Swaziland media reporting of coronavirus was inadequate, UNESCO reports

Media reporting of the coronavirus pandemic in Swaziland (eSwatini) was inadequate, according to a new UNESCO report.

News concentrated on the statistics and mostly official Swazi Government sources were used in reports.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) studied nine countries in southern Africa, including Swaziland.

Overall, UNESCO reported ‘Most notably, reporting the pandemic has focused on the numbers. This was mostly motivated by statistics on infection rates, recoveries and deaths released by health authorities.’

It added, ‘The main gaps in professional reportage of the pandemic was in the low representation of women’s voices, citizen’s voices, young and elderly people and rural communities in news on Covid-19 in all countries. This meant that perspectives on Covid-19 were heard from men, official figures and urban communities. Other perspectives could however have enriched coverage, particularly understanding how different groups perceived the pandemic and its effects on their lives. This marginalisation of social groups meant that there was little inclusivity and diversity in overall reporting on the pandemic.’

In Swaziland, sixty percent of sources in news reports were men. Only 1 percent of stories were specifically from rural area.

The report said, ‘The media in the region rarely questioned or interrogated issues, numbers and claims they acquired from their sources in compiling Covid-19 articles. Some claims were presented as fact without the media putting disclaimers on such information.’

UNESCO researched news websites from 1 March to 31 August 2020.

See also

Total 86 health workers die from coronavirus at single Swaziland hospital 

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2021/05/total-86-health-workers-die-from.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

POLITICS AS USUAL IN SWAZILAND

It was business as usual for politics in Swaziland in November 2013. King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch appointed his government in this month, following the bogus national election that took place in September. More than half of the new Cabinet ministers in the Swaziland Government were not elected by the people. Out of 19 ministers King Mswati III personally appointed 11 to the House of Assembly or to the Senate.

At the national elections the people were only permitted to select 55 members of the 65-seat House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. Political parties were banned from taking part in the election. The King also chose 20 of the 30-strong Senate House. The other 10 were elected by members of the House of Assembly. None were elected by the people.

Prior to appointing his cabinet, King Mswati demonstrated his complete control of politics in the kingdom. All the top parliamentary office holders in Swaziland were filled by people he appointed and none were elected by the people. They were the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the President and Deputy President of Senate.

So, it was business as usual for politics in Swaziland. Human rights violations continued unabated. Police, acting without a warrant or court order raided a showing of the newly-released film The King and the People. The film, which is being shown on screens all over the world, criticises the Swazi state for, among other things, the violence it uses against its own people when they demand their rights.

As if on cue, elsewhere, armed Swazi police invaded the University of Swaziland to attack students with whips and teargas in their dormitories. Students were campaigning for better conditions and against the holding of examinations. Armed police guarded examination venues for a week as the disputed examinations went ahead.

These are some of the highlights of life in Swaziland in November 2013 brought together in the latest volume of compilations from the Swazi Media Commentary blogsite. It is available free of charge at scribd dot com. Swazi Media Commentary has no physical base and is completely independent of any political faction and receives no income from any individual or organisation. People who contribute ideas or write for it do so as volunteers and receive no payment.

Swazi Media Commentary is published online – updated most days – bringing information, comment and analysis in support of democracy in the kingdom.

Swaziland Striving for Freedom Vol 11 November 2013

ELECTION COVERAGE FOUND WANTING

Newspapers in Swaziland set out to mislead their readers about the true nature of this month’s national election, claiming that people were voting for a government when they were not, a report just published says.

And, rather than discussing issues relating to the social, political or economic policies a new government should pursue, media concentrated on trying to demonstrate the election’s legitimacy.

Swaziland is not a democracy and King Mswati III rules his kingdom as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. The newspaper and broadcasting houses in Swaziland support the status-quo and it was an imperative for media to continually show support for the political system of tinkhundla / monarchical democracy, according to a report published by Swazi Media Commentary. 

This meant there was no debate about which social, political or economic policies a new parliament should pursue. Newspapers confused readers about the nature of the elections: constantly claiming that they were to elect a ‘government’, when they were not. King Mswati appoints the Prime Minister and senior ministers.

The report called Media Coverage of the Swaziland Election 2013 is available on scribd dot com. It reviews coverage by local, international and social media in the months running up to the election on 20 September 2013.

Newspapers failed to cover the whole of Swaziland in the election reporting and were biased towards favoured candidates.

The report is critical of the standards of journalism in Swaziland. It says media in Swaziland, ‘are partisan, inaccurate and generally unprofessional and they are turning into an irrelevant vehicle in public discourse. 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.’

 

Journalists, the report says, ‘sensationalised news and often reported as facts, pure conjecture’.

In contrast, the report says international news media were not very interested in covering the election, because, unlike in democracies, no power could change hands as a result of the voting. When they did report on the election they emphasised the fact that it had little meaning because the parliament that was being elected had no power.

The report also looks at social media sites that were publishing information and comment in contrast to the mainstream media in Swaziland and advocating for democracy. The report concludes that social media probably had limited influence within Swaziland because only about 7 percent of the population has access to the Internet.

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

The state of Swazi journalism, 2013

http://www.scribd.com/doc/118550647

Media Coverage of the Swaziland Election 2013

LATEST UPDATE ON FREEDOM STRUGGLE

Swaziland: Striving For Freedom, Vol 3. March 2013

In this edition of Swaziland: Striving For Freedom, Swazi Media Commentary reveals that spending on defence equipment in Swaziland is set to rise by 50 times in the coming year. This was part of ‘defence’ spending that will take up 10 percent of the entire budget for the kingdom. Nobody at the Swazi Government would go on record to explain why this was needed, except to say the spending was necessary for ‘security’ and to ‘keep the peace’.

The vast spending on defence reminded Swaziland watchers that the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, had in the recent past tried to buy arms worth millions of US from the United Kingdom, but that country’s government blocked the move, believing the weapons might be turned on the king’s subjects should they continue their protests for democracy.

Elsewhere this month, the government has been found out selling maize, donated by Japan as humanitarian food aid, on the open market. The money has been stashed in a special account at the Central Bank of Swaziland. The Swazi Government claims this action is legal, but Japan has made no public statement. We haven’t heard the last of this yet.

Elections are coming in Swaziland this year and King Mswati’s subjects are waiting for him to tell them when it will be. Only then, can electioneering begin. A campaign to boycott the election because political parties are banned from taking part is gathering momentum. This month a European Union delegation visited the kingdom and also told the king the ban on political parties should be lifted.

Police and state security forces broke up another prayer meeting (the second time in two months): this one was to mark the anniversary of the formation of the national labour federation, TUCOSWA. King Mswati’s courts banned TUCOSWA after it declared itself to be against the forthcoming election.

Swaziland: Striving For Freedom, which is available to download free-of-charge at scribd dot com. is the third volume of information, commentary and analysis on human rights taken from articles first published on the Swazi Media Commentary blogsite in March 2013. Each month throughout this year a digest of articles will be published bringing together in one place material that is rarely found elsewhere. 

Swazi Media Commentary has no physical base and is completely independent of any political faction and receives no income from any individual or organisation. People who contribute ideas or write for it do so as volunteers and receive no payment.

Swaziland Striving for Freedom Vol 3 Mar 2013

MEDIA NEED ETHICAL CODE FOR ELECTION

As in elections anywhere in the world, the media in Swaziland should play an important part in keeping people informed about what is going on. In the free world it is generally accepted that the media have a prime responsibility to examine what government is and is not doing, by reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing citizens’ opinions, setting the agenda for government action, and socializing citizens about politics and encouraging a political culture to evolve.

Most of the time the Swazi media are not very good at any of these things: they do not even explain to their audience that the election is irrelevant because people are not electing a government.

The elections which are held every five years have been criticised by international observer groups as undemocratic because political parties are banned and the parliament has few powers in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

There are two chambers in the Swazi parliament: the House of Assembly and the Senate. Of the 65 members of the House, 10 are chosen by King Mswati and 55 are elected by the people. In the Senate, King Mswati chooses 20 of the 30 places. The other 10 are chosen by members of the House of Assembly. None are elected by the people.

The king then choses a prime minister and his cabinet.

In the past, media in Swaziland have performed poorly at election time. In the kingdom all broadcast media that carries news, except one TV station, are state-controlled and restrict what can be broadcast, denying airtime to voices that oppose the government or the king.

There are only two newspaper groups in the kingdom. The Swazi Observer group is owned by a company controlled by the king and the Times of Swaziland group, which is the only independent source of daily news.

The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) which monitored the 2008 election later reported campaigning lasted about five weeks and was a low key affair, with no rallies or marches, and was restricted to the handing out of pamphlets, the distribution of T­shirts and a few paid advertisements in the media.

EISA reported the use of larger posters – some of them in colour – by some candidates and vigorous door to door canvassing by candidates’ supporters. Nevertheless, compared with elections in other parts of southern Africa, campaigning generated little public interest.

In Swaziland, political parties are banned, so elections are not a contest for ideas or practical policies. Instead, candidates are elected as individual representatives of their constituencies and voters are encouraged to choose the person they think will deliver most for them when they reach parliament.

Campaigning in 2008 focused on local issues such as promises of clinics, transport infrastructure and employment creating projects.

After the 2008 election, EISA reported that only a minority of observers felt that media coverage was good and treatment was fair.

EISA reported:

·         The media did attempt to keep voters informed, but did not recognise the role they should be playing as voter educators.

·         Coverage by the print media was better than that of the broadcast media.

·         Coverage by public media was biased and the private media were censoring themselves and inclined to favour some candidates over others.

These experiences of the 2008 election were similar to those of 2003 when media in Swaziland were criticised for not giving enough information to the people of the kingdom about what was going on.

On the day of the 2003 election itself state-controlled Radio Swaziland did not even report that an election was taking place. Coverage by all broadcasting media during the campaign was scant. There were no programmes or any other discussions on elections in the few weeks leading to polling day, EISA said in a report on that year’s election.

EISA also said among newspapers, the Observer tended to be ‘conservative’ in its reporting and the Times, ‘tended to sensationalise the issues’.

The Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) which observed the elections in 2003 came to similar conclusions about the media. It liked the ‘vigour’ of the print media coverage, but also criticised the Times for being sensational. The report said, ‘we hope that it will do more in future to discuss issues as well as to report on personalities’.

The inadequate media coverage in 2003 prompted the CET to recommend that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’ in reporting.

That was 10 years ago, but nothing has happened to improve election coverage since.

The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) does have a code of conduct that provides a framework of reference to all practicing journalists in Swaziland, both full-time and freelance in their day-to-day work.

The code is meant to ensure that members adhere to the highest ethical standards, professional competence and good behaviour in carrying out their duties. Its overriding concern is that members of the media should conduct themselves with a high sense of responsibility without infringing the rights of individuals and society in general.

However, the SNAJ code is not followed by editors in Swaziland and it does not deal with the coverage of elections. In this respect Swaziland is falling behind other countries in Africa. Since the turn of the century a number of African states have produced guidelines for journalists and other media personnel when covering elections. Among these states are Sierra Leone and Somaliland.

In an attempt to begin a discussion on what a code of conduct on election coverage might look like in Swaziland, here is a draft code of conduct for covering elections in the kingdom.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel as many such codes of conduct exist elsewhere in Africa. This proposed draft code borrows extensively from codes of Somaliland and Tanzania.

 

Preamble

The preamble should make some definitive statements about what the role media have in the process of politics, such as these.

The media play an important role in monitoring the electoral process. By covering the election events and the political campaign, the media ensure that the public is aware of what is happening.

The media help the public to make a free and informed choice. They do this in three ways in particular:

• By communicating political messages from parties and candidates;

• By relaying important voter information from election administrators;

• By subjecting the whole election process to independent scrutiny and comment.

Individual journalists

Then we might look at the responsibilities of individual journalists.

Such as:

• The first duty of a journalist is to report accurately and without bias.

• A journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which s/he knows the origin. A journalist shall not suppress essential information.

• A journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.

• A journalist shall report in a balanced manner. If a candidate makes an allegation against another candidate, the journalist should seek comment from both sides wherever possible.

• A journalist shall do the utmost to correct any published information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate.

• As far as possible, a journalist shall report the views of candidates and political parties directly and in their own words, rather than as they are described by others.

• A journalist shall avoid using language or expressing sentiments that may further discrimination or violence on any grounds, including race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.

• When reporting the opinions of those who do advocate discrimination or violence, a journalist shall do the utmost to put such views in a clear context and to report the opinions of those against whom such sentiments are directed.

• A journalist shall not accept any inducement from a politician or candidate.

• A journalist shall not make any promise to a politician about the content of a news report.

• A journalist shall take care in reporting the findings of opinion polls. Any report should wherever possible include the following information:
• who commissioned and carried out the poll and when
• how many people were interviewed, where and how were they interviewed and what is the margin of error
• what was the exact wording of the questions.

• A journalist shall regard the following as grave professional offences:
• plagiarism
• malicious misrepresentation
• telling lies, slander, libel or unfounded accusations
• acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.

Media houses

Media houses have a vital role in ensuring fairness in the dissemination of information. The people have the right to know what all the candidates are standing for and not just those that the media house owners might support.

• In all media, there shall be a clear separation between fact and comment. News reporting should reflect the facts as honestly perceived by journalists. Comment may reflect the editorial line of the publication.

• State-owned media shall not express an editorial opinion in favour of or against any candidate.

• State-owned media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and not to discriminate against any candidate in granting access to air time.

• If media houses accept paid political advertising, they shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis and at equal rates for all candidates.

• News, interviews, information or current affairs programmes or articles in the state media shall not be biased in favour of or against any candidate.

• The media shall provide equitable and regular coverage to all candidates.

• The media shall encourage and provide access to the voters to express their opinion and views.

• The media shall promote democratic values such as the rule of good law, accountability and good governance.

• Any candidate or party that makes a reasonable claim of having been defamed or otherwise injured by a broadcast or publication shall either be granted the opportunity to reply or be entitled to a correction or retraction by the broadcaster or publisher or by the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement. The reply or correction shall be broadcast or published as soon as possible.

• News coverage of press conferences and public statements concerning matters of political controversy (as opposed to functions of state) called or made by the head of government, government ministers, or members of parliament shall be subject to a right of reply or equal time rules. This obligation acquires even greater force when the person making the statement is also standing for office.

• State-owned media shall publish or broadcast voter education material.

• Voter education material shall be accurate and impartial and must effectively inform voters about the voting process, including how, when and where to vote, to register to vote and to verify proper registration; the secrecy of the ballot (and thus safety from retaliation); the importance of voting; the functions of the offices that are under contention; and similar matters.

• Voter education shall include programmes in minority languages and programmes targeted for groups that traditionally may have been excluded from the political process, such as women and people with disabilities.

• Media houses should monitor their own output to make sure that it conforms with the standards set out in this code of conduct.

Candidates

Codes of conduct in election coverage in other African states recognise that political parties contest elections. In Swaziland, which is not a democracy, political parties are banned. The kingdom has its own unique form of ‘democracy’ which only allows candidates to stand for election as individuals.

The purpose of this draft code of conduct for Swaziland is to deal with the elections that will take place in 2013. It is highly unlikely that there will be a change of heart among the kingdom’s ruling elite before the elections are held, so we must assume that candidates will not be aligned to any political party. Therefore, this code of conduct is addressed to individuals; although it would apply equally to political parties should they be allowed to exist.


• All candidates shall respect the freedom of the media.

• Candidates shall not harass or obstruct journalists who are engaged in their professional activities.

• Incumbent candidates shall not abuse their office to gain unfair advantage in access to the media. This provision applies to all media, but is of particular relevance with state-controlled media.

• Candidates shall not offer bribes or inducements to journalists or media houses to encourage them to attend campaign events or to report favourably on them or unfavourably on other candidates.

• Candidates should not misrepresent the stated positions or any other factual information about other candidates.

• Candidates should avoid using language that is inflammatory or defamatory, or that threatens or incites violence against any other person or group.

Swaziland Needs Election Code of Conduct for Journalists by Swazi Media