not feel that the loss of three parliamentary seats represented a serious threat to the King and his party, the King probably interpreted the vote as the initial stages of the breakdown of tribal authority.’

The CIA report stated, ‘As the Swazi people and the economy become more sophisticated, Sobhuza’s autocratic style is being viewed as an anachronism by growing numbers of educated Swaziland.’

A confidential cable (later declassified) from the US Embassy in Swaziland to the State Department in Washington dated 13 April 1973, the day after King Sobhuza’s proclamation, read in part, ‘King Sobhuza stated he had taken drastic action to prevent breakdown of law and order and to reverse process of disharmony, bitterness and division which existed in country. Prince Sifuba [head of the Swazi National Council], on behalf Swazi nation, had stated that nation wished King to know it had never been so divided as at present. King laid blame for present “very serious situation” in country directly to constitution which introduced “undesirable political activities” into country bringing bitterness and threats to peace, law and order.’

It added, ‘Extent of action surprised Western observers who perceive no serious threat to law and order. Non-Swazis and even some Swazis profess belief King yielded to pressures and over-reacted to insignificant opposition.’

The cable said the King repealed the Swaziland constitution, dismissed parliament and assumed personal control of the country as King-in-Council. 

The cable listed what it called some ‘fairly tame’ activities that had taken place in the previous months that traditionalists and monarchists said was disruptive. These included brief work stoppages at the Havelock and Ngwenya mines; some civil servants requested a meeting of all civil servants in December 1972 because they were dissatisfied with wage increases; modernization and proliferation of commerce and industry in Swaziland had led to attempts to organize unions; students had voiced complaints and grievances and there had been growing pressure in the rural areas for different rules for land tenure which, the cable said, implied a reduction in the real power of the local chief.

Political parties remain banned in Swaziland and the King choses all members of the government and the judiciary. He also chooses 10 members of the House of Assembly, allowing his subjects to select the other 59 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. 

In 2013, Swaziland’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini said there was no need to annul the Royal Decree

He was reacting to a report in the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland,  that traditionalists stopped the decree being repealed when Swaziland’s Constitution came into force in 2006. He believed the Constitution in effect annulled the Royal Decree.

According to the Times Sunday ‘influential traditionalists’ feared Swaziland ‘could become a republic if this law was repealed’.

The newspaper said preparations to abandon the Royal Decree in 2005 were far advanced and a gazette had been drawn up.

The newspaper quoted one of the traditionalists, Brigadier General Fonono Dube, who was a member of Liqoqo, an advisory council to the King, saying, ‘There was no way we could have revoked a law that establishes the country. We couldn’t have allowed the authorities of the country to annul the decree because that would have turned the country into a republic. We don’t need a president in Swaziland. We need the King.’

The anniversary of the Royal Decree is marked by pro-democracy advocates in Swaziland. It is usual for the State police and armed forces to intervene. The Suppression of Terrorism Act 2008 makes it illegal to campaign for democracy. 

See also

Swaziland state ‘terrorises’ its people
Swaziland ‘becoming military state’
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/swaziland-becoming-military-state.html

Monday, 8 October 2018

Swaziland King tore up Constitution in fear educated people might challenge his power, CIA report suggests

King Sobhuza II of Swaziland may have torn up the country’s constitution, banned political parties and started to rule as an absolute monarch in 1973 because he feared people were becoming educated and would mount a serious threat to his power, a secret CIA report suggests.

The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a report called Africa Review, marked ‘secret’ and dated 19 January 1979 evaluates the time between Swaziland gaining its independence from Great Britain in 1968 and King Sobhuza’s Proclamation on 12 April 1973 that allowed him to rule as an absolute monarch.

His son King Mswati III continues as an absolute monarch today even though a new constitution came into effect in 2006. As a demonstration of his power King Mswati changed the name of Swaziland to Eswatini on his 50th birthday in April 2018.

In 1968 Swaziland had what the CIA called a ‘British-imposed’ constitution with a formal ‘Western style’ parliament working alongside the Swazi National Council (SNC), ‘a group of chiefs and headmen dominated by the King’.

The secret report which has since been declassified stated, ‘In theory the SNC only dealt with tribal matters but it always maintained a strong voice in governmental affairs.’

It added, ‘The veneer provided by the British-imposed constitution and parliamentary form of government left the King a great deal of room for exercising political power but it also left room for a substantial degree of political manoeuvring by non-traditional oriented political parties.

‘King Sobhuza staked his prestige on the formation of his own political party [the Imbkodvo National Movement] and won an overwhelming victory, sweeping 24 seats, during the country’s first post-independence election in 1967. During the next election in 1973, however, Sobhuza’s party lost three of the 24 parliamentary seats [to the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress] and the King dissolved Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and assumed power by decree.’

The CIA report added, ‘Most of the vote against Sobhuza’s party in 1973 came from an area that contained the capital city [Mbabane], much of the country’s developed industry, the civil servants, and almost half of Swaziland’s urban population.

‘While many observers did not feel that the loss of three parliamentary seats represented a serious threat to the King and his party, the King probably interpreted the vote as the initial stages of the breakdown of tribal authority.’

The CIA report that was published in 1979, six years after the King’s Proclamation, stated, ‘As the Swazi people and the economy become more sophisticated, Sobhuza’s autocratic style is being viewed as an anachronism by growing numbers of educated Swaziland.’

A confidential cable (later declassified) from the US Embassy in Swaziland to the State Department in Washington dated 13 April 1973, the day after King Sobhuza’s proclamation, read in part, ‘King Sobhuza stated he had taken drastic action to prevent breakdown of law and order and to reverse process of disharmony, bitterness and division which existed in country. Prince Sifuba [head of the Swazi National Council], on behalf Swazi nation, had stated that nation wished King to know it had never been so divided as at present. King laid blame for present “very serious situation” in country directly to constitution which introduced “undesirable political activities” into country bringing bitterness and threats to peace, law and order.’

It added, ‘Extent of action surprised Western observers who perceive no serious threat to law and order. Non-Swazis and even some Swazis profess belief King yielded to pressures and over-reacted to insignificant opposition.’

The cable said the King repealed the Swaziland constitution, dismissed parliament and assumed personal control of the country as King-in-Council. ‘He took the action after an unanimous resolution of both houses of parliament stating present constitution was unworkable and appealing to King to find ways and means to resolve present “constitutional crisis” with members placing themselves entirely at disposal of King-in-Council.’

He added, ‘King took extreme measure of assuming personal rule and issued series of decrees giving him wide-ranging powers, including that of preventive detention. Royal Proclamation stated that King was decreeing preventive detention powers for six- month period. 

‘But there was no repeat no other mention of time for which King proposes hold personal rule nor was there any announcement of plans for drawing up new constitution or substituting revised parliamentary system.’

In the event a new constitution did not come into effect until 2006, more than 30 years after the Royal Proclamation, and it confirmed the King (now Sobhuza’s son Mswati III) as an absolute monarch. Political parties remain banned and the people are only allowed to elect 59 members of the House of Assembly; the King appoints another 10. None of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. The King chooses the Prime Minister and members of the government.

The cable listed what he called some ‘fairly tame’ activities that had taken place in the previous months that traditionalists and monarchists said was disruptive. They included brief work stoppages at the Havelock and Ngwenya mines; some civil servants requested a meeting of all civil servants in December 1972 because they were dissatisfied with wage increases; modernization and proliferation of commerce and industry in Swaziland had led to attempts to organize unions; students had voiced complaints and grievances and there had been growing pressure in the rural areas for different rules for land tenure which, the cable said, implied a reduction in the real power of the local chief.

It added that the tactics of the opposition NNLC party were, ‘Basically negative, involving direct criticism of the predominance of the Dlamini clan in Swaziland. There is also some evidence that very recently NNLC members were initiating and spreading rumors that prominent figures, including the Prime Minister, were directly involved in ritual murders.’

It added, ‘Accusations that members of his family and clan had practiced ritual murder and cannibalism shocked and disgusted him.
 
See also

The Day Democracy Died in Swaziland
Swazi History Repeats Itself
https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/swazi-history-repeats-itself.html 

Secret CIA Report Reveals Swaziland King Sobhuza’s Support For Apartheid South Africa

Tuesday, 21 August 2018

During Apartheid Era Swaziland Lobbied US and UK Not to Support Sanctions on South Africa

During the height of the Apartheid era, Swaziland lobbied the US and UK Governments not to support economic sanctions on South Africa, a confidential communication from 1978 has revealed.

The then Swazi Prime Minister Maphevu Harry Dlamini said the sanctions would be ‘disastrous’ for the Swaziland economy.


At about the same time Swaziland under King Sobhuza II supported the white-ruled Apartheid government in South Africa because he was afraid that change there would encourage people to press for political reform in his own kingdom, a separate secret CIA document from 1978 revealed. 

The information contradicts the present-day belief that King Sobhuza II and his Swazi Governments were stanch supporters of the struggle for freedom in South Africa during the Apartheid era.

Dlamini was said to have ‘pleaded strongly’ with the US and UK not to support sanctions. This was revealed in a confidential electronic telegram sent from the United States State Department on 7 November 1978. It was distributed to the UK, Zambia, Mozambique and France.

The electronic telegram said, ‘During 30-minute meeting in his office November 2, Prime Minister pleaded strongly with UK and US reps to urge our governments to prevent adoption of UN sanctions against South Africa, especially on oil, on ground that sanctions would be not only suicidal for Swaziland but also extremely detrimental to blacks.’

The writer of the cable, who was not named, but was likely to be the US Ambassador to Swaziland said the US and UK representatives at the meeting agreed to seek clarification of positions from their governments ‘soonest’.

The confidential message added, ‘In unprecedented move, Prime Minister Maphevu summoned British High Commissioner and me jointly to his office November 2 for urgent approach on issue of UN sanctions against South Africa. 

‘Prime Minister said that from series of telexes and telecons from Swazi UN representative Malinga, he understood that United Nations was on brink of voting on sanctions issue and that Western powers, possibly reflecting disenchantment with South Africa’s posture on Namibian election question, were leaving impression in New York that they might not repeat not veto a sanctions resolution. 

‘Although worried about effect that any kind of sanctions would have on Swaziland’s economy, Prime Minister was principally concerned about oil sanctions. 

‘Prime Minister said he did not have to remind UK and US reps in Mbabane, who saw situation first-hand, how dependent Swaziland economy is on South African economy. 

‘Oil sanctions would be “disastrous” for Swaziland. 

‘He added that one could be sure that not only Swaziland’s population, but also blacks in South Africa itself, would be the first to feel the pinch if sanctions were imposed; he gave the example of black entrepreneurs in South Africa, who he said would certainly be treated far less favorably by South African authorities when rationing began. 

‘Several times in his forceful half-hour presentation the Prime Minister talked as spokesman for blacks in all of Southern Africa and not merely for Swazis. 

‘He said sanctions would be “indirect killing of black people in Southern Africa”.

‘For Swaziland to vote for sanctions would be “suicidal.”

‘Prime Minister asked rhetorically which black leaders in South Africa itself would support sanctions. He hoped that Western policy-makers were not taking advice from “blacks who left South Africa ten to twenty years ago and who are now living comfortably in Europe and America.”

‘He downplayed any hard-line advice that might be given by front-line leaders, who continue their own economic dealings with South Africa (as Swaziland does) because there is no alternative to such cooperation; he cited Zambian railroad move as one recent example.’

Maphevu Harry Dlamini was Prime Minister of Swaziland from 31 March 1976 until his death on 25 October 1979.

The telegram was classified confidential when it was written in 1978, and has since been declassified. It is now publicly available through the Wikileaks’ Public Library of US Diplomacy

A separate secret CIA document (also since declassified) from 1978 called Africa Review, dated 1 December 1978 said South Africa had ‘equipped the Swazi Army with light infantry weapons’.

The report said the ‘traditionalist’ Swaziland government, ‘believes it is threatened in the same way white South Africans are, namely by a host of outside forces seeking the destruction of a social and political order that has served to protect the interests of the ruling elite.

‘Since independence [10 years earlier in 1968] the Swazi Government has sought to suppress any signs of change that could lead to pressure for reforming the country’s political and social institutions. Consequently, close relations with South Africa are probably viewed as protection against Communist and radical change.’

See also

Secret CIA Report Reveals Swaziland King Sobhuza’s Support For Apartheid South Africa
https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/08/secret-cia-report-reveals-swaziland.html

Monday, 20 August 2018

Secret CIA Report Reveals Swaziland King Sobhuza’s Support For Apartheid South Africa

Swaziland under King Sobhuza II supported the white-ruled Apartheid government in South Africa because he was afraid that change there would encourage people to press for political reform in his own kingdom, a secret CIA document from 1978 reveals.

King Sobhuza ruled Swaziland as an absolute monarch after he dissolved parliament in 1973 and had faced many calls for change. The information in the document contradicts the present-day belief that King Sobhuza and his backers were stanch supporters of the struggle for freedom in South Africa during the Apartheid era.

The United States Central Intelligence Agency in a report called Africa Review and marked ‘Secret’, dated 1 December 1978 said South Africa had ‘equipped the Swazi Army with light infantry weapons’.

The report said the ‘traditionalist’ Swaziland government, ‘believes it is threatened in the same way white South Africans are, namely by a host of outside forces seeking the destruction of a social and political order that has served to protect the interests of the ruling elite.

‘Since independence [10 years earlier in 1968] the Swazi Government has sought to suppress any signs of change that could lead to pressure for reforming the country’s political and social institutions. Consequently, close relations with South Africa are probably viewed as protection against Communist and radical change.’

The secret CIA report that has since been declassified added Swaziland had strong economic ties with South Africa and was ‘motivated to maintain good relations with Pretoria’.


It added, ‘As a result, Swaziland has made little effort to disassociate itself from Pretoria and has indeed strengthened economic ties with South Africa. The government apparently also maintains a covert and close relationship with the South African police that appears to extend beyond cooperation in criminal matters to intelligence matters of mutual concern.

‘In addition, South Africa has equipped the Swazi Army with light infantry weapons.’

The CIA report said that one way Swaziland had shown its support for the racist white-run Apartheid regime in South Africa was to cut its links with FIFA, the international footballing body, in protest at South Africa’s expulsion from the organisation. 

The CIA report said, ‘A Swazi official stated that “we cannot afford to boycott South Africa or participate in any sanctions.” He added, “I don’t see why we should deny a black man in South Africa the freedom of association with other black sportsmen.”.

The report said that it was unlikely that the situation would change after King Sobhuza died as, ‘his successor would be confronted with the same geopolitical realities’.

The CIA report said that Swaziland was ‘beginning to become involved, albeit very reluctantly, in the liberation effort against its white neighbour. There is some evidence that Swaziland is being used increasingly by South African nationalist movements for the infiltration of arms and insurgents into South Africa.

‘Swaziland is also being used more frequently as an escape route for black South African dissidents and refugees. Such activists are carefully monitored, however, and the Swazis are not allowed to become involved.

‘In early 1978 several Pan Africanist Congress leaders were detained and later expelled for their involvement in cross-border operations.’

 See also


During Apartheid Era Swaziland Lobbied US and UK Not to Support Sanctions on South Africa
 
The Day Democracy Died in Swaziland
https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-day-democracy-died-in-swaziland.html