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

ELECTION BOARD TARGETS FEWER VOTERS

Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) is targeting to register fewer voters for the forthcoming national election than registered at the last poll in 2013.

EBC Chairman Chief Gija Dlamini said it was targeting 500,000 voters. The Swazi Observer reported on Friday (1 June 2018) he said, ‘It could be a miracle to have all eligible Emaswati [Swazi people] turning out for registering but we are expecting the number to reach 80 per cent.’ If this figure is met, 400,000 people will register. He said 278,888 people had already registered.

The 400,000 target is fewer than the 414,704 people who registered to vote in 2013.

The Observer reported Dlamini saying the 500,000 figure was based on the population census undertaken in 2017. However, this figure contradicts an announcement made by the Swazi Government in November 2017, that the total population was 1,093,238 people. It did not say how many people were aged 18 or over (the voting age), but said 35.6 per cent of the population were of ‘working age’. That would amount to 389,192 people.

The accuracy of the total population count in Swaziland is in doubt. For years, outside organisations have been estimating the size of the population in Swaziland and recording it as much higher than 1.1 million. The CIA Factbook gave the figure in July 2017 as an estimated 1,467,152 (373,914 higher than the government figure). 

The CIA figures show the number of people aged 25 and over as 628,935. It also shows 324,495 people are aged between 15 and 24. It is not certain how many from this group are aged 18 or over but when added to those aged 25 and over the number of people eligible to vote in 2018 would certainly be between 700,000 and 800,000.

The Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, did not report that at the last election in 2013, Dlamini said the EBC was targeting 600,00 people to register.

He told this to the Voice of America radio on 26 May 2013. When it became clear that the EBC would not make this target, he denied it had ever been set.

In 2013, 414,704 people registered to vote. At the final (secondary) election, 251,278 actually voted. That was only 41.8 percent of the 600,000 supposedly entitled to vote. 

It matters that there is an accurate figure for the number of people eligible to vote. Elections in Swaziland are recognised outside the kingdom to be undemocratic. Political parties cannot take part and people vote under a system of ‘Monarchical Democracy’ that underpins the King’s place as an absolute monarch. The King chooses the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as well as top judges. The King and his supporters say that the people of Swaziland like it that way and there is no need for change.

But that has never been tested. Media are censored and freedom of assembly is limited, so there has never been an a opportunity to debate whether people are truly happy with the political system. The turnout at elections is used by the King’s supporters as a way of measuring this. That is why it is in the interest of the King to spread the message that they are well supported.

Richard Rooney

See also

‘RITUAL KILLINGS LINKED TO ELECTION’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/05/ritual-killings-linked-to-election.html

ELECTION VOTES SOLD FOR CHICKEN PIECES

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/05/election-votes-sold-for-chicken-pieces.html

POLICE PROBE ELECTION “CORRUPTION’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/police-probe-election-corruption.html

COURT BID TO ALLOW PARTIES IN ELECTION

The Swaziland Democratic Party  (SWADEPA) is going to the High Court to try to force absolute monarch King Mswati III to allow political parties to contest the forthcoming election.

Parties have been banned from running since a royal decree in 1973 established the absolute monarchy.

SWADEPA wants its party members to openly contest the election due later this year. Under the present system of ‘Monarchical Democracy’ people are only allowed to stand as individuals. At the last election in 2013 Jan Sithole the SWADEPA President was elected in this way to the House of Assembly in Manzini North.

The application is expected to be heard on 20 July 2018.

Elections are held every five years in Swaziland but international observers do not consider them to be ‘free and fair’ because political parties cannot take part. At past elections people only got to select 55 of 65 members of the House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. At the forthcoming election there will be an additional four seats for people to vote for. It has not been announced how many members the King will choose but the Swaziland Constitution allows him to pick up to ten.

As in previous years, none of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate will be elected by the people; the King will choose 20 and the other 10 will be chosen by members of the House of Assembly. The King picks the Prime Minister and Government.

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.

It also called on the Swaziland Constitution to be ‘revisited’ and recommended that a law be passed to allow for political parties to take part in elections, ‘so as to give full effect to the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the Constitution, and in accordance with Swaziland’s commitment to its regional and international commitments’.

The European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM) made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy undermined democracy. In its report it stated, ‘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 King will refer back the provisions he is not in agreement with, which makes the parliament and its elected chamber, the House of Assembly, ineffective, unable to achieve the objective a parliament is created for: to be the legislative branch of the state and maintain the government under scrutiny.’

The EEM went on to say the ‘main principles for a democratic state are not in place’ in Swaziland.

See also

U.S. AMBASSADOR ENCOURAGES PARTIES

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/us-ambassador-encourages-parties.html

 PARTIES STILL BANNED FROM ELECTION

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/parties-still-banned-from-election.html

ONE IN THREE WANT POLITICAL PARTIES

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/10/one-in-three-want-political-parties.html

SWAZIS WANT DEMOCRACY - SURVEY

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/swazis-want-democracy-survey.html

EU TELLS KING: ‘FREE PARTIES’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/03/eu-tells-king-free-parties.html
 

UK CALLS FOR PARTIES TO BE UN-BANNED

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/10/uk-calls-for-parties-to-be-un-banned.html

CONFUSION OVER SWAZI VOTER NUMBERS

Commentary

As registration for the forthcoming election in Swaziland entered its second week, more than 100,000 had reportedly signed up.

Martin Dlamini, the Managing Editor of the Times of Swaziland, and one of the chief cheerleaders for King Mswati III, the kingdom’s absolute monarch, called the turnout ‘impressive’. In his column in the newspaper on Friday (25 May 2018) he said it showed there were ‘potential voters eager to elect new Members of Parliament’.

But he (and we) have no way of knowing if these figures are impressive or not. That is because we do not know how many people in the undemocratic kingdom are entitled to vote.

At the start of registration for the last election in 2013 the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) announced 600,000 people were eligible to vote (but observers questioned at the time this was an under-estimate of the true figure.) At the election in 2008, the EBC gave the figure as 400,000.

This time around no figure has been given. It is not even clear what Swaziland’s total population is. In November 2017, the Swaziland Government announced it was 1,093,238 people, according to the 2017 census. Of these, 562,127 were females and 531,111, males. It did not give a clear breakdown according to age, but said 35.6 per cent of the population were of ‘working age’. That would amount to 389,192 people, a far cry from the 600,000 eligible to vote last time.

The accuracy of the total population count is in doubt. For years, outside organisations had been estimating the size of the population in Swaziland and recording it as much higher than 1.1 million. The CIA Factbook gave the figure in July 2017 as an estimated 1,467,152 (373,914 higher than the government figure). 

The CIA figures breakdown the ages. Unfortunately, it does not state how many are aged 18 and over (the eligible voting age), but it shows the number of people aged 25 and over as 628,935. It also shows 324,495 people aged between 15 and 24. We cannot be certain how many from this group are aged 18 or over, but an educated guess would be that when added to those aged 25 and over the number of  people eligible to vote is comfortably between 700,000 and 800,000.

Which of the two estimates of the population is more accurate? We cannot say for certain, but it is on public record that there were many problems collecting information for the 2017 census. In April 2018, long after the census was completed and results announced, the Swazi Observer reported that enumerators (the people who did the counting) were still owed E1.3 million (US$104,000) in payments. That suggests the census was not run very efficiently.

It matters that we have an accurate figure for the number of people eligible to vote. Elections in Swaziland are recognised outside the kingdom to be undemocratic. Political parties cannot take part and people vote under a system of ‘Monarchical Democracy’ that underpins the King’s place as an absolute monarch. The King and his supporters say that the people of Swaziland like it that way and there is no need for change.

But that has never been tested. Media are censored and freedom of assembly is limited, so there has never been an a opportunity to debate whether people are truly happy with the political system. The turnout at elections is used by the King’s supporters as a way of measuring this. That is why it is in the interest of the King to spread the message that they are well supported. 

Martin Dlamini, who doubles up as a newspaper editor and an official paid praise singer for King Mswati, says the 100,000 who have signed up to vote so far is ‘impressive’. But, really it is not if there are more than 700,000 people able to vote.

At the last election in 2013 the EBC said there were 600,000 people eligible to vote. Assuming (although it was disputed as being too low) this was an accurate figure, in 2013 414,704 people registered to vote. At the final (secondary) election, 251,278 actually voted. That was only 41.8 percent of those supposedly entitled to vote and hardly a ringing endorsement for the validity of the election.

Richard Rooney

See also

VOTERS SNUB SWAZI ELECTION

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/voters-snub-swazi-election.html

 

VOTING CHAOS AS NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/voting-chaos-as-numbers-dont-add-up.html

ABSOLUTE KING DEMONSTRATES HIS POWER

King Mswati III, the absolute monarch in Swaziland, has signed what amounts to a decree to formalise his unilateral decision to change the kingdom’s name to Eswatini.

It demonstrates how much the kingdom is under his control and signals a reminder that elections due to be held later this year have no validity.

A Legal Notice No 80 of 2018 was released on Thursday (17 May 2018) confirming the name-change came into force on 19 April 2017. It was then at an event to jointly mark his 50^th birthday and the 50^th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Great Britain, King Mswati announced his proclamation. 

The Legal Notice states that, ‘reference in any written law or international agreement or legal document to Swaziland shall be read and construed as reference to Eswatini’.

The King’s announcement in April was received with mixed emotions. The heavily-censored news media in Swaziland welcomed the move joyously. Meanwhile, critics argued that the King should not make the change without first consulting the people and parliament. 

The King’s decree is a reminder that Swaziland is not a democracy. On Sunday (13 May 2018) voter registration began ahead of national elections later this year. Political parties are banned from taking part and the King picks the Prime Minister and Government. At past elections people only got to select 55 of 65 members of the House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. At this election there will be an additional four seats for people to vote for. It has not been announced how many members the King will choose but the Swaziland Constitution allows him to pick up to ten.

As in previous years, none of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate will be elected by the people; the King will choose 20 and the other 10 will be chosen by members of the House of Assembly.

The European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM), one of a number of international groups that monitored the conduct of Swaziland’s previous election in 2013, made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy undermined democracy.

In its report it stated, ‘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 King will refer back the provisions he is not in agreement with, which makes the parliament and its elected chamber, the House of Assembly, ineffective, unable to achieve the objective a parliament is created for: to be the legislative branch of the state and maintain the government under scrutiny.’

The EEM went on to say the ‘main principles for a democratic state are not in place’ in Swaziland.

It stated, ‘Elections are a mechanism for the popular control of government and ensure the government accountability to the people. The King appoints the Cabinet. A vote of no confidence in the prime minister and government from more than two-thirds of the members of the House, in October [2012], was easily reversed although the Constitution provides that in such cases the prime minister shall be removed from office. 

‘In this context, an analysis of the legal framework for elections seems quite a redundant exercise, as the main principles for a democratic state are not in place. Although the electoral legal framework contains the technical aspects required for the proper administration of elections, it does not conform to international principles for the conduct of democratic elections, as it does not respect one of the fundamental rights for participation –the freedom of association.’

The EEM was not alone in recognising Swaziland as undemocratic. 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.’

It also recommended that a law be passed to allow for political parties to take part in elections, ‘so as to give full effect to the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the Constitution, and in accordance with Swaziland’s commitment to its regional and international commitments’.

In 2015, following a visit to Swaziland, a Commonwealth mission renewed its call for the constitution to be reviewed so the kingdom could move toward democracy.

The constitutional review has not taken place.

Richard Rooney

Legal Notice No 80 of 2018

See also

NO NAME-CHANGE YET IN SWAZILAND

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/no-name-change-yet-in-swaziland.html

GOVERNMENT NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE REVERSED

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/govt-no-confidence-vote-reversed.html

REGISTRATION OPENS FOR SWAZI ELECTION

Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) says it is fully prepared for the forthcoming national election. Registration is open and runs to 17 June 2018. 

EBC Chair Chief Gija Dlamini has been talking up the election and says he expects people to ‘vote in their numbers’. A date for the election has yet to be announced.

He should hope that there is not a re-run of the chaotic registration process at the last election in 2013. Across the kingdom people turned up to register at 400 centres only to be turned away. Excuses given to them ranged from computer equipment not working to polling clerks not properly trained to perform their duties.  

The campaign to sign up voters was sluggish and the EBC struggled to generate interest so registration was extended by a week.

Eventually, the EBC announced 411,084 people had registered to vote out of the 600,000 people in the kingdom it said were eligible to vote. At the previous election in 2008, the EBC signed up 88 percent of the eligible 400,000 population. If it signed up a similar proportion in 2013, there should have been 528,000 people on the electoral roll.

A campaign to boycott the election may have affected registration numbers. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the parliament that is selected has no real power and acts as a rubber stamp for King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

In the past people only got to select 55 of 65 members of the House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. This time there will be an additional four seats for people to vote for. It has not been announced how many members the King will choose but the Swaziland Constitution allows him to pick up to ten.

As in previous years, no members of the Swazi Senate will be elected by the people; the King will choose 20 and the other 10 will be chosen by members of the House of Assembly.

There was reported corruption during registration in 2013. The EBC said some people were offered bribes of E100 (US$10 at the then exchange rate) or E200 to register twice.

The EBC said it did not have enough money to run the election successfully as the Swazi Government had cut its allocation from E200 million to E100 million. It is claimed that it could not afford enough staff to monitor the registration of voters across the whole kingdom. 

The ability of members of the EBC to do their job was questioned. King Mswati appointed the EBC in 2008 and at the time many civil society organisations and pro-democracy campaigners criticised the choices because members were inexperienced. The Swazi Constitution demands that the EBC chair should be a qualified judge, but King Mswati appointed one of his half-brothers, Chief Gija Dlamini, who was variously described at the time as an electrician or electrical engineer, to the post, which he still holds today.

The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) shortly after the 2008 election reported, ‘Almost all the stakeholders regarded the members of the EBC as royal appointees.

‘Stakeholders did not regard the EBC as independent and believed that the EBC operated under the instruction of the King. Stakeholders also expressed the view that the EBC was not representative of society as a whole, but was drawn exclusively from government officials or members of the aristocracy.

‘Most believed that the Commissioners do not meet the qualifications laid down in the constitution in Article 90(6): “The chairperson, deputy chairperson and the other members of the Commission shall possess the qualifications of a Judge of the superior courts or be persons of high moral character, proven integrity, relevant experience and demonstrable competence in the conduct of public affairs”’.

See also

VOTERS MISLED ON SWAZILAND ELECTION

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/voters-misled-on-swaziland-election.html

 

BILL TO GET WOMEN INTO PARLIAMENT

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/bill-to-get-women-in-parliament.html

 

EARLY ELECTION CAMPAIGNING ILLEGAL

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/early-election-campaigning-illegal.html

MEDIA ELECTION REPORTING MONITORED

A watchdog is monitoring media coverage of the upcoming election in Swaziland to promote ‘equitable and ethical journalism’.

 

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) intends to publish quarterly reports for editors and journalists throughout 2018. The national election is due this year at a date yet to be announced by King Mswati III, the absolute monarch in Swaziland.

The elections are undemocratic, political parties are not allowed to take part and the King chooses the Prime Minister and government minsters. 

MISA has already shared guidelines that it said, ‘address the concerns raised by the [past] election observers about the failures of the media to ensure free, fair and transparent elections’.

It is not clear how MISA expects the media to ‘ensure free, fair and transparent elections’. It is true that in a democracy it is generally recognised that at election time the news media play an important role in informing the public about the intended policies of the political parties. They offer space for the policies to be discussed and thereby allow the electorate to make rational decisions on who to vote for. 

A range of events are organised by the media and / or the political parties to facilitate this. Typically, political parties hold media conferences to announce and discuss major policies they would pursue if elected. A number of other events, including rallies, speeches, visits to shopping malls, workplaces and ad hoc ‘photo opportunities’ take place. Newspapers and broadcasting organisation interrogate political party leaders and in some countries debates among party leaders are broadcast. 

These activities are typical in democracies at election time. But, Swaziland is not a democracy and none of the above applies to the kingdom.

Very little of what would be recognised in a democracy as ‘election campaigning’ takes place in Swaziland. Political parties are banned and in the tinkhundla / monarchical democracy that exists in Swaziland candidates are expected, if elected, to represent only the interest of their local constituents. The consequence of this is that there is no debate about which social, political or economic policies a new government should pursue. The people in Swaziland are not appointing a government: that is the prerogative of King Mswati.

After the last election in 2013, Swazi Media Commentary issued its own report on media coverage. It found that generally, political discussion in Swaziland was severely restricted (it still is) and in the months running up to the election police and state security forces broke up a number of meetings designed to discuss the lack of democracy in the kingdom and to garner support for a boycott of the election. 

Consequently, the media in Swaziland only reported the process of the election. In the 2013 election, typically, this meant they covered the registration of voters, the nomination process, and the numbers of people turning out at the primary and secondary elections. 

Campaigning by candidates is outlawed until the results of the primary elections are announced. Although there was evidence that this law was not consistently enforced it meant that election campaigning ‘proper’ only took place between 24 August and 19 September 2013. 

Broadcast media severely restricted coverage of the election and a directive from the state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) restricted access to the airwaves by candidates who had to be approved by the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) before they were allowed on air. 

There are only two daily newspaper groups in Swaziland and they gave extensive coverage to the election in terms of space, but it was limited in scope. By far the most important aspect of the election for the newspapers was to demonstrate to readers the election’s legitimacy. After previous elections, official election observers reported on deficiencies in the Swazi political system. Prominent on the list of concerns were the banning of political parties, the lack of power the parliament has and the autocracy of the Swazi monarchy. 

The newspaper and broadcasting houses in Swaziland support the status-quo and it was an imperative for them to continually show support for the political system of tinkhundla / monarchical democracy.

There was no subtlety in this. To the newspapers it was the duty of the people to support the election process because it was the King’s will. On the eve of the secondary election, an editorial in the King’s own newspaper the Swazi Observer (19 September 2013) put it this way: 

‘It is the measure of the faith of the Swazi people on their system, and on their right to choose their candidate and usher them straight to parliament. This remains the eighth wonder of the world!

‘…. As His Majesty has said countless times, we need to vote for the right people tomorrow. The right people, he has advised, are the selfless individuals who can transform the fortunes of this country by bringing change.’

Earlier in the election process the Times of Swaziland reported (13 June 2013) Chief Maloyi of Ensingweni told his subjects it was compulsory for them to vote in the elections. 

‘He said participating in the upcoming national elections was compulsory for them because it was the King’s order that the country should go to elections this year.

‘He said he had heard that some people thought that registering and participating in the elections was by choice.

‘“I have been told that some of you thought that participating in the upcoming national elections is for those who like it. That is not true; it is for every Swazi citizen. The only people who have a choice of participating are foreigners, not you,” he said.’ 

Newspapers confused readers about the nature of the elections: constantly claiming that they were to elect a ‘government’, when they were not. The media extolled the virtue of tinkhundla / monarchical democracy emphasising that this ‘unique democracy’ placed the individual non-party candidate at the centre of the political process,  but at the same time asserted that in some never-defined way that these individuals would also work collectively once elected to parliament and form a government. In fact, King Mswati appoints government ministers and he is not obliged to choose from among the elected members of parliament when doing so.

The media did at times criticise the efficiency of the election process. Mostly, this was the shortcomings of the EBC which ran the election. 

The criticisms were always framed in terms of the EBC commissioners letting down the King by their inefficiencies. No mention was made of the fact that the King appointed the EBC and Chief Gija Dlamini, one his half-brothers, chairs the commission, even though, in terms of the requirements of the Swaziland Constitution, he does not have the credentials to do so. 

But, by the day of the secondary election both newspaper groups uncritically reported the EBC’s assertion that all would be well on the day of the secondary elections. 

Newspaper coverage of the campaign itself was sparse. Almost certainly a lack of resources prevented journalists from travelling to all 55 constituencies across the kingdom. However, in the coverage they did, they showed bias towards favoured candidates. This meant that they would extol virtues of their favourites, but make no mention of the other candidates standing against them. 

A typical case was Lutfo Dlamini, the outgoing Minister of Labour and Social Security, who had also held other posts in government, and was known to be a close personal friend of the Queen Mother Ntombi. He received fawning coverage in the newspapers and many constituents were quoted in his support. However, in Swaziland, the support of the newspapers is not enough: Dlamini lost at the secondary election.

 

Observers, even from within the local media industry, have for many years reported that journalists in Swaziland have low capacity and this was notable during the election coverage. Even outside of the election period, media in Swaziland are partisan, inaccurate and generally unprofessional and they are turning into an irrelevant vehicle for public discussion. Journalists lack credibility. Content in the Swazi newspaper is compromised by a lack of professionalism in writing and editing. Interesting news stories are watered down by the incomprehensible way they are written, leaving the reader confused and bewildered.  

Comment articles expose readers to un-researched opinion pieces that have compromised journalistic standards and some journalists willingly work as propagandists, especially at the SBIS radio. 

All the above was in evidence in the election coverage. Journalists sensationalised news and often reported as facts, pure conjecture. The day after the election, the Weekend Observer (20 September 2013), for example, reported, ‘about 400,000 voters braved the scorching sun and went straight to the voting centres to cast their ballots as early as possible’. 

This was clearly untrue: the total number of people registered to vote in Swaziland at the election was 411,084. If 400,000 had voted, the turnout would have been about 97 percent, an extraordinary figure for an election and even more so when it is known that at the previous election in 2008, the turnout was only 54 percent. 

In fact, the real story about the election turnout was that the EBC did not release the figure. The newspapers made the same mistake after the primary election, reporting it as a ‘success’, with ‘overwhelming’ turnouts. (Swazi Observer, 26 August 2013; Times of Swaziland, 29 August 2013). 

But, no complete statistics for voter turnout at the primaries was available to the media when these stories were written (and are still not publicly available), so the reporting had to be based on a mixture of speculation and wishful-thinking.

After the secondary election, newspapers were unanimous that the people had voted ‘for change’. This was based on information that six of eight government ministers standing in the election were defeated and of the 55 members of the House standing for re-election, 43 lost.

Newspapers reported the election result as if it were a vote of no-confidence against the out-going government. (Swazi Observer, 23 September 2013; Times of Swaziland, 23 September 2013).  But, they provided no evidence for this. The media in Swaziland want it both ways. On the one hand they say that under Swaziland’s tinkhundla / monarchical democracy system of government the people elect MPs as individuals who support their constituencies and on the other they say the people have elected a group of MPs who they believe collectively will bring them change. 

In fact, we cannot know what the people want, because there is nowhere in Swaziland for them to freely debate the strengths and weaknesses of the present system of governance and discuss possible alternatives. Certainly, the media do not provide that space. 

No media outlet in the kingdom suggested that if people had voted for change it might be a change in the political system and a move to democracy that they seek. The media would better serve the people of Swaziland if they led this debate. 

Richard Rooney

    

The full report on the 2013 election coverage is available here

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/election-coverage-found-wanting.html

See also

Swaziland Media Need Code of Conduct for Covering Elections

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127917864/Swaziland-Needs-Election-Code-of-Conduct-for-Journalists