Search This Blog

Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 11 July 2018

ONLY 36 pc OF SWAZIS APPROVE OF P.M.

Just over one in three people in Swaziland / Eswatini approve of the job performance of Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini or their member of parliament, a new independent report found.

The figure was even lower for the job performance of their mayor or local councillor.

Afrobarometer in research just published also found the majority of those asked thought services were not improving; 63 percent said government’s performance on education was the same or worse/much worse than it was ‘a few years ago’. 

A total of 68 percent said the same about access to health care; 66 percent thought equal opportunities and treatment for women had not improved and 69 percent said the same about their personal safety.

The research was published just as voters in Swaziland which is ruled by King Mswati III, one of the world’s last absolute monarchs, prepare to vote at national elections.

Political parties are banned from taking part in the elections and the King appoints the Prime Minister and government ministers. No members of the Senate are elected by the people and the King also chooses 10 members of the House of Assembly.

Afrobarometer has surveyed the attitudes of Swazi people since 2013. It interviewed 1,200 Swazis in March 2018 for the present report.

It found only 36 percent approved of the PM’s performance; 37 percent that of the MPs; local government councillor (28 percent) and mayor (31 percent).

In a 2015 Afrobarometer asked,‘In this country how free are you to join any political organisation you want?’ only 7 percent responded, ‘completely free.’ Swaziland came last in the survey of 36 African countries. Egypt and Sudan came second bottom with scores of 27 percent.

In addition, only 18 percent of those surveyed said they had complete freedom of speech and 56 percent said they had complete freedom to vote.

In a 2013 survey Afrobarometer reported two thirds of Swazi people wanted the kingdom to become a democracy and they wanted to choose their own leaders ‘through honest and open elections’.

See also

SWAZILAND NOT DEMOCRATIC SAY SWAZIS
INCREASE IN SUPPORT FOR FREE PRESS

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

INDEPENDENCE: WHAT'S TO CELEBRATE?

It was 49 years ago on 6 September 1968 that Swaziland gained independence from Great Britain at a time of great optimism for the kingdom.

But that optimism was misplaced. What exactly does Swaziland have to celebrate today? The kingdom has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world, seven out of ten people are so abjectly poor they earn less than US$2 a day, six out of ten people need food aid from overseas and four in ten are so hungry they face starvation. Add to this the news from Forbes that that King Mswati III has a net wealth at one time estimated at US$ 200 million and you can see my point.

The King rules by decree (despite the introduction in 2006 of a new constitution), political parties are banned, the parliament has no real powers, the Prime Minister is selected by the King and not elected by the people.

Any legitimate protest against these conditions by the people is met by state force. Police routinely teargas protesters or fire water canon or rubber bullets at them.

Back in 1968, people hoped for so much more (no, expected so much more from independence). The New York Times reported (6 September 1968), ‘Swaziland achieves independence today with much brighter immediate prospects than the other two former British High Commission territories in south Africa. It is smaller (area 6,705 sq miles: population 400,000) than Botswana or Lesotho, but commands far greater natural resources and a robust foreign trade and payments surplus.

‘This is not to suggest that the Swazis lack problems. Their position as almost an island within South Africa would by itself insure long-range headaches. They currently enjoy political stability under the shrewd if traditional leadership of King Sobhuza II and the royalist Imbokodvo party of Prime Minister Mahkosini Dlamini.’

Swaziland was seen as a stable, peaceful country. Much of the credit for this was put at the feet of the then king, Sobhuza II.

The New York Times reported. ‘The 69-year-old King has been on the throne since 1921. He personifies his country: one foot in the past and the other in the future.

‘The king of the Swazis, once one of Africa’s great warring tribes, is equally at home in formal Western clothes or Mahia, the colourful national costume. He is reported to have about 170 wives and platoons of children. Statistics are sketchy, but the records do show that the king took his 50th bride in 1933.’

The Financial Times, London, UK, reported, ‘If, then, today [1968] the King reigns supreme in this tiny country ... it is very largely because it was he, and not some populist movement, that provided the impetus, back in 1960, which set his country on the road to independence.

‘This is important, for it meant that the King and his men were able to a large extent to call the tune in their negotiations with the British Government – the one attempt to impose a Whitehall-inspired constitution in 1964 was very short lived. Furthermore, by being identified from the start with the ‘struggle’ for independence in the minds of the people, the Imbokodvo has been able to stay one jump ahead of any local opposition – notably the Pan-Africanist Ngwane National Liberatory Congress – and in the end to annihilate it.’

It was the control exerted over Swaziland by King Sobhuza that for many was the key to the stability in Swaziland.

The Financial Times pointed out that it is arguable that the Whites in Swaziland would not have been willing to abandon their demand for an entrenched representation in parliament without the influence of Sobhuza.

‘There can be little doubt that Swaziland’s Whites draw great comfort from the knowledge that a conservative monarch who makes little secret of his appreciation for the White’s continuing economic contribution to the country is in charge.’

It was generally recognised internationally that ‘democracy’ in Swaziland in 1968 had shortcomings. The Financial Times put it like this, ‘In theory, he [King Sobhuza II] is only a constitutional monarch, and as Head of State he will have to live with a Parliament consisting of a 12 man Senate and a 30-man House of Assembly. But, in practice, it is very difficult to see the legislature going against the king’s wishes; for in practically every sense it is the King’s Parliament. To start with, all 24 elected members in the Assembly belong to the Royalist Imbokodvo National Movement, founded in early 1964, and headed by Prince Makhosini Dlamini, a member of the Royal family and now Swaziland’s first Prime Minister.

‘Secondly, the King has the power to appoint six Senate members with the remainder being elected by the House of Assembly.

‘Thirdly, there is his influence in the Swazi National Council, the body of chiefs and elders through which kings have traditionally governed the Swazi nation. And as long as Swaziland retains its unitary tribal structure, the SNC is likely to remain an important body for it is here that the vast majority of the people will make their grievances immediately felt, which will then be transmitted via the king to parliament, rather than the other way round...’

History tells us that this confidence in Sobhuza was misplaced. In 1973, after the people of Swaziland freely elected members of parliament of whom he disapproved, the King abandoned the parliament, tore up the constitution and ruled by decree. Swaziland is still (technically, at least) ruled by this decree.

The total lack of democracy in Swaziland, the banning of political parties and the stripping of power from Parliament dates from 1973. Most of the kingdom’s present day shortcomings can be directly attributed to the crushing lack of democracy that stifled debate and penalised those who dare to have a view contrary to those of the ruling elite.

The lack of political sophistication in Swaziland was noted by the Financial Times, ‘the very lack of political sophistication in the country – no small reason for the King’s strong hold over its affairs – is likely to bolster this stability in the short term.’

Even in 1968 there were concerns about whether the people of Swaziland were being truly represented in Parliament. Elections in 1967 had seen the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) get 20 percent of the vote, but no seats.

The Financial Times reported with more foresight than it probably realised at the time, ‘Votes came mainly from the tiny, but growing, white-collar urban working class.

‘Moreover, with hindsight it is now apparent that the vote was not so much for the NNLC but against the Establishment, so that even if Dr Zwane [the NNLC leader] disappears from the scene, the forces which had been channelled through his party, will remain.’

Richard Rooney

See also

HISTORY
40/40 CELEBRATION
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/search/label/40%2F40%20celebration

Monday, 19 June 2017

BOOST FOR PRO-DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN



Officials of Swaziland’s best known prodemocracy party PUDEMO have met with the Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa to try to reignite the campaign for democracy in the kingdom.

The Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper, reported on Friday (16 June 2017) the campaign would be coordinated under the hashtag #FreeSwaziland.

The Times which does not support the movement for democracy in Swaziland where King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch reported, ‘In the past, a similar campaign had been characterised with marches that sometimes resulted in violent confrontations with the police.’

International human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch take a different view. In its World Report 2016, it said ‘The Suppression of Terrorism Act, the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act of 1938, and other similarly draconian legislation provided sweeping powers to the security services to halt meetings and protests and to curb criticism of the government, even though such rights are protected under Swaziland’s 2005 constitution. In September 2015, eight human rights defenders challenged the constitutionality of these security laws in the High Court of Swaziland. A final ruling has yet to be handed down.’

The STA was ‘regularly used’ by the police to interfere in trade union activities, Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) said in a submission to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) in 2015.

Amnesty International has  criticised of Swaziland for the ‘continued persecution of peaceful political opponents and critics’ by the King and his authorities. It said the Swazi authorities were using the Acts, ‘to intimidate activists, further entrench political exclusion and to restrict the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.’

In Swaziland political parties are not allowed to contest elections. The people are only allowed to select 55 of the 65 members of the House of Assembly, with the King appointing the others. No members of the 30-strong Swaziland Senate are elected by the people.

PUDEMO – the People’s United Democratic Movement – along with all other prodemocracy groups is banned in Swaziland under the Suppression of Terrorism Act

Mlungisi Makhanya, the Secretary General of PUDEMO, confirmed to the newspaper that a meeting had taken place.

See also

SWAZI TRIALS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED: AMNESTY

Monday, 15 May 2017

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
ABSOLUTE KING TAKES CHAIR OF SADC
‘DICTATOR KING NOT FIT TO CHAIR SADC’
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/08/absolute-king-takes-chair-of-sadc.html

Friday, 10 February 2017

FALSE CLAIM OVER SWAZI DEMOCRACY

The Swazi Observer newspaper has misled its readers by reporting that Swaziland has the same political structure as England.

The Observer, which is in effect owned by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, did this in an attempt to legitimise the undemocratic system in Swaziland.

Political parties are not allowed to contest elections and groups that advocate for democracy in the kingdom are banned under The Suppression of ‘Terrorism Act.
 
The Swazi people are only allowed to select 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 Swaziland Senate are elected by the people; the King appoints 20 members and the other 10 are appointed by the House of Assembly. Swaziland is divided into 55 ‘tinkhundla’ or administrative districts. One member of parliament represents each district.

The Swazi Observer reported on Tuesday (7 February 2017) that Mbonisi Bhembe, the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) Communications Officer, had told a group of invited guests that Swazi people living outside the kingdom had failed ‘to explain the tinkhundla system of governance properly’.

Bhembe reportedly said, ‘Swaziland is not the only country that is using the tinkhundla system of governance.’ He went on list a number of countries, he said, had tinkhundla. He said England had 650 tinkhundla.

‘All this proves that the system works very well because if it did. not, then all these countries would have not adopted it,’ the Observer reported Bhembe saying. 

But it is simply not true. The 650 figure for England stated by Bhembe presumably refers to the number of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom, which is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have nothing in common with Swaziland’s undemocratic tinkhundla. 

Political parties contest the UK constituencies and the political party that gains most seats in parliament forms the government with the party leader as prime minister. In Swaziland, the King choses the prime minister, forms the government and choses senior civil servants and judges.

This is not the first time the Observer, described by the Media Institute of Southern Africa in a report on press freedom in Swaziland, as a ‘pure propaganda machine for the royal family’ has misled readers about international support for its undemocratic tinkhundla political system.

In August 2015, The Observer on Sunday, reported that neighbouring South Africa was considering adopting the kingdom’s political system. The Observer reported that civil rights groups in South Africa were advocating for a change in the republic’s electoral system, ‘to incorporate a constituency-based method’. 

The Observer added, ‘This is the same system of government practised in Swaziland and described in the kingdom’s constitution.’

But it was not true. Nobody in South Africa was calling for political parties to be banned from contesting elections.

Unlike in Swaziland, where people who wish to discuss the kingdom’s electoral system are harassed and arrested, in South Africa political debate is allowed.

See also

ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT FOR KING
FALSE CLAIM OF OBAMA SUPPORT FOR KING
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/08/false-claim-of-obama-support-for-king.html

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

LESS TALK, MORE ACTION FOR DEMOCRACY

Acting is best way to show solidarity with suffering people

 Kenworthy News Media
24 January 2017
Introduce sanctions and boycotts against the repressive Swazi regime and help the democratic movement with everything from legal assistance to torture counselling, organizational skills and information dissemination, says a young Swazi activist, writes Kenworthy News Media.

Stories of incredible hardship, suffering and lack of democratic rights often overflow our social media feeds and are ever-present in our newspapers and on radio and TV.

But many of the articles, campaigns and reports we read, hear and see fail to pinpoint the reasons for these hardships. And even fewer offer credible solutions to how we can act to bring about positive and democratic change in the societies that they describe.

Young Swazi activist Bheki Dlamini wants to break this mould and present governments, organisations and individuals around the world with a set of concrete options for helping the democratic movement and the people of his native Swaziland attain democracy and socio-economic justice.

Torture, prison and exile
Bheki Dlamini is 33 years old. He was born in the tiny absolute monarchy of Swaziland where the King rules like a 17th century monarch.


A country that ranks amongst the most unequal in the world, where anyone can be charged with terrorism for wearing a political t-shirt or chanting a political slogan. And a country that is amongst the most unequal in the world, where two thirds of the population live in chronical poverty and over 20 percent have HIV/Aids.

Dlamini has himself suffered the hardships that are portrayed in many articles about the so-called developing countries. But as with many others like him who are dismayed with the lack of freedom and socio-economic justice in Swaziland and abroad, he has chosen to keep fighting back.

He grew up the rural areas, where the vast majority survives at the mercy of the King’s chiefs, many of food aid from the UN. He was tortured and spent nearly four years in prison awaiting trial for a crime he didn’t commit, because he is a member of banned political party PUDEMO. And he has had to flee his native country, fearing for his life, after he held a speech demanding democracy and social change in a Swaziland.

Expensive persecution
From his life in exile, on a scholarship programme at the University in Bergen, where he is completing a Master’s degree in Public Administration, Bheki Dlamini is keen to help keep the dream of a free and democratic Swaziland alive that is the main purpose of PUDEMO, the political party and movement he belongs to. Regardless of the increasing pressure that the state in putting on the movement.


– Since the famous Treason Trial of PUDEMO in 1990, our leaders and members have been subjected to all forms of persecution from the state, ranging from arrests, detentions, beatings and torture. The cost of legal fees is escalating and crippling the movement, which is often unable to cover all its arrested members, says Bheki Dlamini.

This means that many activists and potential activists become afraid to challenge the regime, not least because of the debilitating and increasing cost of legal fees, bail money, counselling for torture victims and lack of support for the families of imprisoned activists.

– The world can contribute towards the creation of a sustainable legal assistance structure for activists, ensure bail money for torture victims is available, and support the families of members arrested or killed by the regime. This would mean that activists had less to lose in fighting for democracy, says Bheki Dlamini.

The importance of organisation and education
Another problem, according to Dlamini, is that of the development of intellectual and organisational skills of members of the democratic movement, in a country where the King controls the education system and news outlets, and is reducing the number of scholarships given and dismissing activists from university.


– We need these skills now, in the struggle for democracy, and in a future democratic Swaziland. Students are forced out of high school or tertiary institutions because of their activism, he says.

He suggests that these students can receive scholarships to study abroad, like he is. He also suggests that exchange programmes can be put in place with organisations abroad that help activists learn basic organisational skills in regard to fundraising, campaigning, organisational strengthening and research on Swaziland, of which there is preciously little available.

Bypassing censorship
But to be able to develop intellectual and organisational capacity, as well as credible research, Swazis and people abroad need to get the full picture of what is happening in Swaziland. And they aren’t getting it at the moment, Swazis because of a censored and self-censoring press. People abroad because Swaziland is not at all extensively covered in the (mainstream) press.


One way of doing this is through culture and art. Both areas that have been appropriated as used politically by the King and his regime, to equate nationalism and “Swaziness” with the monarchy and keep the population in line.

– We need to strengthen our cultural activism, with theatre, poetry and music, and urge our international partners to host cultural events outside Swaziland. And we need to use online newspapers and radio broadcasts set up abroad, that can be disseminated unhindered, says Dlamini.

Another useful way of informing people abroad about the plight of people in Swaziland is by organising lectures, seminars or protests in front of Swazi embassies or consulates.

Or by organising film screenings abroad with films such as the one about Bheki or others that scratch beneath the surface of political Swaziland. The success of the Danish-produced documentary about Bheki, that has been shown on national television in Scandinavia and won and been nominated for several international awards, proves the effect of this.

– If Swazi activists could be provided with and trained in using video cameras or smartphones, as well as in making such films, the visual nature of a documentary is an effective way of marketing our struggle both at home and internationally. The media is deeply censored by the regime, so such initiatives provide an alternative platform to voice people’s suffering, says Bheki Dlamini.

Isolate the regime
Finally, Bheki Dlamini sees no way around actual boycotts and travel bans against the regime by governments, organisations and individuals around the world. This was after all what helped neighbouring South Africa’s democratic movement rid itself of the country’s apartheid regime.


– Travel bans on the King and his cohorts would have a huge impact on the regime, helping to undermine its legitimacy both inside and outside Swaziland, says Dlamini.

He also suggests that student councils, trade unions, churches or political parties could organise business, cultural or sports boycotts or campaigns. Or that tourists boycotted cultural events that are used to prop up the monarchy.

According to Dlamini, these include so-called cultural events such as the annual Umlanga (“Reed”) Dance and the Incwala ceremony.

Or companies where the King has invested what is nominally public money, but which is in effect used for his personal benefit, such as the Royal Swazi Sugar Corporation, the Royal Swazi Sun Group, the largest hotel group in Swaziland, a variety of shopping malls, Swazi SAB breweries, Parmalat Milk and Cheese Processors and telecommunications company Swazi MTN.

– So as you can see, there is plenty you can do, as a government, organisation or individual that will make a significant difference. Both for members of the movement fighting at great personal risk for democracy and socio-economic justice, but also for the many poor Swazis who dare not risk involving themselves in the struggle for fear of losing what little they have, Bheki Dlamini concludes.
Bheki Dlamini is the President of the Swaziland Youth Congress, the youth wing of the banned People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). 

“Swaziland – Africa’s last monarchy”, a documentary film about Bheki Dlamini by award-winning Danish investigative journalist Tom Heinemann, was shown on Danish, Swedish and Norwegian national television in 2016. It was nominated for several awards at international film festivals, and won the main prize and the prize for best short documentary at the ‘A Film for Peace’-festival in Italy.

Other documentaries about Swaziland, recommended by Bheki Dlamini, include “Without the King,” “The King and the people,” and “Special assignment: Swaziland and the Dlamini Dynasty.”