SWAZI ELECTIONS CORRUPTION REPORT

The next time Swaziland government ministers tell us that democracy is alive and well in the kingdom and the present government was chosen as the will of the people, refer them to the report on corruption at the 2008 elections, just published.

The report from Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), details allegations of widespread bribery, ‘treating’, threats of violence and cases of candidates unlawfully holding voter cards.

The 2008 elections were controversial because, despite reservations from many international observers, the ruling regime in Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, claims the elections were free and fair: even though all political parties are banned in Swaziland.

The ECB report highlights treating, bribery, undue influence and unlawful possession of voter cards by candidates as key issues of corruption at the elections.

According to the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom's only independent daily newspaper, ‘treating was characterised as, “entertaining voters for the purpose of influencing their decision.”

‘This described the cases in which candidates gave food, money and drinks to the electorate.

‘Under bribery, candidates are said to have made voters, “offers of money, favours, lucrative promises, gifts, loans.”

‘It is also alleged that some candidates used undue influence on potential voters by, “threatening, using force and violence”.

The EBC now wants an independent body to be established to resolve electoral disputes, irregularities and malpractices.

Since the 2008 election there have been numerous cases of malpractice heard by the Swazi courts, including people posing as polling officers when they were actually not, alleged bribery of voters and polling officers being biased.

The report states that six election cases are pending. ‘Certain people acted as polling officers yet they were not legally entitled to do so; some polling officers were not neutral at the polling stations and were advocating for particular candidates to be voted for; and it was alleged that some voters who did not belong to the affected polling station were registered and illegally allowed to vote,’ the report states.

SWAZI PROTEST OVER BENT ELECTION

Some Swazi residents are threatening to boycott the national election, claiming they are undemocratic and their democratic right to freely choose their preferred Member of Parliament is being trampled upon.

Both Swaziland’s daily newspapers have been covering a dispute at the Ngudzeni constituency, which could be a small example of what is happening more generally in the kingdom.

The residents are angry because their preferred choice of candidate for MP was not allowed to register as a candidate.

The Times of Swaziland on Friday (15 August 2008) reported, ‘The voters feel that their democratic right to freely choose their preferred Member of Parliament is being trampled upon.

‘More than 150 Ngudzeni residents unanimously agreed that it is either Dumsani Ndlangamandla is allowed to join the election race or none amongst them will cast a vote for any other candidate.

‘“I will simply stay at home and not cast my vote because then I would be betraying my conscience knowing that I am voting for the wrong person,” Lindiwe Mamba said.

‘Her words were echoed by Bongi Dlamini who was adamant in stating that going to vote will not be an option for them as long as their candidate is not part of the nominees.

‘“It’s either Ndlangamandla or no vote for us,” Dlamini briefly said.’

‘Leader of the residents Senzo Mamba said: “the democratic right of the people is being blatantly violated and this needs to be corrected.”

‘“In order to avoid any violent situation, the elections team should allow the people to determine their candidate instead of a situation where it would seem candidates are imposed on the electorate,” Sibusiso Shongwe said.

‘Ndlangamandla was denied nomination by election officials after he failed to produce a letter from his employer giving him permission to take part in the elections.’

The Swazi Observer on the same day (15 August 2008) reported, ‘The residents said they wanted Ndlangamandla because they could relate to him as he had been living with them for years.
‘“We are tired of people who come home during elections and after they go to parliament they never think of us,” said a resident.
‘Ndlangamandla was nominated in Ndushulwini under Ngudzeni.’
The angry residents forced the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), the discredited organisation that is running the elections, to consider allowing Ndlangamandla to stand, but the Weekend Observer reported (16 August 2008) that the EBC ruled that the time for nominations were over so Ndlangamandla could not stand.
According to the Observer (15 August 2008), other candidates had been allowed to stand even though they had not completed the same formalities required of Ndlangamandla.
I was interested to see a reader left the following comment on the Times’ website. It demonstrates that not everybody in Swaziland believes that the Swazi elections are valid.
You will also note that the writer calls for King Mswati III ‘to get the hell out of politics’. Such criticism of the Swazi monarchy is not a viewpoint that newspapers in Swaziland are supposed to carry.

‘Protests against the undemocratic elections from different sectors of society point to the fact that elections in Swaziland are done as a routine than a way of exercising state power. People in this area who want to boycott the elections are right but for the wrong reasons. We must expose the elections as undemocratic and entrenching the status quo than to boycott based on logistical and operational issues. We must boycott the elections and demand a free and fair democratic elections held under a constitutional monarch not the cosmetic routine that is meant to keep up politically busy. We must demand a government of the people not a government of the king. Let the king get the hell out of politics and allow us to govern ourselves because clearly he has failed. At least for now we still revere and want him. There will come a time where we will say enough is enough he must go.’

BOYCOTT THE SWAZILAND ELECTION

News that Swaziland’s Prime Minister Themba Dlamini isn’t standing for parliament in the forthcoming election in the kingdom confirms that the poll is undemocratic.

Dlamini isn’t standing for parliament, but that doesn’t mean he is giving up politics, Government Spokesperson Percy Simelane was quoted by the Times of Swaziland on Monday (4 August 2008)

In a democracy the announcement that the sitting prime minister was not running for office would be major front page news. It might even get into the international media. But Dlamini’s decision was hardly mentioned inside Swaziland and as far as I can tell has been completely ignored outside the kingdom.

The reason for this is simple. Dlamini didn’t stand for election to parliament last time. Dlamini was appointed as prime minister by King Mswati III. That means, quite simply, that Dlamini was never elected by anyone.

And, he was chosen by a king who was himself not elected by anyone either.

The king didn’t even decide to choose someone from among the elected members of parliament to lead the government. He chose a complete outsider.

If you need proof of how meaningless the Swazi parliament is, there you have it.

Newspapers in Swaziland have been calling the election that takes place later this month (August 2008) a ‘mockery’. They are right, but they are right for the wrong reasons. They are citing examples of mismanagement and confusion. The nominations that took place this past weekend were called at short notice and there was confusion about who could and who could not be nominated.

There is also a long running argument about whether the members of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) who are tasked with running the election are qualified (in terms of the new Swazi Constitution) for the job.

And, even under the constitution, political parties are banned in Swaziland.

All these things make the election a ‘mockery’, but the biggest ‘mockery’ is the nature of ‘democracy’ in Swaziland.

I tend to follow what I like to call the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) position on this. Regular readers of this blog will remember that after the last election in 2003, the CET, which had been ‘observing’ the elections in Swaziland, reported, ‘we do not regard the credibility of these National elections as an issue: no elections can be credible when they are for a Parliament which does not have power and when political parties are banned’.

In June (2008) the European Union (EU) Ambassador to Swaziland Peter Beck Christiansen said the EU would not be ‘observing’ the forthcoming election. He was reported by the Times of Swaziland saying there are ‘shortcomings in the kingdom’s democracy’.

The Times reported Christiansen saying, ‘It is noted that the Prime Minister is not elected by Parliament.’

He added, ‘The same applies to Cabinet Ministers.’

He also said, ‘It’s clear that the [Swazi] constitution has some shortcomings.’

There has been a heated debate among ‘progressives’ in Swaziland about whether they should take part in the election or boycott it. Those in favour of participation believe that it is possible to reform the system from within (although I have yet to see a coherent explanation of how in practical terms this change will take place).

People on the other side of the argument believe the election is bogus (as the CET does) and that taking part in the election encourages people inside Swaziland and in the international community generally to believe that Swaziland is presently a democratic country and its only fault is that the democracy needs a bit of fine tuning to make it work better.

(If you want to follow some of the debate among the progressives click here to go to the Swaziland Solidarity Network forum.)

It is right to boycott the election. It has no validity and it confuses people. The truth is that Swaziland is not a democracy and is run by an autonomous monarch who is allowed to organise the kingdom in any way he wants. If you doubt this just think again about the way the prime minister is appointed.

But democrats should not ignore the election. We should take every opportunity to point out to Swazis and to the international community exactly why this election is ‘a mockery’. We should argue that for there to be a genuine democracy in Swaziland, the powers of the monarch have to be curtailed and political parties ‘unbanned’.

We should have a free media that allow debate on the real issues in Swaziland to take place and give space for discussion of policies that could divert the kingdom from the road to destruction it is presently following.

Only once these things have happened can we begin to talk about who should be elected to parliament.

See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS 2008
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
IS SWAZILAND’S ELECTION CREDIBLE?
SWAZI ELECTION ‘A MOCKERY’