Search This Blog

Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

‘OBSERVER’ NAMES ANOTHER RAPE VICTIM

The Swazi Observer newspaper has once again named a rape victim in violation of her human rights and journalism ethical codes.

It also disclosed her HIV-positive status.

The Sunday Observer (22 October 2017) reported on a woman it called ‘mentally unstable’. It named her and published two photographs of her as well as a picture of where she lived and of her aunt. It also published a photograph of her youngest daughter. This had her face blanked out but she would be easily recognisable to people in her community.

The newspaper said the woman had been repeatedly raped by men in her community and was now HIV-positive.

By publishing the name of the women, the Observer broke Article 15 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of ethics on Survivors of Sexual Assault which states, ‘Journalists shall avoid identifying survivors of sexual assault or any information that may lead to the identification of the survivor.’

Journalists across the world generally agree that it violates the rights of rape victims to publish their names without their consent.

This is not the first time the Swazi Observer has named alleged rape victims. In February 2015, it published the names of eight alleged rape victims without their consent.

The Observer published the names as part of a report on the start of a trial of an alleged serial rapist. In its report the Observer listed the women’s names and details of their attacks in what it called ‘a sneak preview’ of the case. It gave their names and details of how each attack took place. The newspaper named one woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not use a condom.

When the publication of the report caused an outcry the Observer gave a half-hearted apology, saying it had made a ‘boo-boo’. 

In its apology, the Observer said, ‘Indeed, the only decent thing we could do after mixing up the rules is to draw our own sword and hang ourselves.’

The editor nor any other journalist involved in the story was disciplined and the women involved received no compensation. Now, the offence has been repeated it remains to be seen what action will be taken.

The Swazi Observer newspapers are in effect owned by King Mswati III who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Its journalistic credentials have been called into question many times. In a review of press freedom in Swaziland, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) called the Observer, a ‘pure propaganda machine for the royal family’.

The Observer regularly breaks Article 1 of the SNAJ code Article 1which deals with people’s right to information. The article says, ‘The duty of every journalist is to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend the truth. A journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.’

The newspaper is on public record to say that its ‘collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.’ 

It also publishes false reports about Asians in Swaziland that are capable of string up racial hatred. In October 2016, it claimed that 600,000 people in Swaziland are of Asian origin (14 October 2016). A website called countrymeters that constantly updates statistics recorded Swaziland’s total population at that time as 1,312,881. 

That would mean that about 45 percent of the entire Swazi population were of Asian origin. In fact, every reputable source shows that about 97 percent of Swazi people are African. The sources include the CIA factbook and indexmundi.

The Observer reported on 14 October 2016 that a parliamentary committee set up to investigate Asians in the kingdom was told Asian people had occupied, ‘every available space in the urban areas’. The newspaper did not name the source of this statement. 


The Observer reported as if fact that 90 percent of shops in the kingdom are owned by Asian people (14 October 2016). It said, in Manzini, the main commercial city in Swaziland, ‘almost the entire city is reportedly in the hands of the Indians’ (14 October 2016). 

Other reports it made without giving readers evidence included: Asian people are rushing to acquire Swazi Nation Land to open up small businesses (15 October 2016);  wealthy Asian businessmen are evicting Swazis in massive scales in the areas of Manzini (17 October 2016); Asians are associating themselves with the Swazi Royal Family because it would secure their investments (17 October 2016). 

The constant trashing of Asian people runs against Swazi journalists’ own code of ethics. It amounts to hate speech. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists in Article 13 of its code states, ‘Hate speech. (Journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict amongst the Swazi or any other nation.)’ 

Richard Rooney

See also

PRESSURE ON ‘OBSERVER’ OVER RAPE
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’
‘OBSERVER’ SHRUGS OFF ITS RAPE OUTRAGE
SWAZI KING’S PAPER ATTACKS ASIANS
 
UNREST AT SWAZI KING’S NEWSPAPER
KING KEEPS GRIP ON ‘SWAZI OBSERVER’
FALSE CLAIM OF OBAMA SUPPORT FOR KING
KING’S PAPER CALLS DEMOCRATS ‘HITLER’
AGOA PROPAGANDA FROM KING’S PAPER
KING’S PAPER AND ITS AIRPORT FANTASY
KING FORCES NEWSPAPER APOLOGY
https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/king-forces-newspaper-apology.html

Saturday, 8 July 2017

A DECADE OF NEWS AND VIEWS



On Friday 7 July 2017 with no fanfare whatsoever the Swazi Media Commentary website that brings information and commentary in support of human rights in Swaziland reached its tenth anniversary.

We thank everyone who has supported the website over the years by supplying articles or information. We intend to continue the work.

Rather than write a self-aggrandising piece extolling the virtues of the website, we instead turn to the archives. Here is an article written by Peter Kenworthy and published in Pambazuka News on 2 February 2011. The words are his alone.

Swazi Media Commentary: Telling the truth about Swaziland

Pambazuka News


Richard Rooney’s online Swazi Media Commentary is a rare example of objective, progressive news and journalism in a country burdened with biased reporting and censorship, writes Peter Kenworthy.

To read accurate daily analyses of the situation in Swaziland, you must turn not to its self-censored official newspapers or a foreign media that has no daily presence in Swaziland, but to a blog written by Richard Rooney, a 54-year-old journalist and former associate professor at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA). ‘The Swazi media aren’t very good and there isn’t really a foreign press in Swaziland,’ Rooney says of the standard of reporting on Swaziland. Rooney’s blog, Swazi Media Commentary, in contrast, is both very outspoken, comprehensive and widely read. It usually carries articles every day on a wide range of subjects in relation to the Swazi media, democratisation and human rights which ‘help to build a loyal readership’, as Rooney puts it.

STARTING SWAZI MEDIA COMMENTARY

The site was started in 2007 as a way of informing his UNISWA students about Swazi media research, of which there was little to be found elsewhere. The website averages over 500 page views a day, although this doesn’t count readers of his articles that are reposted on other websites and debate forums, including his own mirror of the site, Swaziland Commentary. It is read in many countries in all the continents of the world, most of the readers coming from within Swaziland itself and many in South Africa, the US and the UK.

Initially, the site was to be primarily about the Swazi media, which is why it is called Swazi Media Commentary. ‘It was never intended as a “human rights” blog,’ says Rooney. ‘I taught journalism and mass communication at UNISWA and discovered that there was very little academic material on the media in Swaziland, so I set about researching and writing it myself. I thought to set up a website with short articles written by myself that would give examples from the Swazi media of topics that I and colleagues were teaching in class.’

Rooney had planned to discontinue the blog after he left UNISWA in 2008, but was asked to continue it by his many readers. ‘I continue to write it because people continue to read it. I get a lot of private feedback about posts and also emails with requests for information from all kinds of people, including journalists who are going to visit Swaziland; from professional people doing academic research on Swaziland; university students inside and outside Swaziland; school students inside and outside Swaziland and human rights activists.’

‘ROONEY IS PIVOTAL’

The people within the Swazi democratic movement whom I have contacted praised Rooney’s journalism. Swaziland Solidarity Network spokesperson Lucky Lukhele said that Swazi Media Commentary ‘has been very critical of the censorship in the news, both self-censorship and that which is imposed by the state. Swazi Media Commentary also tries its level best to search for and publish news that Swazi newspapers cannot publish due to censorship.’

Maxwell Dlamini, president of Swaziland National Union of Students, says that Swazi Media Commentary has ‘become the voice for the voiceless oppressed people of Swaziland,’ and that he is ‘so much grateful to have such a progressive and opening platform.’

Sikelela Dlamini, project coordinator of the Swaziland United Democratic Front, speaks of Rooney’s ‘insistence on objective journalism, achieved through systematic gathering of facts’. His concern is that Swazi journalists, on the other hand, ‘take shortcuts by gunning for quick stories which are not exhaustively investigated,’ and that ‘Rooney could yet play a pivotal role in the democratic movement's search for alternative media.’

A third source from within the movement, who asked not to be named, called Swazi Media Commentary ‘an invaluable source of independent and alternative information and a vital service in continuously keeping the largely hidden political problems of Swaziland on the international map,’ and said that Rooney had a ‘deep understanding of media ethics and press freedom that ordinary Swazi journalists do not normally feel able to practise.’

ROLE OF THE SWAZI MEDIA

One of the main reasons for the importance and relevance of Rooney’s Swazi Media Commentary is clearly the disposition of the Swazi mainstream media. The two widely read daily newspapers in Swaziland, the Swazi Observer, in effect owned by King Mswati, and the Times of Swaziland, exercise a large degree of self-censorship. The editor of the former has even vowed not to print anything unfavourable about the monarch. (The small magazine, The Nation, does live up to its self-proclaimed role as ‘watchdog’ by challenging the government, and the government has responded by taking the magazine editor to court in an attempt to close it down. The Nation, however, has nowhere near the readership of the mainstream papers).

Many of the articles in the Swazi newspapers also tend to have a sensationalist tinge, and when they do report on the democratic-, financial- and human rights-related crises that Swaziland is facing – as especially the Times does – they tend not to properly analyse why the country is in such a state. Maybe this is because they fear that the government, who in the case of the Times is a major source of advertisements and thus income, will remove this vital source of income, maybe because they have been threatened not to print stories unfavourable to the monarch or prime minister.

That this is the case flies in the face of general journalistic standards and the Swaziland National Association of Journalist’s code of conduct. Article 8 states that, ‘under no circumstances should news or a publication be suppressed unless it borders on issues of national security.’ Either ‘national security’ is defined very broadly in Swaziland, or its editors or journalists should try harder to observe these standards.

Rooney has himself commented on the lack of quality of the Swazi media on his blog, for example in 2007, where he wrote that he had ‘found during the three years I have lived in Swaziland that if I want to really know what’s going on in the kingdom, I should not bother with the Swazi media.’ This view of the media in Swaziland may not exactly have endeared him to Swazi newspaper editors or journalists, as I learnt when speaking to the editor of the Times of Swaziland in September. Nevertheless, Rooney says that they still sometimes use his material: ‘Both Swazi newspapers have followed up on my blogs in the past, without attribution mostly.’

The foreign press, for its part, doesn’t report very regularly on Swaziland, and most of its stories are written by freelancers, as there are no foreign bureaux in Swaziland. Rooney has therefore been approached, and has supplied information to, an array of foreign news outlets from around the world, including Africa Report, the BBC, France 24, PBS and ABC TV in the US, and Reuters.

HOW TO SOLVE SWAZILAND’S PROBLEMS?

So what should the media be reporting on and how should the international community react? A real problem is that the international community isn’t really interested in Swaziland, according to Rooney. ‘It has no real mineral wealth that industrialised nations need and it has no strategic ports or airstrips, so is of no military use.’ Foreign governments and the multilaterals do therefore not feel compelled to pressure the Swazi regime on its many wrongdoings or to demand democratisation – although strategic interest does not automatically result in political pressure, of course.

Swaziland’s democratic movement therefore seems to be in something of a catch 22 situation. It needs the international community to help it grow, but the international community will probably not help it before it gets its act together, so to speak. And for this it needs credible news and analysis about Swaziland. It is therefore perhaps a little sad that both the international community, and to a large degree people in Swaziland who have an internet connection (approximately 5 per cent of the population in 2008), must rely to a large degree on Rooney’s blog for in-depth, independent news and analysis on Swaziland. On the other hand, this should not take anything away from the importance and quality of Rooney’s efforts.

The action – or inaction – of the international community in regard to Swaziland matters however, says Rooney. ‘I think organisations like the IMF [International Monetary Fund], EU [European Union], African Development Bank, should insist on political reform as a prerequisite for bank loans and aid,’ he says. ‘And overseas political parties, trade unions etc could help to build the capacity of individual members of the Swazi opposition groups, for instance PUDEMO [People's United Democratic Movement], so they can develop leadership skills and also develop practical political policies that can be put forward in opposition to the present leadership.’

An increased professionalism and direction is an important prerequisite to getting both a larger segment of the people of Swaziland and the international community on board, says Rooney. ‘The democratic movement tends to mainly focus on activism to get “democracy”, but it is less clear what they will do once they get it. For example, as far as I know, none of the groups has a coherent policy on getting Swaziland out of its economic mess. How will they eradicate poverty? What’s the plan for creating jobs? If they had a manifesto, as opposition political parties have in democracies, they might increase their credibility with Swazi people and also with people/groups/nations in the free world who could perhaps assist them to meet their ambitions. I don’t mean this as a criticism of individual people, but at the moment these groups come across as political amateurs – maybe big on rhetoric, but small on actual policies.’

Certainly, without proper information and direction, the ever-increasing and understandable anger that many Swazis feel because of their growing economic predicament will not necessarily be vented at a Swazi regime that is to a large degree responsible for it. ‘People will get fearful and angry,’ says Rooney, ‘but might not know how to direct that fear and anger.’

BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE

Rooney is aware that the task of bringing about real democracy in Swaziland is enormous, however: ‘“Real” democracy took hundreds of years to come about in Western Europe, the US etc, so we shouldn’t expect much for Swaziland – but we can move towards these things. Unbanning political parties in Swaziland would be a big step forward.’

The present financial crisis in Swaziland might help bring about a change that could lead to democratisation by removing the system of clientelism that keeps the king in power, especially as this crisis is to a large degree self-inflicted as it started well before the international financial crisis in 2008. ‘Change will start to come about when those in Swaziland who presently have a stake in the status quo lose that stake. That could easily happen in Swaziland, especially when there is increasing evidence that the king doesn’t have real loyalty – people around him are in it for what they can get for themselves. They couldn’t give a damn about the king – as long as they are getting their graft. Once the opportunity for graft goes, their loyalty will go too.’

‘It was financial crises that brought down many ex-Soviet states,’ Rooney reminds us as an analogy to the situation in Swaziland. ‘The middle class turned against the leaders and the leaders were out on their ears. As soon as the middle class can’t afford their luxuries they will revolt. Also, if the economy becomes a siege economy and goods are not available, they will revolt.’

Up until now the Swazi regime has relied on a combination of traditionalism, nationalism and brutal police and armed forces to stay in power. According to Rooney, however, the strength of the police and armed forces is bound to their supposed loyalty – a loyalty that can easily crumble. ‘I doubt that King Mswati’s army commanders have any real loyalty to him or the monarchy – they too are corrupt. Also, the capacity of the army is weak – just think of the 500 recruits who supposedly went crazy at the end of 2010 because they were possessed by demons.’ As for the legitimacy of parliament and Swaziland’s ministers, this is also rapidly dissipating. ‘The recent scandals involving e.g. ministers are hugely affecting the “legitimacy” because they show that everyone is in it for themselves.’

Reflecting on the problems and potential of information dissemination, Rooney argues that perhaps Swazis should also learn from other conflicts such as the presently unfolding revolution in Tunisia. ‘I think social networking might be a better way forward by keeping democracy activists and progressives informed on what is going on. I’m presently trying to do research on how social networking was involved in the recent Tunisia business to see if there are lessons to be learned for Swaziland,’ he says.

However the struggle for Swazi democratisation is brought forward, access to proper information, analysis and reflection is important – and blogs such as Rooney’s are therefore vital in that they not only deliver this but also inspire and help mobilise others. But none of this will bring about change without a strong and purposeful democratic movement within Swaziland itself.

As Rooney reflects, ‘The more we keep talking about these things the better. In my blog I constantly refer to the PM [prime minister] as being illegally appointed and that King Mswati is the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa, i.e. himself illegitimate and undemocratic. I see my phrases used by other writers all over the web. All of this keeps telling people that they are not legitimate. The problem is that the knowledge that they are illegitimate is not enough. We need to mobilise activity around this and that is why political parties in Swaziland would be so important and equally why the rulers want to keep them banned.’

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Peter Kenworthy is Africa Contact’s communication and project officer.
* Richard Rooney is a journalist with a PhD in communication and former associate professor at the University of Swaziland (2005–08). He has published articles on a variety of subjects, including media freedom in Swaziland and media ideology.
* You can receive a weekly newsletter containing several of the most interesting weekly articles from Rooney’s Swazi Media Commentary news by mailing Africa Contact at SAK-Swazinewsletter-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk.

Thursday, 24 April 2014

NEWSPAPER SACKS QALAKALIBOLI DLAMINI

Qalakaliboli Dlamini, the Swaziland journalist whose articles attacked gays and called battered women ‘bitches’, has been sacked by his newspaper.

But, he was not sacked for his articles, even though they caused a storm of protest from readers.

Instead, he was dismissed because of comments he made on his Facebook page about the Times Sunday, the newspaper that employed him.

Qalakaliboli Dlamini, aged 41, whose real name is Musawenkhosi Dlamini, became notorious during 2012 for articles he wrote for the newspaper. 

Among his targets were battered women. In December 2012 he wrote that they were ‘bitches’ and said ‘most’ women who were beaten up by men brought it upon themselves.

After the publication of the article a range of organisations, among them the Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA), Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organizations, Coordinating Assembly for Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO), Swaziland Concerned Church Leaders, Swaziland National Association of Teachers, Swaziland Positive Living and the Swaziland Agricultural Producers Union (SAPU), called for an apology.
 
Makila James, the US Ambassador to Swaziland, also publicly backed readers who complained about the article.

The newspaper refused to apologise. Instead, the newspaper’s readers’ representative ruled that Dlamini had a right to his views.

Readers boycotted buying the newspaper in protest.

In May 2012, Dlamini was briefly suspended by the Times Sunday after he wrote an article attacking homosexuals as ‘satanic’ and ‘evil’. In the article he said, ‘I hate homosexuality with every fibre of hair or flesh in my body.’

The article received what Times Sunday editor Innocent Maphalala called an ‘unprecedented’ number of complaints.

At the time, Dlamini responded to his critics saying, ‘I am not at all apologetic for my choice of words.’
He added, ‘I will continue to stand up against homosexuals and if need be, I will run a public anti-homosexual campaign.’

His sacking was not the result of readers’ complaints. Times Sunday editor Innocent Maphalala, writing in his own newspaper, said Dlamini was dismissed because ‘while writing for us, he used Facebook to disparage management and staff of the Times Group of Newspapers.  

‘He also had many unkind words to say about our other columnists like the respected Musa Hlophe and the likeable Bundu Teacher.’

He added, ‘We were alerted to this by Facebook users who wondered what was going on because they thought we were one big happy family, especially after I defended Qalakaliboli a year or so ago, when everybody was against him for bashing women and gays in his articles.’

Dlamini’s sacking took place in January 2014, but has only now become public. Maphalala said this was because Dlamini had been writing comments on his Facebook page which were ‘detrimental to the image of the Times Sunday, in particular, and the Times Group of Newspapers in general.’

He added, ‘I view his behaviour as unprofessional and have sent email messages, privately warning him to stop. He has not.’

See also

THE ‘TIMES’ AND PRESS STANDARDS
GAY HATE JOURNALIST UNREPENTANT

Friday, 28 February 2014

PRESSURE ON ‘OBSERVER’ OVER ‘RAPE’

The Swazi Observer has not said if it will pay the eight alleged rape victims it identified financial compensation.

Meanwhile, an international media ethics watchdog, iMediaEthics, has joined the growing outcry against the newspaper that later apologised to the women but shrugged the incident off as a ‘boo-boo’.

iMediaEthics has written to the Observer demanding an explanation or its huge lapse in media ethics. It also wants the newspaper to respond to a call from Swazi Media Commentary for the editor to resign.

The intervention comes after the Observer published the names of the victims as part of its coverage of the start of a trial of an alleged serial rapist. The newspaper named the women and gave details of how each of them was allegedly attacked.

After an outcry by readers the Observer published an apology to the women but said it had made a ‘boo-boo’ and a ‘snafu’ by naming the women.

It did not say whether it would pay the women compensation for publishing their names. The newspaper has not announced that it will discipline the editor or other staff member for the error. Unlike in Swaziland, in many countries it is a serious offence to name alleged rape victims. For example, in England an editor would be taken before a judge on a contempt of court charge.

The women named by the newspaper are all too poor to be able to afford to take the Observer to court. However, if they had been able to, the compensation that the paper, in effect owned by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, might be required to pay out could be enough to bankrupt it.

iMediaEthics, under the headline Seriously? 8 Rape Victims IDed, Error called a 'Boo-Boo', said it had written to the Swazi Observer to ask if any of the victims complained or threatened legal action. 

See also

‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’
‘OBSERVER’ SHRUGS OFF ITS RAPE OUTRAGE

Friday, 21 February 2014

‘OBSERVER’ SHRUGS OFF ITS RAPE OUTRAGE

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper that published the names of eight victims of alleged rape and gave details of their attacks, has called the outrage a ‘boo-boo’. 

On Tuesday (18 February 2014) it published across its front page and two inside pages details of a court case involving an alleged serial killer. It published the names of the women, something that contravenes journalism ethics across the world. It called its report ‘a sneak preview’ of the court case.

The newspaper gave their names and details of how each attack took place. It named one woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not use a condom.

On Friday (21 February 2014), in a tiny piece, the Observer said it had made a ‘snafu’ by publishing the names.

It made an unreserved apology, but tried to pass off the outrage against the women as an understandable error and said it was ‘caught with our guard off’.

But that is not true. This was not some minor mistake like spelling someone’s name wrong. This was evidence that at the Swazi Observer they don’t know what they’re doing.

The report would have been seen by the original reporter who wrote it, a sub editor (copy editor) whose job it is to check for mistakes, possibly a headline writer, a news editor, and the editor. Not one of these ‘journalists’ spotted the mistake.

Not to publish the names of victims of rape is one of the first things a student journalist learns in school. But not one of the Observer journalists who saw the story on its way from the reporter’s computer keyboard to the published page realised anything was wrong.

In its apology the Observer wrote, ‘We believe this expression of regret or apology appropriately matches the scale of the error.’

No it does not. What disgusting indifference the Observer has shown to the women it has terrorised.

The Observer went on. ‘Indeed, the only decent thing we could do after mixing up the rules is to draw our own sword and hang ourselves’.

But that has not happened. No one has resigned. Instead, they have asked their readers for forgiveness. But, why should they give them that? They have the right to expect at least the minimum level of competence from the newspaper.

But, they have not got that. The editor should resign and if he does not, King Mswati III who in effect owns the paper should sack him.

Then the newspaper should contact the women involved and ask how many millions of dollars they must pay them in compensation?

See also

‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/02/swazi-observer-names-rape-victims.html

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, committed one of the biggest sins against journalism ethics by publishing the names of eight alleged victims of rape without their consent.

The Observer published the names as part of a report on the start of a trial of an alleged serial rapist. In its report the Observer listed the women’s names and details of their attacks in what it called ‘a sneak preview’ of the case. It gave their names and details of how each attack took place. The newspaper named one woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not use a condom.

By publishing the names of the women, the Observer broke Article 15 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of ethics on Survivors of Sexual Assault which states, ‘Journalists shall avoid identifying survivors of sexual assault or any information that may lead to the identification of the survivor.’

Journalists across the world generally agree that it violates the rights of rape victims to publish their names without their consent.

The Observer has been under attack for its lack of journalism standards in the recent past. In a review of press freedom in Swaziland, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) called the Observer, a ‘pure propaganda machine for the royal family’.

The Observer regularly breaks Article 1 of the SNAJ code Article 1which deals with people’s right to information. The article says, ‘The duty of every journalist is to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend the truth. A journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.’

The newspaper is on public record to say that its ‘collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.’

Thursday, 19 December 2013

THE TRUTH OF MONARCHICAL DEMOCRACY

Newspapers in Swaziland are deliberately misleading their readers about King Mswati III’s vision of ‘Monarchical Democracy’.

In September 2013, King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, announced that he had ‘a vision’ during a thunderstorm in which he was told to change the name of the present political system in his kingdom from ‘tinkhundla’ to ‘Monarchical Democracy.’

He told media in Swaziland that this meant the king would take advice from his subjects before making decisions that affected the kingdom.

His description of  ‘Monarchical Democracy’ was vague, but in Swaziland, people, even journalists who purport to act on their behalf, are too scared of the King to ask him for clarification.

In fact, the ‘tinkhundla’ system of government puts all power in the hands of the monarchy. King Mswati chooses the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, members of the judiciary, and he appoints all senior political posts in his kingdom.

Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the Swazi 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.

When the King made his announcement about ‘Monarchical Democracy’, many people hoped this would mean a change from the present system to something approaching democracy.

But, the supine Press in Swaziland did not explain to their readers that this was not going to happen.

Instead, it took a proper journalist called Ed Cropley, from a proper news organisation called Reuters to get at the truth. Cropley interviewed the King and asked him outright what ‘Monarchical Democracy’ was all about and what was going to change.

The King replied, ‘No change really. It's just a name so people can understand.’

It was, Reuters reported, ‘merely a name change for foreign consumption’.

The news agency reported the King saying, ‘The world really doesn’t understand the Tinkhundla system, but everybody can understand monarchical democracy. It’s an English name. This monarchical democracy is a marriage between the traditional monarchy and the ballot box, all working together under the monarchy.’

So, the King confirmed in his own words that ‘tinkhundla’ and ‘Monarchical Democracy’ is one and the same thing.

Reuters’ report was published worldwide, as well as on social media circulating within Swaziland. Swazi newspaper editors read the report with everyone else.

But, even though the Reuters report was published in September 2013, the Swazi newspapers continue with the fiction that ‘Monarchical Democracy’ might be something new. Reports they have published include statements from the newly-elected MP Jan Sithole who thinks parliamentarians need to have a workshop to learn what ‘Monarchical Democracy’ is all about.

Even though Percy Simelane, the government’s press spokesperson, has confirmed on state-controlled radio, the King’s position, the newspapers continue to mislead their readers that there might be more to it.

No workshops on ‘Monarchical Democracy’ are necessary, because there is nothing new to learn.

However, editors in Swaziland might need to go on a workshop to learn that the prime responsibility of journalists is to tell their readers the truth.

See also

KING ADMITS NO CHANGE ON DEMOCRACY
NEW NAME FOR NON-DEMOCRACY
GOD TELLS KING MSWATI A HOME TRUTH