A few weeks ago I received an email from a man in the United States of America who was researching into political parties in Swaziland.
I had to tell him the bad news that political parties are banned in Swaziland so there are none. Or at least none that are legally operating within the kingdom.
He had written to me because he had been searching on the Internet and hadn’t come across any useful information. He found my blog and thought I might be able to help. Incidentally, I get a number of requests from people searching for information about Swaziland (not just the media) and they find Swazi Media Commentary and ask me to put them in touch with people who can assist them.
This reminds me yet again that there is very little information on the Internet that originates from within Swaziland and it is about time more people went online (so get those blogs up and running).
The main ‘opposition’ organisation in Swaziland is almost certainly PUDEMO (The Peoples United Democratic Movement), but I have found myself that it is very difficult to get good reliable background information on PUDEMO.
Which is why a letter to the editor published in the Times of Swaziland yesterday (11 July 2008) is so useful.
Zakhele Mabuza of PUDEMO writes it and it is about how PUDEMO came in to being and it briefly outlines its purposes.
It is particularly good because it is PUDEMO explaining for itself what it is about and it doesn’t have to rely on the interpretation of a journalist to get the message across.
Here is the letter in full.
When PUDEMO was born… they have said that PUDEMO is anti-monarchy and anti-tradition
The month of July is a significant period for it marks the birth of the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) founded in 1983-a few months after the death of King Sobhuza II.
This was followed by heightened repression in the country orchestrated by the Supreme Council of State, Liqoqo. There was infighting in the palace, xenophobia and collusion with apartheid South Africa that resulted in detention without trial and police brutality. It was against such a background that some patriotic Swazis, including university students and workers, resolved to form this organisation with the broad aim of challenging the oppression and iron rule meted by the Liqoqo on the people of this country.
PUDEMO seeks to unite the people of this country in the struggle for constitutional multiparty democracy. The conditions of poor governance that existed in the inception of PUDEMO still exit in the present context Swaziland is still run as a private entity (farm).
Committed
Corruption has become part of our culture and the government cannot do anything as they are part of the whole mix. Very little resources are committed on health, agriculture and education. Education has become very expensive, the country has gone hungry and the health system has virtually collapsed.
The provision of social services is very poor and at times is done as a favour to the governed. The elderly grant is so low and meaningless. The challenges faced by the people under the Tinkhundla System of Governance are countless and are by deliberate human design.
The status quo and people threatened by PUDEMO’s call for constitutional multi-party democracy have spread a lot of misinformation about the organisation. They have said that PUDEMO is anti-monarchy and anti-tradition.
All that PUDEMO seeks is a just political system under constitutional multiparty democracy that will guarantee the people of this country democracy, accountability, transparency and social security. We so much want to see Swaziland become a giant of democracy in the global stage.
PUDEMO is not anti tradition, but does not take kindly to the trend that sees culture being used as a political tool to oppress and indoctrinate the people of this country.
PUDEMO has always called for the drafting of a national constitution that will guarantee proper mechanisms for governance and a bill of rights with the involvement of all stakeholders. A very viable, transparent and all inclusive process was put forward by PUDEMO to the government of the day as early as 1992. However, being anti political pluralism the government deliberately refused to adopt the proposed strategy.
Entrenchment
Instead they short circuited this process and went the vusela, CRC and CDC route that ensured the end product would guarantee the entrenchment of the status quo in the form of the present document that is called a national constitution.
We reject this document for it does not truly represent the aspirations for a future Swaziland that is governed democratically and transparently.
The election structure under the existing status quo is deliberately designed to produce a legislature and an executive that does not have powers to independently and honestly discharge their duties.
These officers are then rewarded for agreeing to play politics, be errand boys and girls.
PUDEMO wants an election process that will provide people with real power and be able to formulate policies and implement them. This is the constitutional multi-party democracy we are calling for.
We believe the Tinkhundla System of Governance and its election process is meant to promote individualism as opposed to collectivism (a clear divide and rule strategy). What can an individual without a political constituency do in Parliament and in the executive to promote good governance?
Individuals will be forever grateful to the masters of the political system for allowing them time to continue receiving benefits and privileges which are very scarce for the ordinary Swazi in the streets, slums and rural areas.
Zakhele Mabuza
Information and Publicity-
PUDEMO
See also
SWAZI COPS BEAT UP PUDEMO - UPDATE
Saturday, 12 July 2008
HOW SWAZI KING IS MADE UPDATE
My post on Thursday (10 July 2008) about how the Swazi king was ‘chosen’ to lead the kingdom raised some eyebrows.
In particular my reference to people in Swaziland who consider that King Mswati III was ‘chosen’ by God hit some nerves.
The idea that he is chosen is encouraged from some pulpits in Swaziland. This gives the churches (especially it seems to me the spurious churches that meet in school classrooms or in pokey corners of the kingdom) a direct link to the King. This benefits the church more than it does the King.
Also, some chiefs in Swaziland who are themselves appointed by the King like to encourage the notion of ‘godliness’ because it allows people to believe that the chiefs themselves are close to God.
One reader of this blog had an interesting take on my original post. What the writer has to say about the succession might not be true. But then again, it might.
‘Before I get to the “making of a king” stuff, this “god” business has to be labelled bizarre. It is an archaic idea which should go the way of the dodo bird!
‘From history we know many aristocratic men have claimed the “sun” status (Louis XIV of France) or believed they were “gods” (Emperors of Japan). Even the mad psychopaths, such as Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini and German Nazi Adolph Hitler, believed they were some type of central “axis” around which Europe and the entire world should revolve. ’Hitler was not only considered “Mein Fuhrer” but also “Mein Gott” (my leader, my god) by his most loyal and ruthless SS - the schultzstaffel, his elite defense corp. So these ideas are not new no matter what surname you attach to the idea.
‘For many of us foreigners who lived in Swaziland we often heard the royal Dlamini successor must be the only child of his mother – that’s the primary consideration to becoming a king. But I’m certain many in Swaziland know the rumors about Makosetive's mother being raped so that he would not be her only child.
‘Supposedly the half-brother lives in Taiwan with a certain Mrs Mbhamali who once owned the Arcade Jewellers in Mbabane. She was a sister to the late Prime Minister Bhekimpi, hence the outcry when she was reported to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances in the 1990s. To this date, both have been esteemed guests of the now defeated Taiwanese Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
‘I guess it would be a bit too risky for the Nation or any others in Swaziland to print this but I doubt that I’m the only one who's heard it. Perhaps friends in Taiwan may even shed light on this half-brother to a “god.”’
See also
HOW A SWAZI KING IS MADE
In particular my reference to people in Swaziland who consider that King Mswati III was ‘chosen’ by God hit some nerves.
The idea that he is chosen is encouraged from some pulpits in Swaziland. This gives the churches (especially it seems to me the spurious churches that meet in school classrooms or in pokey corners of the kingdom) a direct link to the King. This benefits the church more than it does the King.
Also, some chiefs in Swaziland who are themselves appointed by the King like to encourage the notion of ‘godliness’ because it allows people to believe that the chiefs themselves are close to God.
One reader of this blog had an interesting take on my original post. What the writer has to say about the succession might not be true. But then again, it might.
‘Before I get to the “making of a king” stuff, this “god” business has to be labelled bizarre. It is an archaic idea which should go the way of the dodo bird!
‘From history we know many aristocratic men have claimed the “sun” status (Louis XIV of France) or believed they were “gods” (Emperors of Japan). Even the mad psychopaths, such as Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini and German Nazi Adolph Hitler, believed they were some type of central “axis” around which Europe and the entire world should revolve. ’Hitler was not only considered “Mein Fuhrer” but also “Mein Gott” (my leader, my god) by his most loyal and ruthless SS - the schultzstaffel, his elite defense corp. So these ideas are not new no matter what surname you attach to the idea.
‘For many of us foreigners who lived in Swaziland we often heard the royal Dlamini successor must be the only child of his mother – that’s the primary consideration to becoming a king. But I’m certain many in Swaziland know the rumors about Makosetive's mother being raped so that he would not be her only child.
‘Supposedly the half-brother lives in Taiwan with a certain Mrs Mbhamali who once owned the Arcade Jewellers in Mbabane. She was a sister to the late Prime Minister Bhekimpi, hence the outcry when she was reported to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances in the 1990s. To this date, both have been esteemed guests of the now defeated Taiwanese Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
‘I guess it would be a bit too risky for the Nation or any others in Swaziland to print this but I doubt that I’m the only one who's heard it. Perhaps friends in Taiwan may even shed light on this half-brother to a “god.”’
See also
HOW A SWAZI KING IS MADE
Friday, 11 July 2008
SWAZI KING’S UGANDAN RELATIONS
Swaziland’s King Mswati III is back in his home kingdom after an extensive trip to Egypt for the African Union summit and to Uganda for a state-visit.
Readers of this blog who live in Swaziland will be well aware of these facts because the state-owned media have been giving the king’s journey extensive coverage.
Even the nominally independent newspaper, the Swazi Observer, has been devoting pages per day to the King. The Observer is generally known as ‘the King’s newspaper’ so this is no surprise. The Observer’s chief editor Musa Ndlangamandla travelled with ‘His Majesty’ (in the deferential way the newspaper likes to refer to the King).
As I said in my recently published research on censorship in Swazi newsrooms, it is the job of the chief editor (whoever holds the post, not just the present one) to report the King in a ‘good light’. And the reporting of this trip has been no exception.
I got the impression that there may not have been too much to write about this trip because Ndlangamandla had some difficulty filling the wide-open spaces of the Observer that had been left to him.
That can be the only reason why readers of the Observer (2 July 2008) had to put up with a report about problems the chief editor was having with his underwear (believe me you don’t want to know the details.)
Meanwhile, Swaziland’s only other ‘independent’ newspaper, the Times of Swaziland had to rely on the Internet for its stories.
As is common with newspapers in Swaziland, the Times ‘lifted’ reports that had already appeared on the Internet sites of newspapers outside of the kingdom.
The Times relied on New Vision, a Ugandan newspaper for its coverage.
Uganda is a country with a big human rights problem and the country’s newspapers are not very different from those in Swaziland when it comes to keeping on the right side of those in power.
So in the Times yesterday (10 July 2008) we were treated to New Vision’s report of King Mswati III praising a local ‘kingdom’ within Uganda. The King is reported to have praised the kingdom’s parliament and also praised kingdoms generally.
We should remember at this point that Swaziland is a kingdom (not a country or a state) and its people are subjects (not citizens). King Mswati is reported saying that kingdom’s ‘play an important role in poverty alleviation, job creation, access to health care and social services’.
I’ll leave it to you to decide how highly the Kingdom of Swaziland scores in each of these areas.
The King of Buganda in turn praised the Swazi King ‘for the peace and stability it has established in its kingdom for 200 years’.
The Times also lifted a story from New Vision about Swaziland committing to buy anti-AIDS ARV drugs from Swaziland.
I suppose if the Times cannot afford to send its own reporter to join the King on overseas’ visits (or indeed doesn’t want to) it needs to get its news from an alternative source: hence its reliance on New Vision.
What a pity then that it didn’t also share this report from New Vision.
When King Mswati of Swaziland jetted in on Monday, a state House official asked all female journalists to step aside because they had ‘breached a protocol of dress code’ and would not cover the function of the king’s arrival. They were wearing trousers. But after haggling, they were let in. When the journalists inquired from their Swazi colleagues whether female journalists are not allowed to wear trousers they were told they can wear anything as long as it is decent. The Ugandans concluded that they were being protected from royal attention. Mswati has 16 wives.
What can they mean the women had to be ‘protected from royal attention?’ and what has this to do with having 16 wives?....
Readers of this blog who live in Swaziland will be well aware of these facts because the state-owned media have been giving the king’s journey extensive coverage.
Even the nominally independent newspaper, the Swazi Observer, has been devoting pages per day to the King. The Observer is generally known as ‘the King’s newspaper’ so this is no surprise. The Observer’s chief editor Musa Ndlangamandla travelled with ‘His Majesty’ (in the deferential way the newspaper likes to refer to the King).
As I said in my recently published research on censorship in Swazi newsrooms, it is the job of the chief editor (whoever holds the post, not just the present one) to report the King in a ‘good light’. And the reporting of this trip has been no exception.
I got the impression that there may not have been too much to write about this trip because Ndlangamandla had some difficulty filling the wide-open spaces of the Observer that had been left to him.
That can be the only reason why readers of the Observer (2 July 2008) had to put up with a report about problems the chief editor was having with his underwear (believe me you don’t want to know the details.)
Meanwhile, Swaziland’s only other ‘independent’ newspaper, the Times of Swaziland had to rely on the Internet for its stories.
As is common with newspapers in Swaziland, the Times ‘lifted’ reports that had already appeared on the Internet sites of newspapers outside of the kingdom.
The Times relied on New Vision, a Ugandan newspaper for its coverage.
Uganda is a country with a big human rights problem and the country’s newspapers are not very different from those in Swaziland when it comes to keeping on the right side of those in power.
So in the Times yesterday (10 July 2008) we were treated to New Vision’s report of King Mswati III praising a local ‘kingdom’ within Uganda. The King is reported to have praised the kingdom’s parliament and also praised kingdoms generally.
We should remember at this point that Swaziland is a kingdom (not a country or a state) and its people are subjects (not citizens). King Mswati is reported saying that kingdom’s ‘play an important role in poverty alleviation, job creation, access to health care and social services’.
I’ll leave it to you to decide how highly the Kingdom of Swaziland scores in each of these areas.
The King of Buganda in turn praised the Swazi King ‘for the peace and stability it has established in its kingdom for 200 years’.
The Times also lifted a story from New Vision about Swaziland committing to buy anti-AIDS ARV drugs from Swaziland.
I suppose if the Times cannot afford to send its own reporter to join the King on overseas’ visits (or indeed doesn’t want to) it needs to get its news from an alternative source: hence its reliance on New Vision.
What a pity then that it didn’t also share this report from New Vision.
When King Mswati of Swaziland jetted in on Monday, a state House official asked all female journalists to step aside because they had ‘breached a protocol of dress code’ and would not cover the function of the king’s arrival. They were wearing trousers. But after haggling, they were let in. When the journalists inquired from their Swazi colleagues whether female journalists are not allowed to wear trousers they were told they can wear anything as long as it is decent. The Ugandans concluded that they were being protected from royal attention. Mswati has 16 wives.
What can they mean the women had to be ‘protected from royal attention?’ and what has this to do with having 16 wives?....
Thursday, 10 July 2008
HOW A SWAZI KING IS MADE
A lot of people in Swaziland believe that God chose King Mswati III to be king.
And because of this divine intervention, the king has special abilities and wisdom. For that reason, his word must be obeyed. Those who speak against the king, speak also against God.
Well that’s the theory. And it is very convenient for those close to the power of the king to allow this falsehood to gather ground in Swaziland. After all, some people might want to criticise a king, but who can dare criticise a God?
Of course King Mswati wasn’t chosen by God. A political group plotting within the ruling elite of Swaziland chose him.
I was reminded of this by the Nation magazine this month (July 2008), which for the second issue running has included extensive coverage of the documentary Without The King. As regular readers to the Nation (and this blog) know the documentary investigated the differences between the lavish lifestyles of the Royal Family and those of ordinary people in Swaziland.
Without the King and the Nation reveal how the present king came to the throne – and the manoeuvrings are positively Shakespearian.
Unlike in many societies that still have monarchs, in Swaziland the eldest son doesn’t simply become king once the reigning monarch dies. The king is chosen ‘by virtue of the rank and character of his mother in accordance with Swazi law and custom’. But the part of Swazi law and custom relating to the selection of a successor to a king is unknown to a majority of ordinary Swazi. It may include the mother to the heir.
The Nation reports, ‘In the documentary, King Mswati III shed some light on how he got to know that he would be the next King of Swaziland.
‘He said then he was about 12 ½ years of age and it was after the demise of his father, King Sobhuza II when the news were broke to him.
‘King Mswati III did not say anything about his mother who was then an ordinary wife to the late king. It was not until the then Supreme Council (Liqoqo) removed the then Queen Regent for the biological mother to the then Crown Prince that she was appointed to office.
‘The act drew reprisals for the Liqoqo members who ousted the then Queen Regent.
‘After the king was crowned, the Liqoqo members were charged with high treason arising from their decision to remove the Queen Regent Dzeliwe. Some were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment terms as high as 15 years.
‘The king subsequently pardoned them.’
See also
BRAVE SWAZI ‘NATION’ TAKES ON KING
And because of this divine intervention, the king has special abilities and wisdom. For that reason, his word must be obeyed. Those who speak against the king, speak also against God.
Well that’s the theory. And it is very convenient for those close to the power of the king to allow this falsehood to gather ground in Swaziland. After all, some people might want to criticise a king, but who can dare criticise a God?
Of course King Mswati wasn’t chosen by God. A political group plotting within the ruling elite of Swaziland chose him.
I was reminded of this by the Nation magazine this month (July 2008), which for the second issue running has included extensive coverage of the documentary Without The King. As regular readers to the Nation (and this blog) know the documentary investigated the differences between the lavish lifestyles of the Royal Family and those of ordinary people in Swaziland.
Without the King and the Nation reveal how the present king came to the throne – and the manoeuvrings are positively Shakespearian.
Unlike in many societies that still have monarchs, in Swaziland the eldest son doesn’t simply become king once the reigning monarch dies. The king is chosen ‘by virtue of the rank and character of his mother in accordance with Swazi law and custom’. But the part of Swazi law and custom relating to the selection of a successor to a king is unknown to a majority of ordinary Swazi. It may include the mother to the heir.
The Nation reports, ‘In the documentary, King Mswati III shed some light on how he got to know that he would be the next King of Swaziland.
‘He said then he was about 12 ½ years of age and it was after the demise of his father, King Sobhuza II when the news were broke to him.
‘King Mswati III did not say anything about his mother who was then an ordinary wife to the late king. It was not until the then Supreme Council (Liqoqo) removed the then Queen Regent for the biological mother to the then Crown Prince that she was appointed to office.
‘The act drew reprisals for the Liqoqo members who ousted the then Queen Regent.
‘After the king was crowned, the Liqoqo members were charged with high treason arising from their decision to remove the Queen Regent Dzeliwe. Some were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment terms as high as 15 years.
‘The king subsequently pardoned them.’
See also
BRAVE SWAZI ‘NATION’ TAKES ON KING
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
CENSORSHIP – ADVERTS AND LIBEL
I wrote last week about the research I had undertaken on censorship in the Swazi media.
My conclusion that journalists felt that King Mswati III was the biggest cause of imposed and self-censorship in Swaziland didn’t come as much of a surprise to media watchers.
But, I want to make clear that although the monarchy is the main concern among media people in Swaziland it is not the only cause.
My report, commissioned by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, also identified advertisers and the threat of libel action as significant worries.
Below is an extract from the report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms. If you want a copy of the full report please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
Advertisers and financial interests of organisations
The threat of losing advertising is real, this is especially so as the economy of Swaziland is declining. The privately owned media is dependent on advertising to survive, and since a small number of organisations spend so much the media houses give serious consideration every time there is a complaint from an advertiser.
Some advertisers are so important to the newspapers that a special relationship exists between the advertiser and the advertising department. The advertising department knows that some advertisers will never say ‘no’ when approached to advertise. For example, if a newspaper is running a special themed advertising supplement, it might approach a regular advertiser to support it. If the advertiser has already spent the annual advertising budget, an advertisement would still be placed and the advertisement paid for at a later date, when funds are available to the advertiser.
A number of companies and organisations were specifically cited as organisations that regularly tried to censor the content of newspapers. They were Swazi Bank; the cellphone company, MTN (‘a definite no-go area’ and ‘you can’t write about blackouts in the service’); the Swaziland Electricity Company and Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications (SPTC).
All the foregoing are major companies or parastatals in Swaziland. But smaller companies are also given special treatment. One such company that was mentioned more than once by respondents was the Why Not (a recreation and entertainment venue). In the case of the Why Not, respondents said they did not even feel able to publish a poor review of an act that appeared at the venue, for fear of losing advertising.
Although media houses will keep stories about advertisers out of the media there is a limit to what they will not report. For example, one respondent said they would publish a story if a chief officer of an advertiser were accused of rape.
Newspapers do not fear the withdrawal of advertising by government, although, according to the African Media Barometer, published by MISA, this has happened in the past. It is felt that government has little choice but to use the newspapers in order to get information out to the general public (although state-controlled radio, SBIS is also available for this). One respondent said that in the past when the government did withdraw advertising it was done by one small part of government and the ban lasted about one week.
There was a minority view that advertisers did not cause problems for media houses because they understood that newspapers had a duty to publish. Advertisers were satisfied if the media house gave the advertiser a platform to give its side of the story.
Libel
Many respondents reported that hardly a day went by without somebody threatening to sue them in order to ‘scare them off’. A letter from a lawyer often accompanied these threats. There was a general feeling that some people who claimed that they had been libelled by the media were ‘trying it on’ to get the media house to agree on an apology and costs before the case got to court.
The great time delay in getting cases to court could intimidate media houses. One respondent said a case could take up to two years before it went to court. Another said that lawyers, acting like ‘ambulance chasers’, tried to keep a case going as long as they could. This guaranteed the lawyer an income, when lawyers had very few other opportunities to earn.
Media houses sometimes settled cases, even those where they believed they had not committed a libel, for fear of the huge costs involved. Libel insurance to protect media houses was becoming prohibitively expensive in a climate where claims for libel could be as high as E3 million.
This fear of the high cost if a case was lost has led to some stories being dropped or angles in stories being toned down.
Media houses often settled out of court to avoid the protracted hassle and possible costs of pursuing a case to court. One respondent said settling out of court was a dangerous move for media houses. ‘Once you settle, you open the floodgates for everybody else.’
Another respondent said, ‘Settling for fear of going to court has reduced the confidence of journalists and lowers the standards of journalism’. This led newspapers to only go for soft targets (people who could not sue) and to leave larger, more important, targets alone.
Sources
The media protect their own sources by not publishing harmful stories about them, but this protection is not total. Some respondents revealed that they would not publish the story in their own newspaper, but would pass it on to another newspaper in the same media house, for them to follow up.
Some respondents admitted to censoring stories about regular sources in order to ensure a future flow of stories from that source.
When a regular source wants to keep something out of the media, a certain amount of negotiation takes place. There were a number of examples given where a source – often an official spokesperson for an organisation – offered the media house a ‘juicier’ story in exchange for dropping a story that would reflect badly on the organisation that the journalist was working on.
Sources often get their way, and many respondents revealed that they were given ‘better’ stories in exchange.
Taboos and cultural traditions
Cultural traditions are said to be very important in Swaziland and there exists a duality in the legal system between constitutional law and cultural and traditional law.
Despite the apparent importance of culture, most respondents said that they did not allow traditional leaders to interfere with the media’s work.
Some respondents said that there are no real cultural traditions in Swaziland. ‘We don’t respect that cultural leaders are sincere,’ one respondent said.
Other comments included, ‘To Hell with culture – nobody has authority to challenge us.’ ‘Nobody’s practising culture in our country any more.’ ‘Women in the villages are only doing it for survival, they don’t really give a damn.’ ‘I’m here to break cultural taboos.’
The only area in which culture was respected by the media, concerned the King. There are a number of things that culture dictates cannot be reported about annual ceremonies concerning the King (e.g. the Reed Dance and Incwala) and the media (reluctantly, according to respondents) censored themselves. It was clear from respondents that there were many stories from the Reed Dance and Incwala that were known to the media, that they would like to publish, but did not, for fear of the consequences from the King.
See also
CENSORSHIP AND THE SWAZI MEDIA
My conclusion that journalists felt that King Mswati III was the biggest cause of imposed and self-censorship in Swaziland didn’t come as much of a surprise to media watchers.
But, I want to make clear that although the monarchy is the main concern among media people in Swaziland it is not the only cause.
My report, commissioned by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, also identified advertisers and the threat of libel action as significant worries.
Below is an extract from the report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms. If you want a copy of the full report please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
Advertisers and financial interests of organisations
The threat of losing advertising is real, this is especially so as the economy of Swaziland is declining. The privately owned media is dependent on advertising to survive, and since a small number of organisations spend so much the media houses give serious consideration every time there is a complaint from an advertiser.
Some advertisers are so important to the newspapers that a special relationship exists between the advertiser and the advertising department. The advertising department knows that some advertisers will never say ‘no’ when approached to advertise. For example, if a newspaper is running a special themed advertising supplement, it might approach a regular advertiser to support it. If the advertiser has already spent the annual advertising budget, an advertisement would still be placed and the advertisement paid for at a later date, when funds are available to the advertiser.
A number of companies and organisations were specifically cited as organisations that regularly tried to censor the content of newspapers. They were Swazi Bank; the cellphone company, MTN (‘a definite no-go area’ and ‘you can’t write about blackouts in the service’); the Swaziland Electricity Company and Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications (SPTC).
All the foregoing are major companies or parastatals in Swaziland. But smaller companies are also given special treatment. One such company that was mentioned more than once by respondents was the Why Not (a recreation and entertainment venue). In the case of the Why Not, respondents said they did not even feel able to publish a poor review of an act that appeared at the venue, for fear of losing advertising.
Although media houses will keep stories about advertisers out of the media there is a limit to what they will not report. For example, one respondent said they would publish a story if a chief officer of an advertiser were accused of rape.
Newspapers do not fear the withdrawal of advertising by government, although, according to the African Media Barometer, published by MISA, this has happened in the past. It is felt that government has little choice but to use the newspapers in order to get information out to the general public (although state-controlled radio, SBIS is also available for this). One respondent said that in the past when the government did withdraw advertising it was done by one small part of government and the ban lasted about one week.
There was a minority view that advertisers did not cause problems for media houses because they understood that newspapers had a duty to publish. Advertisers were satisfied if the media house gave the advertiser a platform to give its side of the story.
Libel
Many respondents reported that hardly a day went by without somebody threatening to sue them in order to ‘scare them off’. A letter from a lawyer often accompanied these threats. There was a general feeling that some people who claimed that they had been libelled by the media were ‘trying it on’ to get the media house to agree on an apology and costs before the case got to court.
The great time delay in getting cases to court could intimidate media houses. One respondent said a case could take up to two years before it went to court. Another said that lawyers, acting like ‘ambulance chasers’, tried to keep a case going as long as they could. This guaranteed the lawyer an income, when lawyers had very few other opportunities to earn.
Media houses sometimes settled cases, even those where they believed they had not committed a libel, for fear of the huge costs involved. Libel insurance to protect media houses was becoming prohibitively expensive in a climate where claims for libel could be as high as E3 million.
This fear of the high cost if a case was lost has led to some stories being dropped or angles in stories being toned down.
Media houses often settled out of court to avoid the protracted hassle and possible costs of pursuing a case to court. One respondent said settling out of court was a dangerous move for media houses. ‘Once you settle, you open the floodgates for everybody else.’
Another respondent said, ‘Settling for fear of going to court has reduced the confidence of journalists and lowers the standards of journalism’. This led newspapers to only go for soft targets (people who could not sue) and to leave larger, more important, targets alone.
Sources
The media protect their own sources by not publishing harmful stories about them, but this protection is not total. Some respondents revealed that they would not publish the story in their own newspaper, but would pass it on to another newspaper in the same media house, for them to follow up.
Some respondents admitted to censoring stories about regular sources in order to ensure a future flow of stories from that source.
When a regular source wants to keep something out of the media, a certain amount of negotiation takes place. There were a number of examples given where a source – often an official spokesperson for an organisation – offered the media house a ‘juicier’ story in exchange for dropping a story that would reflect badly on the organisation that the journalist was working on.
Sources often get their way, and many respondents revealed that they were given ‘better’ stories in exchange.
Taboos and cultural traditions
Cultural traditions are said to be very important in Swaziland and there exists a duality in the legal system between constitutional law and cultural and traditional law.
Despite the apparent importance of culture, most respondents said that they did not allow traditional leaders to interfere with the media’s work.
Some respondents said that there are no real cultural traditions in Swaziland. ‘We don’t respect that cultural leaders are sincere,’ one respondent said.
Other comments included, ‘To Hell with culture – nobody has authority to challenge us.’ ‘Nobody’s practising culture in our country any more.’ ‘Women in the villages are only doing it for survival, they don’t really give a damn.’ ‘I’m here to break cultural taboos.’
The only area in which culture was respected by the media, concerned the King. There are a number of things that culture dictates cannot be reported about annual ceremonies concerning the King (e.g. the Reed Dance and Incwala) and the media (reluctantly, according to respondents) censored themselves. It was clear from respondents that there were many stories from the Reed Dance and Incwala that were known to the media, that they would like to publish, but did not, for fear of the consequences from the King.
See also
CENSORSHIP AND THE SWAZI MEDIA
GVT LIES OVER SWAZI MARCH
The Swazi Government has been caught out in a lie in the controversy over a banned march and rally against ritual murders in Swaziland.
Last week the Prime Minister told editors that the march had been banned because it would humiliate Swaziland abroad. He said people would think Swazis were murderers.
Now news comes that the organisers of the banned march and rally propose to hold a ‘prayer meeting’ for the victims of ritual murder.
Both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer carried statements from the Government yesterday (8 July 2008) saying that the government supported the prayer meeting. The statement says that had the organisers of the march made it clear last week that it was a prayer meeting and not a march and rally they wanted, permission would have been granted.
And that’s where the lie comes in. If the reason for banning the march was to avoid alerting the international community to the murders and thus ‘humiliating’ the kingdom, how is it that this prayer meeting won’t also draw attention?
The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Government were just looking for excuses to ban the march. They know that there will be uproar in the Swaziland if they dare to ban a prayer meeting, so they have backed down.
A statement on the original march from the Prime Minister’s office said, ‘In the present climate, a rally, in the view of the cabinet, had political connotations and it appeared that there would be an attempt to use the ritual murders as a political ploy.’
The statement doesn’t say what this ‘ploy’ was, but as I reported on Saturday there are strong rumours in Swaziland that the reason why members of the government want to ban discussion on the ritual murders is that some of them used ‘muti’ to get themselves elected.
See also
SWAZI MARCH BAN – P.M. SAYS PRAY
Last week the Prime Minister told editors that the march had been banned because it would humiliate Swaziland abroad. He said people would think Swazis were murderers.
Now news comes that the organisers of the banned march and rally propose to hold a ‘prayer meeting’ for the victims of ritual murder.
Both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer carried statements from the Government yesterday (8 July 2008) saying that the government supported the prayer meeting. The statement says that had the organisers of the march made it clear last week that it was a prayer meeting and not a march and rally they wanted, permission would have been granted.
And that’s where the lie comes in. If the reason for banning the march was to avoid alerting the international community to the murders and thus ‘humiliating’ the kingdom, how is it that this prayer meeting won’t also draw attention?
The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Government were just looking for excuses to ban the march. They know that there will be uproar in the Swaziland if they dare to ban a prayer meeting, so they have backed down.
A statement on the original march from the Prime Minister’s office said, ‘In the present climate, a rally, in the view of the cabinet, had political connotations and it appeared that there would be an attempt to use the ritual murders as a political ploy.’
The statement doesn’t say what this ‘ploy’ was, but as I reported on Saturday there are strong rumours in Swaziland that the reason why members of the government want to ban discussion on the ritual murders is that some of them used ‘muti’ to get themselves elected.
See also
SWAZI MARCH BAN – P.M. SAYS PRAY
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
SWAZI WOMEN VOTE CAMPAIGN ‘EVIL’
Chiefs have branded a ‘Vote for a Woman’ election campaign in Swaziland ‘evil’.
The campaign designed to help meet the requirement of the Swaziland Constitution for at least 30 percent of parliamentarians to be women, was also called ‘unSwazi’.
The chiefs of the Shiselweni region refused to endorse the campaign in their areas.
This happened at a ‘sensitisation’ meeting held by the Swaziland Home Affairs Ministry.
The Times of Swaziland reported today (8 July), most of the chiefs ‘said they felt that the concept had a foreign element that is unSwazi and had no place in the Swazi way of life’.
Although the newspaper didn’t report this, the chiefs were in effect saying that the constitution was ‘unSwazi’. Ironically, the Times reported the chiefs saying the Vote for a Woman campaign was itself unconstitutional because the election campaign had not officially started yet and the campaign was electioneering.
But that was just an excuse. The real reason was that the chiefs have no concept of democracy and do not want anyone but themselves to have a voice.
The former Swaziland Government Minister of Agriculture Chief Dambuza Lukhele gave the game away when he told the meeting, ‘This campaign seems to make Swazis lose their identity and culture. It has an evil foreign element, which we can’t accept. We respect international conventions, but this is unacceptable.’
The Times reported that this statement was met with ‘applause of approval from other chiefs’.
The Times reported Chief Velakubi of Madulini saying,
‘We can’t allow this to go ahead in our chiefdoms. This country can be lost in our hands. What if we allow this to proceed and the youth and other formations also come and say they want a forum also to pursue their agendas.’
The Times reported that Senior Gender Analyst at the Ministry of Home Affairs Jane Mkhonta, who was to lecture on the campaign, tried to be diplomatic and asked the chiefs to allow the meeting to go ahead but to no avail.
This new move to stifle debate in Swaziland comes a week after the European Union (EU) Ambassador to Swaziland Peter Beck Christiansen announced that the EU would not ‘observe’ the forthcoming elections because the Prime Minister and Cabinet are not elected by parliament. He said, ‘It’s clear that the [Swazi] constitution has some shortcomings.’
Meanwhile, the Swazi Observer reported (8 July 2008) that the Elections and Boundaries Commission chairman Chief Gija Dlamini had said that he was told the EU was coming to observe the elections.
I suppose we’ll find out in due course who is correct here. All we need now is for King Mswati III to tell us when the vote will be.
See also
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
The campaign designed to help meet the requirement of the Swaziland Constitution for at least 30 percent of parliamentarians to be women, was also called ‘unSwazi’.
The chiefs of the Shiselweni region refused to endorse the campaign in their areas.
This happened at a ‘sensitisation’ meeting held by the Swaziland Home Affairs Ministry.
The Times of Swaziland reported today (8 July), most of the chiefs ‘said they felt that the concept had a foreign element that is unSwazi and had no place in the Swazi way of life’.
Although the newspaper didn’t report this, the chiefs were in effect saying that the constitution was ‘unSwazi’. Ironically, the Times reported the chiefs saying the Vote for a Woman campaign was itself unconstitutional because the election campaign had not officially started yet and the campaign was electioneering.
But that was just an excuse. The real reason was that the chiefs have no concept of democracy and do not want anyone but themselves to have a voice.
The former Swaziland Government Minister of Agriculture Chief Dambuza Lukhele gave the game away when he told the meeting, ‘This campaign seems to make Swazis lose their identity and culture. It has an evil foreign element, which we can’t accept. We respect international conventions, but this is unacceptable.’
The Times reported that this statement was met with ‘applause of approval from other chiefs’.
The Times reported Chief Velakubi of Madulini saying,
‘We can’t allow this to go ahead in our chiefdoms. This country can be lost in our hands. What if we allow this to proceed and the youth and other formations also come and say they want a forum also to pursue their agendas.’
The Times reported that Senior Gender Analyst at the Ministry of Home Affairs Jane Mkhonta, who was to lecture on the campaign, tried to be diplomatic and asked the chiefs to allow the meeting to go ahead but to no avail.
This new move to stifle debate in Swaziland comes a week after the European Union (EU) Ambassador to Swaziland Peter Beck Christiansen announced that the EU would not ‘observe’ the forthcoming elections because the Prime Minister and Cabinet are not elected by parliament. He said, ‘It’s clear that the [Swazi] constitution has some shortcomings.’
Meanwhile, the Swazi Observer reported (8 July 2008) that the Elections and Boundaries Commission chairman Chief Gija Dlamini had said that he was told the EU was coming to observe the elections.
I suppose we’ll find out in due course who is correct here. All we need now is for King Mswati III to tell us when the vote will be.
See also
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
SWAZILAND DEMOCRACY ‘A LIE’
News this week that the European Union (EU) will not be coming to ‘observe’ the Swazi elections later this year because Swaziland is not a democracy has been largely ignored by the local media.
Although the decision not to come was announced by Peter Beck Christiansen, the EU Ambassador to Swaziland at a media briefing, only the Times of Swaziland reported the story.
Despite the deafening silence elsewhere, the Times’ companion newspaper, the Times Sunday has said that the EU’s decision ‘amplifies the concern that we [Swaziland] are living under a lie, that we have a unique and workable [democratic] system’.
In an editorial comment, the Times Sunday this week (6 July 2008) said,
‘What the EU’s decision seeks to tell us is the fact that we should wake up from our slumber, and deal with the fact that our “democratic” system does not have the tenets that are acceptable to the rest of the world. Indeed we have a unique system, but doesn’t the EU’s decision show us that soon we will not be acceptable, or will lose out on some privileges that only accrue to democratic states.’
As I reported on Wednesday, the EU’s concern with Swaziland was that political parties are banned and the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers are not elected by Parliament. Christiansen of the EU said it was clear the ‘Constitution has some shortcomings’.
The Times Sunday said that the EU’s position was not unexpected and people had been warning Swaziland for years that the kingdom must become a democratic state.
The Times Sunday says,
‘But the unfortunate part is that such warnings have all along been ignored by those in power, and in particular, the people, a majority of whom are unable to understand why it is important to push for changes.
‘This underscores the fact that there have been serious challenges in educating the people, in particular the rural folk, about the importance of governance of the people by the people.
‘They have only been indoctrinated to accept that decisions are taken for them - and that’s Swazi. Anything above that is unSwazi.’
The Times Sunday refers to the letter from the Commonwealth Expert Team I posted last Sunday (29 June 2008).
This letter from a team which observed Swaziland’s last election in 2003 said in part, ‘we do not regard the credibility of these National Elections as an issue: no elections can be credible when they are for a Parliament which does not have power and when political parties are banned. We would like to believe that the current draft constitution can yet be changed to provide for a transfer of power from the King to the Parliament and Government, and for freedom of association.’
The Times Sunday described this recommendation as ‘clear and precise, but the advice fell on deaf ears.
‘Or should we say it was sent to people who would not like to see any change of the status quo. As for the latter part (freedom of association) yesterday’s events [the breaking up by police of a rally by banned political party PUDEMO] in Manzini show that we still have major challenges.’
The Times Sunday says that the Commonwealth Expert Team also advised that the election of senior ministers and the unbanning of political parties ‘must constitute the key features of the agenda for further reform in Swaziland and therefore represent the main issues to be tackled by the government’.
The Times Sunday editorial says, ‘Even though we now have a constitution in place, none of the recommendations were guaranteed. Freedom of association was provided. But as EBC [Elections and Boundaries Commission] Chairman put it, it is for football teams and not political formations.
‘While the EU has resolved to leave us to proceed with a sham election, it is also unfortunate that the team charged with overseeing them was also irregularly selected. So, like the other bad apples of Africa, should we also expect to have an illegitimate government in the coming two months?’
See also
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
IS SWAZILAND’S ELECTION CREDIBLE?
Although the decision not to come was announced by Peter Beck Christiansen, the EU Ambassador to Swaziland at a media briefing, only the Times of Swaziland reported the story.
Despite the deafening silence elsewhere, the Times’ companion newspaper, the Times Sunday has said that the EU’s decision ‘amplifies the concern that we [Swaziland] are living under a lie, that we have a unique and workable [democratic] system’.
In an editorial comment, the Times Sunday this week (6 July 2008) said,
‘What the EU’s decision seeks to tell us is the fact that we should wake up from our slumber, and deal with the fact that our “democratic” system does not have the tenets that are acceptable to the rest of the world. Indeed we have a unique system, but doesn’t the EU’s decision show us that soon we will not be acceptable, or will lose out on some privileges that only accrue to democratic states.’
As I reported on Wednesday, the EU’s concern with Swaziland was that political parties are banned and the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers are not elected by Parliament. Christiansen of the EU said it was clear the ‘Constitution has some shortcomings’.
The Times Sunday said that the EU’s position was not unexpected and people had been warning Swaziland for years that the kingdom must become a democratic state.
The Times Sunday says,
‘But the unfortunate part is that such warnings have all along been ignored by those in power, and in particular, the people, a majority of whom are unable to understand why it is important to push for changes.
‘This underscores the fact that there have been serious challenges in educating the people, in particular the rural folk, about the importance of governance of the people by the people.
‘They have only been indoctrinated to accept that decisions are taken for them - and that’s Swazi. Anything above that is unSwazi.’
The Times Sunday refers to the letter from the Commonwealth Expert Team I posted last Sunday (29 June 2008).
This letter from a team which observed Swaziland’s last election in 2003 said in part, ‘we do not regard the credibility of these National Elections as an issue: no elections can be credible when they are for a Parliament which does not have power and when political parties are banned. We would like to believe that the current draft constitution can yet be changed to provide for a transfer of power from the King to the Parliament and Government, and for freedom of association.’
The Times Sunday described this recommendation as ‘clear and precise, but the advice fell on deaf ears.
‘Or should we say it was sent to people who would not like to see any change of the status quo. As for the latter part (freedom of association) yesterday’s events [the breaking up by police of a rally by banned political party PUDEMO] in Manzini show that we still have major challenges.’
The Times Sunday says that the Commonwealth Expert Team also advised that the election of senior ministers and the unbanning of political parties ‘must constitute the key features of the agenda for further reform in Swaziland and therefore represent the main issues to be tackled by the government’.
The Times Sunday editorial says, ‘Even though we now have a constitution in place, none of the recommendations were guaranteed. Freedom of association was provided. But as EBC [Elections and Boundaries Commission] Chairman put it, it is for football teams and not political formations.
‘While the EU has resolved to leave us to proceed with a sham election, it is also unfortunate that the team charged with overseeing them was also irregularly selected. So, like the other bad apples of Africa, should we also expect to have an illegitimate government in the coming two months?’
See also
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
IS SWAZILAND’S ELECTION CREDIBLE?
HUNGER STUNTING SWAZI CHILDREN
Four children out of ten in Swaziland are so malnourished that their growth has been permanently stunted.
The children are also damaged socially and mentally. Many have problems learning.
Many children are so hungry they collapse at school.
And the Swazi Government has no plans in place to solve the crisis.
There are now fears that once overseas’ food aid to Swaziland is reduced even more children will go hungry and suffer permanent damage.
The Save the Children Fund in Swaziland has issued dire warnings for the future health of children in the kingdom.
In the past year about 600,000 out of Swaziland’s total population of less than one million people have received donor food aid.
The Weekend Observer (5 July 2008) reported that many children, especially in the Lowveld area of the kingdom, that has suffered severe drought for many years, were seldom fed at home.
Only school feeding schemes are keeping them alive.
Save The Children Executive Director Dumisani Mnisi told the Weekend Observer that schoolteachers were concerned about the suffering of these children.
‘They complain that the children collapse because they have nothing to eat both at home and school,’ the Weekend Observer reported him saying.
He said Swaziland had not produced enough food to feed its population for the past five years.
Mnisi said that there were a growing number of families in Swaziland that were headed by children. Often, these households had no income coming in. This made children vulnerable to ‘being abused and exploited in exchange for food’.
Often, children left rural areas to go to towns and cities ‘and create another social challenge for the country,’ Mnisi said.
The Weekend Observer reported that Mnisi challenged the three-month stoppage of food distribution by the Disaster Management Agency. It is expected that people can grow their own food, but in the Lowveld ‘even backyard gardens are impossible’.
Mnisi criticised the Swazi Government for not having plans in place to deal with the food crisis even though the World Health Organisation said plans should be implemented within countries when the figure on stunted children reached 35 percent.
The Weekend Observer reported that recently the World Food Programme’s Country Director Abdoulaye Balde had noted that the food shortage in Swaziland could no longer be seen as a short-term crisis caused by drought. Instead, it was now a chronic problem that needed to be investigated. The problem was made worse by the chronic poverty in Swaziland where about 70 percent of the population earn less than one US Dollar a day.
People in Swaziland are so poor that many have no means to work their fields.
Mnisi said the government should encourage people to diversify the crops they grow and move away from a dependency on growing maize and instead try drought resistant crops.
Mnisi said, ‘Looking at the situation on the ground, one would realise that the situation is likely to get completely out of hand because of the growing number of children who struggle to find something to eat.’
The children are also damaged socially and mentally. Many have problems learning.
Many children are so hungry they collapse at school.
And the Swazi Government has no plans in place to solve the crisis.
There are now fears that once overseas’ food aid to Swaziland is reduced even more children will go hungry and suffer permanent damage.
The Save the Children Fund in Swaziland has issued dire warnings for the future health of children in the kingdom.
In the past year about 600,000 out of Swaziland’s total population of less than one million people have received donor food aid.
The Weekend Observer (5 July 2008) reported that many children, especially in the Lowveld area of the kingdom, that has suffered severe drought for many years, were seldom fed at home.
Only school feeding schemes are keeping them alive.
Save The Children Executive Director Dumisani Mnisi told the Weekend Observer that schoolteachers were concerned about the suffering of these children.
‘They complain that the children collapse because they have nothing to eat both at home and school,’ the Weekend Observer reported him saying.
He said Swaziland had not produced enough food to feed its population for the past five years.
Mnisi said that there were a growing number of families in Swaziland that were headed by children. Often, these households had no income coming in. This made children vulnerable to ‘being abused and exploited in exchange for food’.
Often, children left rural areas to go to towns and cities ‘and create another social challenge for the country,’ Mnisi said.
The Weekend Observer reported that Mnisi challenged the three-month stoppage of food distribution by the Disaster Management Agency. It is expected that people can grow their own food, but in the Lowveld ‘even backyard gardens are impossible’.
Mnisi criticised the Swazi Government for not having plans in place to deal with the food crisis even though the World Health Organisation said plans should be implemented within countries when the figure on stunted children reached 35 percent.
The Weekend Observer reported that recently the World Food Programme’s Country Director Abdoulaye Balde had noted that the food shortage in Swaziland could no longer be seen as a short-term crisis caused by drought. Instead, it was now a chronic problem that needed to be investigated. The problem was made worse by the chronic poverty in Swaziland where about 70 percent of the population earn less than one US Dollar a day.
People in Swaziland are so poor that many have no means to work their fields.
Mnisi said the government should encourage people to diversify the crops they grow and move away from a dependency on growing maize and instead try drought resistant crops.
Mnisi said, ‘Looking at the situation on the ground, one would realise that the situation is likely to get completely out of hand because of the growing number of children who struggle to find something to eat.’
Monday, 7 July 2008
SWAZI COPS BEAT UP PUDEMO UPDATE
Swazi police ‘beat the daylights’ out of PUDEMO supporters at a banned rally on Saturday.
Police officers are also said to have kidnapped one man and taken him into the bush. Only members of the public were able to save him.
This is in addition to the report yesterday that a PUDEMO (Peoples United Democratic Movement) leader was snatched by police from the streets of Swaziland’s second city Manzini and transported 40km away to Mbabane before being dumped to make his own way home.
As I reported yesterday (6 July 2008), the PUDEMO General Secretary was forced at gunpoint to hand over her camera to police and one disabled man had his crutches taken away by police and was forced to walk without them.
Today (7 July 2008) the Swazi Observer reports that police ‘brutally dispersed’ protestors, even though those at the rally believed they had a legal right to demonstrate. PUDEMO was celebrating its 25th anniversary. PUDEMO, like all other political parties is banned in Swaziland.
The Observer reports PUDEMO Youth Wing President Wandile Dludlu saying that they were not surprised when the police brutally dispersed them from Jubilee Park in Manzini without even a court order.
The Observer reports Dludlu saying, ‘Not even a single address was made on as the police came, uttered no word and beat the daylights out of the members. What confused us the most was that they did not have a valid instrument to do that. They violated not only our rights as PUDEMO members but even those of the people in the city.’
He added that they did not even expect the prime minister to act on what happened on Saturday because he did not care about them, lamenting that a number of their members were brutally beaten on Saturday and the day before.
The Observer says there were unconfirmed reports that three police officers kidnapped one Makepeace Mabuza to a place believed to be Sidvokodvo where he was taken to the middle of a bush and was saved by members of the public.
Dludlu said they were also aware of that incident and knew one of the officers who was part of this, adding that they hoped that he would help identify the others.
Dludlu told the Observer, ‘We are not sure though what their intentions were but we were told that they did not allow him to look at any of them. His offence was being part of the rally. We will report the identified officer even though nothing will be done to him.’
The Observer reports that four PUDEMO members were arrested while Mphandlana Shongwe, and PUDEMO leaders were rounded up by police.
See also
SWAZI POLICE BREAK UP PUDEMO
Police officers are also said to have kidnapped one man and taken him into the bush. Only members of the public were able to save him.
This is in addition to the report yesterday that a PUDEMO (Peoples United Democratic Movement) leader was snatched by police from the streets of Swaziland’s second city Manzini and transported 40km away to Mbabane before being dumped to make his own way home.
As I reported yesterday (6 July 2008), the PUDEMO General Secretary was forced at gunpoint to hand over her camera to police and one disabled man had his crutches taken away by police and was forced to walk without them.
Today (7 July 2008) the Swazi Observer reports that police ‘brutally dispersed’ protestors, even though those at the rally believed they had a legal right to demonstrate. PUDEMO was celebrating its 25th anniversary. PUDEMO, like all other political parties is banned in Swaziland.
The Observer reports PUDEMO Youth Wing President Wandile Dludlu saying that they were not surprised when the police brutally dispersed them from Jubilee Park in Manzini without even a court order.
The Observer reports Dludlu saying, ‘Not even a single address was made on as the police came, uttered no word and beat the daylights out of the members. What confused us the most was that they did not have a valid instrument to do that. They violated not only our rights as PUDEMO members but even those of the people in the city.’
He added that they did not even expect the prime minister to act on what happened on Saturday because he did not care about them, lamenting that a number of their members were brutally beaten on Saturday and the day before.
The Observer says there were unconfirmed reports that three police officers kidnapped one Makepeace Mabuza to a place believed to be Sidvokodvo where he was taken to the middle of a bush and was saved by members of the public.
Dludlu said they were also aware of that incident and knew one of the officers who was part of this, adding that they hoped that he would help identify the others.
Dludlu told the Observer, ‘We are not sure though what their intentions were but we were told that they did not allow him to look at any of them. His offence was being part of the rally. We will report the identified officer even though nothing will be done to him.’
The Observer reports that four PUDEMO members were arrested while Mphandlana Shongwe, and PUDEMO leaders were rounded up by police.
See also
SWAZI POLICE BREAK UP PUDEMO
SWAZI CENSORSHIP – MEDIA REACTION
As expected, the Swazi media almost totally ignored the research published on Friday that said imposed censorship and self-censorship was rife in Swaziland.
The research said that according to journalists and editors the biggest problem with censorship in Swaziland was the position taken by King Mswati III.
Journalists are afraid to upset him for fear of retribution.
The research, which was undertaken by me on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, was presented on Friday (4 July 2008) to an audience made up of senior media figures, journalists and people from various NGOs in Swaziland.
The only media house to give any meaningful coverage to the research was the Weekend Observer (5 July 2008) which devoted an entire page to it. However, the newspaper failed to mention at all the fear the media has about the king. It did however make a tantalising reference to it by reporting that ‘On self-censorship, the respondents highlighted fear of offending the authorities as the main cause.’ For ‘authorities’ read ‘king’.
I have some sympathy with the media over this lack of coverage. During the question and answer session at the report’s launch, it became clear that there is a very deep rooted fear of the monarchy in Swaziland.
One very senior media figure said that we had to remember that King Mswati III is above the law. This is true, even the new Swazi Constituion allows the king to be above the law. What this in effect means is that the king can do whatever he likes and if he decides to close down a newspaper he doesn’t like – as he threatened to do with the Times of Swaziland group in March 2007 – he can. And he will.
Another example of the fear of the monarchy emerged at the research report launch when one participant said that we should be careful letting the king know how afraid the media are of him. There was no discussion on this point, but one interpretation I would put on the comment is that if King Mswati knows he can get away with bullying the media he will use that power to cause trouble.
The Weekend Observer report concentrated on the problems I had conducting the research. Some people in the media industries were reluctant to take part in the research for fear of retribution. All those who did take part were guaranteed anonymity. I think this tells us a great deal about the fear that people in Swaziland live under in their daily lives. People are simply scared to be seen to be criticising the status quo. This is especially so when it comes to criticising the monarchy.
I outlined some of the problems I had with the research in the report itself.
I wrote,
‘Swaziland is not a democracy and some people have genuine fears of victimisation if they express themselves on controversial matters. For this reason all information was given to the researcher on the condition of anonymity.
‘Before interviews began, some respondents expressed concerns that they would be able to be identified from the specific examples of censorship practice they gave.
‘This is a genuine concern and therefore special care had to be taken in writing the narrative of this report and in some instances detail has deliberately been deleted or obscured to protect the source.
‘All interviews were recorded on the understanding that once the interview was transcribed the recording would be wiped.’
Nobody from state-controlled radio or television agreed to take part in the research.
I had a telling experience with state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) radio. One senior journalist agreed to meet with me, but when I arrived for the interview, declined to be interviewed. The journalist said permission would need to be sought from the management of the radio station before an interview would be forthcoming. Even though the interview was seeking the personal experiences of those who were being questioned, and not statements on behalf of the media organisation, the journalist felt unable to take part without the expressed permission of seniors.
I was directed to also seek the permission of the Minister of Public Services and Information before making further requests of SBIS. I declined the invitation and subsequently nobody from SBIS was interviewed. This encounter speaks volumes about the state of censorship at SBIS.
I personally wasn’t responsible for choosing the respondents in the research. This was done on my behalf by MISA. I was told that some people declined to be interviewed by me for fear of the consequences, but they did give information about their experiences of censorship in Swaziland. I was later told that some of these stories were even more telling than those that eventually appeared in the final report.
The Weekend Observer has placed its reports on the launch on its website. To access them click on a headline.
Journalists censor themselves
...but they are doing their best
I have the full research report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland as a Word file. If you want a copy please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
CENSORSHIP AND THE SWAZI MEDIA
The research said that according to journalists and editors the biggest problem with censorship in Swaziland was the position taken by King Mswati III.
Journalists are afraid to upset him for fear of retribution.
The research, which was undertaken by me on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, was presented on Friday (4 July 2008) to an audience made up of senior media figures, journalists and people from various NGOs in Swaziland.
The only media house to give any meaningful coverage to the research was the Weekend Observer (5 July 2008) which devoted an entire page to it. However, the newspaper failed to mention at all the fear the media has about the king. It did however make a tantalising reference to it by reporting that ‘On self-censorship, the respondents highlighted fear of offending the authorities as the main cause.’ For ‘authorities’ read ‘king’.
I have some sympathy with the media over this lack of coverage. During the question and answer session at the report’s launch, it became clear that there is a very deep rooted fear of the monarchy in Swaziland.
One very senior media figure said that we had to remember that King Mswati III is above the law. This is true, even the new Swazi Constituion allows the king to be above the law. What this in effect means is that the king can do whatever he likes and if he decides to close down a newspaper he doesn’t like – as he threatened to do with the Times of Swaziland group in March 2007 – he can. And he will.
Another example of the fear of the monarchy emerged at the research report launch when one participant said that we should be careful letting the king know how afraid the media are of him. There was no discussion on this point, but one interpretation I would put on the comment is that if King Mswati knows he can get away with bullying the media he will use that power to cause trouble.
The Weekend Observer report concentrated on the problems I had conducting the research. Some people in the media industries were reluctant to take part in the research for fear of retribution. All those who did take part were guaranteed anonymity. I think this tells us a great deal about the fear that people in Swaziland live under in their daily lives. People are simply scared to be seen to be criticising the status quo. This is especially so when it comes to criticising the monarchy.
I outlined some of the problems I had with the research in the report itself.
I wrote,
‘Swaziland is not a democracy and some people have genuine fears of victimisation if they express themselves on controversial matters. For this reason all information was given to the researcher on the condition of anonymity.
‘Before interviews began, some respondents expressed concerns that they would be able to be identified from the specific examples of censorship practice they gave.
‘This is a genuine concern and therefore special care had to be taken in writing the narrative of this report and in some instances detail has deliberately been deleted or obscured to protect the source.
‘All interviews were recorded on the understanding that once the interview was transcribed the recording would be wiped.’
Nobody from state-controlled radio or television agreed to take part in the research.
I had a telling experience with state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) radio. One senior journalist agreed to meet with me, but when I arrived for the interview, declined to be interviewed. The journalist said permission would need to be sought from the management of the radio station before an interview would be forthcoming. Even though the interview was seeking the personal experiences of those who were being questioned, and not statements on behalf of the media organisation, the journalist felt unable to take part without the expressed permission of seniors.
I was directed to also seek the permission of the Minister of Public Services and Information before making further requests of SBIS. I declined the invitation and subsequently nobody from SBIS was interviewed. This encounter speaks volumes about the state of censorship at SBIS.
I personally wasn’t responsible for choosing the respondents in the research. This was done on my behalf by MISA. I was told that some people declined to be interviewed by me for fear of the consequences, but they did give information about their experiences of censorship in Swaziland. I was later told that some of these stories were even more telling than those that eventually appeared in the final report.
The Weekend Observer has placed its reports on the launch on its website. To access them click on a headline.
Journalists censor themselves
...but they are doing their best
I have the full research report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland as a Word file. If you want a copy please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
CENSORSHIP AND THE SWAZI MEDIA
HAPPY (SWAZI) BIRTHDAY TO ME
This Swaziland blogsite is one year old today. (7 July 2008)
Don’t worry I’m not about to launch into a speech about how blogging has changed my life and made me friends all over the world (none in Swaziland, but all over the world).
Instead, I want to take an opportunity to encourage people in Swaziland to start up their own blogs.
When I talk to people in Swaziland about blogging one of their main questions (and concerns if they started one them self) is who would read it?
When I think of Swazi Media Commentary, it is a bit difficult to be precise with the answer on this. Roughly one in three readers of the blogsite log on during the hours of 11pm and 6am, so that means unless they are Swazis with bad sleep problems, the readers are at computers on the other side of the world.
The people in Swaziland who read the blogsite are mostly from the media houses or the ‘development industry’. I know that editors and media executives read Swazi Media Commentary, because they tell me so.
Journalists at the newspapers are keen readers and some keep a tally to see which of the media houses gets most mentions. (You can work out for yourself why they might do that).
Among the other Swazi readers are students, academics and people working for NGOs.
So, I hope I am able to convince people in Swaziland who might want to start a blog themselves that with some effort you can find a readership.
The readership of Swazi Media Commentary is extended because I send most posts to the Swazi Solidarity Network forum (SSN), a Google discussion group with about 550 members (I don’t send all the posts to SSN, so if you only ever read me on that group log into the blogsite itself from time to time to see if you’re missing anything).
The Internet is for sharing, so often my posts get lifted from the blogsite and reproduced elsewhere. The Southern Africa Contact in Denmark publishes a newsletter about Swaziland to more than 1,000 members each fortnight and my posts often appear there.
My posts also pop up on other websites at universities, political parties and other activist sites.
Occasionally, the Swazi newspapers will lift a post and publish it in their pages. I have also had stuff reproduced by a news agency and a trade union.
If the private emails I receive are anything to go by, academic researchers in Swaziland, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Kenya and South Africa are accessing the blogsite.
Only last month a delegation from The World Bank came to interview me about my views on Swaziland after having found me on the Internet.
So there you are. What a clever fellow I am. And so could you be.
I wrote before about the practicalities of blogging. To find out how you can start your own click here
See also
WE NEED MORE SWAZI BLOGS
Don’t worry I’m not about to launch into a speech about how blogging has changed my life and made me friends all over the world (none in Swaziland, but all over the world).
Instead, I want to take an opportunity to encourage people in Swaziland to start up their own blogs.
When I talk to people in Swaziland about blogging one of their main questions (and concerns if they started one them self) is who would read it?
When I think of Swazi Media Commentary, it is a bit difficult to be precise with the answer on this. Roughly one in three readers of the blogsite log on during the hours of 11pm and 6am, so that means unless they are Swazis with bad sleep problems, the readers are at computers on the other side of the world.
The people in Swaziland who read the blogsite are mostly from the media houses or the ‘development industry’. I know that editors and media executives read Swazi Media Commentary, because they tell me so.
Journalists at the newspapers are keen readers and some keep a tally to see which of the media houses gets most mentions. (You can work out for yourself why they might do that).
Among the other Swazi readers are students, academics and people working for NGOs.
So, I hope I am able to convince people in Swaziland who might want to start a blog themselves that with some effort you can find a readership.
The readership of Swazi Media Commentary is extended because I send most posts to the Swazi Solidarity Network forum (SSN), a Google discussion group with about 550 members (I don’t send all the posts to SSN, so if you only ever read me on that group log into the blogsite itself from time to time to see if you’re missing anything).
The Internet is for sharing, so often my posts get lifted from the blogsite and reproduced elsewhere. The Southern Africa Contact in Denmark publishes a newsletter about Swaziland to more than 1,000 members each fortnight and my posts often appear there.
My posts also pop up on other websites at universities, political parties and other activist sites.
Occasionally, the Swazi newspapers will lift a post and publish it in their pages. I have also had stuff reproduced by a news agency and a trade union.
If the private emails I receive are anything to go by, academic researchers in Swaziland, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Kenya and South Africa are accessing the blogsite.
Only last month a delegation from The World Bank came to interview me about my views on Swaziland after having found me on the Internet.
So there you are. What a clever fellow I am. And so could you be.
I wrote before about the practicalities of blogging. To find out how you can start your own click here
See also
WE NEED MORE SWAZI BLOGS
Sunday, 6 July 2008
SWAZI POLICE BREAK UP PUDEMO
Swazi Police unconstitutionally broke up a demonstration by banned political party PUDEMO yesterday.
The PUDEMO General Secretary says police pointed a gun at her. One other leader was abducted by police and transported 40km away and dumped. One disabled man had his crutches taken away by police and was forced to walk without them.
Police charged at least four people with causing malicious damage.
The trouble started when the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) tried to celebrate its 25th anniversary. It wanted to rally in (can you spot the irony here?) Freedom Square Park in Swaziland’s second city Manzini, but police had other ideas.
Swaziland has had a constitution for two years that allows for freedom of assembly and freedom of association, but both these constitutional rights were denied to PUDEMO.
First, in undemocratic Swaziland all political parties, including PUDEMO, are banned, thereby denying freedom of association.
Second, in Swaziland groups are required to ask for permission to hold meetings or marches, thereby denying the freedom of assembly. Even though this was unconstitutional, PUDEMO nonetheless sought permission to rally from Manzini City Council but was turned down.
PUDEMO believing that it had not been given adequate reasons for the ban decided to meet anyway and that’s when the trouble started.
According to reports in the Times Sunday today (6 July 2008) police rounded up leaders of PUDEMO from the streets of Manzini and took them to the regional police headquarters. One leader was taken across country to another city and dumped there.
The Times Sunday reported, ‘Mphandlana Shongwe said he was taken by police from the street in Manzini and then dumped in Mbabane [40km away].’
Shongwe told the Times Sunday,
‘When they took me I geared myself for the usual assault and believe me I was already prepared to be beaten, but the police decided to take me to Mbabane.
‘Now I am stuck here and I can’t go to Manzini because police have banned me [from going] there.
‘I am hungry now yet my home is in Manzini.
‘Why do police violate our rights yet we have a constitution, what threat do I pose?’
Personally, I think the Times Sunday gave an interesting insight into the mentality of Swazi police and the way they completely disregard the law and the rights of individuals.
Acting on their own initiative and without the order of a court of law, the police decided to pick Shongwe up and transport him across the country.
The Times Sunday reported,
‘Police spokesperson Superintendent Vusi Masuku said Shongwe had not been banned from Manzini, but merely displaced in order to maintain law and order.
‘“He made his intentions clear that he was going to partake in an unlawful rally therefore he was taken to Mbabane to prevent him from committing the crime of partaking in an unlawful rally,” said Masuku.’
What the police spokesman doesn’t say is why all of the protestors weren’t taken wholesale away from Manzini if the purpose was to ‘maintain law and order’?
The Times Sunday reported PUDEMO General Secretary Sphasha Dlamini saying that police officers pointed a gun at her.
Dlamini told the Times Sunday that she had tried to take photographs of ‘of police officers who were harassing one of the members of PUDEMO when they pointed a gun at her and demanded that she hand over the camera’.
Dlamini told the newspaper, ‘They said they were only going to delete the pictures of the police, but they cleared all the pictures in my camera before handing it back.’
The Times Sunday reported PUDEMO Information Officer Zakhele Mabuza saying that the police behaved brutally. Mabuza said that one PUDEMO member who is disabled and uses crutches ‘had them taken away by police and they further ordered him to walk without the aid of his crutches’.
The Times Sunday also reported evidence of a ‘dirty trick’ campaign on the part of the police.
At one point, the PUDEMO General Secretary Sphasha Dlamini had visited Manzini police station to check on people who had been detained there. When a colleague phoned her to find out what was going on ‘a female voice – suspected to be a police officer – answered the phone and claimed to be Dlamini’.
The newspaper reported,
‘This suspected police officer answered Dlamini’s phone and said, “I am Sphasha, I was not arrested, don’t worry, everything is fine.”
‘However, screams of a female voice could be heard from the background and when quizzed further the suspected police officer cut the line.
‘This newspaper [Times Sunday] tried to call from different numbers, but the same female voice answered the phone, but this time she said Dlamini was asleep at her home.
‘This was despite that Dlamini had called the newspaper earlier to report that some of her comrades had been arrested and she was in Manzini to check on them.
‘Dlamini was called several times, but the same woman answered the phone and when probed on where Dlamini was she would claim to be Dlamini and then cut the line.
‘When alerted to the screams of a woman in the background the woman would hang up.’
The Times Sunday reported that four PUDEMO members were charged with malicious damage by pelting stones two vehicles in Manzini.
The Times Sunday devoted four reports with pictures to the story of the banned rally. I notice that no reporters’ by-lines (the names of the authors of the report) appeared on the reports. This is unusual in the Swaziland press. In the past when reporters’ names have been left off stories it has often been an attempt on the part of the newspaper to protect the reporter from intimidation.
The PUDEMO General Secretary says police pointed a gun at her. One other leader was abducted by police and transported 40km away and dumped. One disabled man had his crutches taken away by police and was forced to walk without them.
Police charged at least four people with causing malicious damage.
The trouble started when the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) tried to celebrate its 25th anniversary. It wanted to rally in (can you spot the irony here?) Freedom Square Park in Swaziland’s second city Manzini, but police had other ideas.
Swaziland has had a constitution for two years that allows for freedom of assembly and freedom of association, but both these constitutional rights were denied to PUDEMO.
First, in undemocratic Swaziland all political parties, including PUDEMO, are banned, thereby denying freedom of association.
Second, in Swaziland groups are required to ask for permission to hold meetings or marches, thereby denying the freedom of assembly. Even though this was unconstitutional, PUDEMO nonetheless sought permission to rally from Manzini City Council but was turned down.
PUDEMO believing that it had not been given adequate reasons for the ban decided to meet anyway and that’s when the trouble started.
According to reports in the Times Sunday today (6 July 2008) police rounded up leaders of PUDEMO from the streets of Manzini and took them to the regional police headquarters. One leader was taken across country to another city and dumped there.
The Times Sunday reported, ‘Mphandlana Shongwe said he was taken by police from the street in Manzini and then dumped in Mbabane [40km away].’
Shongwe told the Times Sunday,
‘When they took me I geared myself for the usual assault and believe me I was already prepared to be beaten, but the police decided to take me to Mbabane.
‘Now I am stuck here and I can’t go to Manzini because police have banned me [from going] there.
‘I am hungry now yet my home is in Manzini.
‘Why do police violate our rights yet we have a constitution, what threat do I pose?’
Personally, I think the Times Sunday gave an interesting insight into the mentality of Swazi police and the way they completely disregard the law and the rights of individuals.
Acting on their own initiative and without the order of a court of law, the police decided to pick Shongwe up and transport him across the country.
The Times Sunday reported,
‘Police spokesperson Superintendent Vusi Masuku said Shongwe had not been banned from Manzini, but merely displaced in order to maintain law and order.
‘“He made his intentions clear that he was going to partake in an unlawful rally therefore he was taken to Mbabane to prevent him from committing the crime of partaking in an unlawful rally,” said Masuku.’
What the police spokesman doesn’t say is why all of the protestors weren’t taken wholesale away from Manzini if the purpose was to ‘maintain law and order’?
The Times Sunday reported PUDEMO General Secretary Sphasha Dlamini saying that police officers pointed a gun at her.
Dlamini told the Times Sunday that she had tried to take photographs of ‘of police officers who were harassing one of the members of PUDEMO when they pointed a gun at her and demanded that she hand over the camera’.
Dlamini told the newspaper, ‘They said they were only going to delete the pictures of the police, but they cleared all the pictures in my camera before handing it back.’
The Times Sunday reported PUDEMO Information Officer Zakhele Mabuza saying that the police behaved brutally. Mabuza said that one PUDEMO member who is disabled and uses crutches ‘had them taken away by police and they further ordered him to walk without the aid of his crutches’.
The Times Sunday also reported evidence of a ‘dirty trick’ campaign on the part of the police.
At one point, the PUDEMO General Secretary Sphasha Dlamini had visited Manzini police station to check on people who had been detained there. When a colleague phoned her to find out what was going on ‘a female voice – suspected to be a police officer – answered the phone and claimed to be Dlamini’.
The newspaper reported,
‘This suspected police officer answered Dlamini’s phone and said, “I am Sphasha, I was not arrested, don’t worry, everything is fine.”
‘However, screams of a female voice could be heard from the background and when quizzed further the suspected police officer cut the line.
‘This newspaper [Times Sunday] tried to call from different numbers, but the same female voice answered the phone, but this time she said Dlamini was asleep at her home.
‘This was despite that Dlamini had called the newspaper earlier to report that some of her comrades had been arrested and she was in Manzini to check on them.
‘Dlamini was called several times, but the same woman answered the phone and when probed on where Dlamini was she would claim to be Dlamini and then cut the line.
‘When alerted to the screams of a woman in the background the woman would hang up.’
The Times Sunday reported that four PUDEMO members were charged with malicious damage by pelting stones two vehicles in Manzini.
The Times Sunday devoted four reports with pictures to the story of the banned rally. I notice that no reporters’ by-lines (the names of the authors of the report) appeared on the reports. This is unusual in the Swaziland press. In the past when reporters’ names have been left off stories it has often been an attempt on the part of the newspaper to protect the reporter from intimidation.
SWAZI P.M. IS CLOSE TO THE MEDIA
Swaziland’s Prime Minister has praised the Swazi media for the support they have given him and his government over the past five years.
Themba Dlamini was speaking at the final Swaziland’s editor’s forum breakfast meeting before the forthcoming elections.
Dlamini said past meetings had given people the opportunity to understand government policies and programmes.
He said there was value in the ‘constant interaction’ between government and media that these monthly meetings represented.
I am not surprised that the Prime Minister is pleased with the media’s behaviour because, put simply, they haven’t really given him a hard time at all.
The forum is billed as an opportunity for the media to question the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on matters of interest to the nation, but in his speech the PM was very open about the fact that he would only answer the questions that he wanted to.
I personally don’t see that as being much of an open dialogue. A real interaction would only take place when the Prime Minister and senior politicians were forced to answer questions they did NOT want to answer.
The breakfast meetings take place every month and usually get extensive coverage in the media. This month for example the Swazi Observer (4 July 2008) devoted one page and the Times of Swaziland, two pages to the meeting. Usually the reports are summaries of what the PM said. There is no attempt to get alterative voices in the stories.
This is entirely typical of the Swazi media and must be why the Prime Minister thinks the meetings are so valuable: he gets to put his own point of view across.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in its report His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 showed how this happens in practice.
The report, written by Mary Ellen Rogers, gives an example of a report in the Times of Swaziland (15 November 2007). The story headlined PM Doubts Ngozo was shot at 35cm radius was about the PM’s defence of the police service against allegations that officers fatally shot an unarmed suspect at close range.
The only source in the story was the Prime Minister himself.
Rogers comments,
‘The report just provided a summary of the PM’s statements. As such, the information was extremely limited. There was no context to explain the shooting and critically no information about what was contained in the post-mortem report that the PM so readily discredits.
‘There was no information to counter or verify the PM’s claims. The PM speaks of investigations that are complete, but we are not told any detail about the investigations such as who conducted them and under what circumstances.
‘There is confusing reference to a previous coroner but no information on when the current coroner will hear this case and what the likely consequences would be for the officers involved.’
Personally, I can see why the PM is pleased with the Swazi media. The media have such a lack of curiosity that the PM can get away with anything.
To emphasise the point look at my post yesterday (5 July 2008) about the PM praising the state of the Swazi economy.
To see the full text of the Prime Minister’s speech to the Editors’ Forum, click here
See also
P.M. PRAISES SWAZI MEDIA
Themba Dlamini was speaking at the final Swaziland’s editor’s forum breakfast meeting before the forthcoming elections.
Dlamini said past meetings had given people the opportunity to understand government policies and programmes.
He said there was value in the ‘constant interaction’ between government and media that these monthly meetings represented.
I am not surprised that the Prime Minister is pleased with the media’s behaviour because, put simply, they haven’t really given him a hard time at all.
The forum is billed as an opportunity for the media to question the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on matters of interest to the nation, but in his speech the PM was very open about the fact that he would only answer the questions that he wanted to.
I personally don’t see that as being much of an open dialogue. A real interaction would only take place when the Prime Minister and senior politicians were forced to answer questions they did NOT want to answer.
The breakfast meetings take place every month and usually get extensive coverage in the media. This month for example the Swazi Observer (4 July 2008) devoted one page and the Times of Swaziland, two pages to the meeting. Usually the reports are summaries of what the PM said. There is no attempt to get alterative voices in the stories.
This is entirely typical of the Swazi media and must be why the Prime Minister thinks the meetings are so valuable: he gets to put his own point of view across.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in its report His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 showed how this happens in practice.
The report, written by Mary Ellen Rogers, gives an example of a report in the Times of Swaziland (15 November 2007). The story headlined PM Doubts Ngozo was shot at 35cm radius was about the PM’s defence of the police service against allegations that officers fatally shot an unarmed suspect at close range.
The only source in the story was the Prime Minister himself.
Rogers comments,
‘The report just provided a summary of the PM’s statements. As such, the information was extremely limited. There was no context to explain the shooting and critically no information about what was contained in the post-mortem report that the PM so readily discredits.
‘There was no information to counter or verify the PM’s claims. The PM speaks of investigations that are complete, but we are not told any detail about the investigations such as who conducted them and under what circumstances.
‘There is confusing reference to a previous coroner but no information on when the current coroner will hear this case and what the likely consequences would be for the officers involved.’
Personally, I can see why the PM is pleased with the Swazi media. The media have such a lack of curiosity that the PM can get away with anything.
To emphasise the point look at my post yesterday (5 July 2008) about the PM praising the state of the Swazi economy.
To see the full text of the Prime Minister’s speech to the Editors’ Forum, click here
See also
P.M. PRAISES SWAZI MEDIA
P.M. PRAISES SWAZILAND MEDIA
On Thursday 4 July 2008 the Prime Minister of Swaziland Themba Dlamini gave a speech to the Swaziland Editors’ Forum breakfast meeting. In it he outlined his views on the way the media operated in the kingdom.
For comments on his speech click here
The Swazi News (5 July 2008) reprinted the speech. It is reproduced below.
May I begin by expressing my profound gratitude to the Editors Forum for the partnership built over time between the media and my Cabinet colleagues, through the monthly meetings to deliberate on issues of national importance and interest in the last four and half years.
These breakfast meetings have helped different stakeholders understand government programmes, policies, challenges and bills that government is enacting.
In other words they have opened doors for the public to follow government business.
I am particularly pleased that we all saw value in establishing constant interaction between government and the media, because we all appreciated the role of the media and the expectations of the public from this interface.
There is no doubt that in the 21st century information has become the most powerful tool. Through information you can fight diseases, ignorance and promote development amongst other things. Since time in immemorial, the media has been the eyes and ears of the people, irrespective of their status in society. The role of the media is to inform, educate and entertain members of society It is the mouthpiece of the voiceless, down trodden and abused.
In certain quarters the media is called the watchdog for the people and not 'blood hound' because it follows issues from all sectors of our society Indeed that is why it is called the fourth estate, because it has a distinctive role to play.
The media reports on economic, political, social and personal issues. More than before, the media has an immense task of reporting on the operations of the judiciary legislature, executive and the civil society to mention but a few.
It has always been argued that through the media politicians are able to account to the electorate because it follows very closely those that are in high/political positions in society. It keeps them on their toes.
May I also thank the media for the relationship they have built with the government press secretary. The existence of the office has brought hand some dividends and strengthened our open door policy I am sure you will agree with me that you have access to government information and my Cabinet colleagues have also been co-operating with you.
I wish to thank the media and congratulate all journalists for their tireless efforts in disseminating information to the people. You have been true partners in educating and informing the nation about government programmes, policies and projects. You have been able to inform society about the many challenges His Majesty's government is facing.
You have played a magnificent role in educating people about the effects of HIV/AIDS, the challenges of poverty and the abuse of children and women. You have condemned the abuse of the voiceless and the under privileged. You have ben able to bring to the public domain men and women who abuse children.
The role played by the media in creating awareness on corruption is highly commendable. The media has been able to expose corruption both in the private and public sectors. Sometimes fingers have also been pointed to the newsrooms that corruption is also breeding there.
However, I think this has all been done in the spirit of accountability and transparency.
Due to the transparency of government, the media has been able to alert government on potential risks that the country might find itself facing. You have followed closely the progress of government projects and sometimes you have been useful whistle blowers. As a result a lot of corruption has been exposed through your dedicated work.
May I, however, say that transparency and freedom of expression and information have some limits in every society. This comes with responsibility, maturity and above all up holding national interest as a top priority I am particularly referring to national interest because the media can either build or destroy the image of the country. Readers form perceptions based on what is reported by the media. Therefore Editors, as gate keepers of our newsrooms, need to have love, sensitivity and patriotism to protect the country in which they belong.
This should be done without compromising professionalism and independence
It is against this background that I appeal to the media to be guided by their ethics when reporting. You need to report truthfully, without any bias and also abide by what is called equal opportunity in order to balance your stories. The media should be guided by the principles of fair, responsible and truthful reporting. The press must avoid the principle of “the survival of the fittest”.
The media should avoid a tabloid style of reporting. It must report facts and facts only in order to gain credibility. Despite all this I believe that the media should report out fear or favour. We should all be equal before the editors. As the media reports, it should abide by the laws of the land and the constitution is our guiding document We need to put people first and the over riding factor is national interest.
We discourage the abuse of freedom of expression. I once read an advert and also watched the same advert on television, it said, "we have freedom of expression but then after expression there is no freedom
In other countries people claim to have freedom of expression but in practice there is no freedom of expression. If you do, either you disappear or you are behind bars. Opinion columns in our media should be guided by media ethics, it should not promote hate. It should build up individuals, not to chastise or rebuke personalities recklessly. The media should focus on issues and not personalise issues.
Again the choice of words and language is key but without losing the meaning of what you want to say.
I am glad that in Swaziland people have constitutional rights to express themselves freely I am also happy that there is no one that has been reprimanded because of expressing himself or herself through the media or any other medium.
I wish to emphasise once again that freedom comes with responsibility.
May I also congratulate all our media houses for their commitment in promoting and reporting on the development of the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland.
The media covered the civic education very well and this was highly appreciated toy His Majesty's government. You have played a very important role in disseminating the information about the voter registration process and as a result the turnout is indeed very impressive. As we go for nominations at our different chiefdoms, which win be followed by primary and secondary elections. I have no doubt that you shall cover the processes professionally. You shall be oar gate way to the international community.
As you are aware, His Majesty the King has dissolved Parliament and this is a sure sign that the life of the 8th Parliament of the kingdom of Swaziland is coming to an end. It is therefore proper that we make this our last breakfast meeting. I therefore wish to make a few observations.
First, I appeal to both the public and the private sectors to empower our women. Women are an integral part of our development and we should promote them to leadership positions and I am disheartened that there is an unequal representation of women in leadership and decision making positions in all sectors including the media.
Secondly, I have observed that communication builds bridges, sometimes across difficult terrain. You will recall that the initial breakfast meetings were very difficult and tense even though I had given you the rules of engagement.
I think you will remember rule number one, which says, “I am not under any obligation to answer all your questions and I reserve the right to refuse to answer any question” This has been the rule of thumb for our breakfast meetings and I am happy that we have kept it alive throughout our sessions; and our interaction has matured over time.
I am also aware that there are some instances where tempers flared and participants lost their cool and our customary respect for each other. However, we have let those instances pass and looked forward with determination and pride because our goal was to engage in discussions for the benefit of our stakeholders. I am one person who does not hold grudges. It is normal in life to disagree on issues. Indeed the world would be a dull place if everyone agreed on everything, every time.
I would like to appeal to the owners of the media in the country to build capacity in all sectors. We need to develop specialists in our journalists. We should have specialists in Social, Legal, Economic and Political issues amongst other areas.
I am also concerned about the investigative reporting capacity in our newsrooms. It is through investigative reporting that we get to know about issues of national concern.
What is critical is the truth, because the report should come up as a balanced story so that it is credible. I therefore challenge our media houses to develop this capacity
As we prepare for our double celebrations marking the country's 40th Independence Anniversary and His Majesty's 40th Birthday, I appeal to the media to promote these celebrations faithfully. We need investigative reporters to look back where we come from and where we are now in areas such as education, health, economic development and agriculture. The list is endless. This is a challenge I am giving to all our newsrooms.
Finally, I wish to thank the Editors Forum once again for the wonderful opportunity afforded me, and my Cabinet colleagues to work together for a better Swaziland.
I believe as we started this journey of a thousand miles in November, 2003 and our success is attributable to team work with Cabinet, Parliament, judiciary and co-operation with civil servants.
I also acknowledge the role played by other sectors like the private sector, labour, civil society, the church to mention but few.
Special thanks go to our sponsors Holcim Cement. All these breakfast meetings would not have been a success without your support. May I request the Holcim Cement representative who has always been with us to pass our sincere gratitude to her principals at headquarters. May the Lord multiply your profits and resources and I wish you the best in your future endeavours.
My special appreciation also goes to all those who have always made these breakfast meetings a great success, particularly my Cabinet colleagues. My gratitude also goes to the media houses who have always supported these sessions without fail. Last but not least the excellent staff in my office who have always supported all my endeavours. I wish to advise the journalists to guard against abuse by influential and powerful personalities. We expect journalists to have firm principles because their work makes them vulnerable to manipulation.
As I conclude, I wish to leave journalist with these wise words "when money talks, wisdom walks away and the truth becomes silent". I sincerely hope that you will continue to work well with His Majesty's government. I wish you all the best in your future endeavours. We have run our race and I am pleased with our achievements.
May God bless you all, I thank you!
See also
SWAZI P.M. IS CLOSE TO MEDIA
For comments on his speech click here
The Swazi News (5 July 2008) reprinted the speech. It is reproduced below.
May I begin by expressing my profound gratitude to the Editors Forum for the partnership built over time between the media and my Cabinet colleagues, through the monthly meetings to deliberate on issues of national importance and interest in the last four and half years.
These breakfast meetings have helped different stakeholders understand government programmes, policies, challenges and bills that government is enacting.
In other words they have opened doors for the public to follow government business.
I am particularly pleased that we all saw value in establishing constant interaction between government and the media, because we all appreciated the role of the media and the expectations of the public from this interface.
There is no doubt that in the 21st century information has become the most powerful tool. Through information you can fight diseases, ignorance and promote development amongst other things. Since time in immemorial, the media has been the eyes and ears of the people, irrespective of their status in society. The role of the media is to inform, educate and entertain members of society It is the mouthpiece of the voiceless, down trodden and abused.
In certain quarters the media is called the watchdog for the people and not 'blood hound' because it follows issues from all sectors of our society Indeed that is why it is called the fourth estate, because it has a distinctive role to play.
The media reports on economic, political, social and personal issues. More than before, the media has an immense task of reporting on the operations of the judiciary legislature, executive and the civil society to mention but a few.
It has always been argued that through the media politicians are able to account to the electorate because it follows very closely those that are in high/political positions in society. It keeps them on their toes.
May I also thank the media for the relationship they have built with the government press secretary. The existence of the office has brought hand some dividends and strengthened our open door policy I am sure you will agree with me that you have access to government information and my Cabinet colleagues have also been co-operating with you.
I wish to thank the media and congratulate all journalists for their tireless efforts in disseminating information to the people. You have been true partners in educating and informing the nation about government programmes, policies and projects. You have been able to inform society about the many challenges His Majesty's government is facing.
You have played a magnificent role in educating people about the effects of HIV/AIDS, the challenges of poverty and the abuse of children and women. You have condemned the abuse of the voiceless and the under privileged. You have ben able to bring to the public domain men and women who abuse children.
The role played by the media in creating awareness on corruption is highly commendable. The media has been able to expose corruption both in the private and public sectors. Sometimes fingers have also been pointed to the newsrooms that corruption is also breeding there.
However, I think this has all been done in the spirit of accountability and transparency.
Due to the transparency of government, the media has been able to alert government on potential risks that the country might find itself facing. You have followed closely the progress of government projects and sometimes you have been useful whistle blowers. As a result a lot of corruption has been exposed through your dedicated work.
May I, however, say that transparency and freedom of expression and information have some limits in every society. This comes with responsibility, maturity and above all up holding national interest as a top priority I am particularly referring to national interest because the media can either build or destroy the image of the country. Readers form perceptions based on what is reported by the media. Therefore Editors, as gate keepers of our newsrooms, need to have love, sensitivity and patriotism to protect the country in which they belong.
This should be done without compromising professionalism and independence
It is against this background that I appeal to the media to be guided by their ethics when reporting. You need to report truthfully, without any bias and also abide by what is called equal opportunity in order to balance your stories. The media should be guided by the principles of fair, responsible and truthful reporting. The press must avoid the principle of “the survival of the fittest”.
The media should avoid a tabloid style of reporting. It must report facts and facts only in order to gain credibility. Despite all this I believe that the media should report out fear or favour. We should all be equal before the editors. As the media reports, it should abide by the laws of the land and the constitution is our guiding document We need to put people first and the over riding factor is national interest.
We discourage the abuse of freedom of expression. I once read an advert and also watched the same advert on television, it said, "we have freedom of expression but then after expression there is no freedom
In other countries people claim to have freedom of expression but in practice there is no freedom of expression. If you do, either you disappear or you are behind bars. Opinion columns in our media should be guided by media ethics, it should not promote hate. It should build up individuals, not to chastise or rebuke personalities recklessly. The media should focus on issues and not personalise issues.
Again the choice of words and language is key but without losing the meaning of what you want to say.
I am glad that in Swaziland people have constitutional rights to express themselves freely I am also happy that there is no one that has been reprimanded because of expressing himself or herself through the media or any other medium.
I wish to emphasise once again that freedom comes with responsibility.
May I also congratulate all our media houses for their commitment in promoting and reporting on the development of the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland.
The media covered the civic education very well and this was highly appreciated toy His Majesty's government. You have played a very important role in disseminating the information about the voter registration process and as a result the turnout is indeed very impressive. As we go for nominations at our different chiefdoms, which win be followed by primary and secondary elections. I have no doubt that you shall cover the processes professionally. You shall be oar gate way to the international community.
As you are aware, His Majesty the King has dissolved Parliament and this is a sure sign that the life of the 8th Parliament of the kingdom of Swaziland is coming to an end. It is therefore proper that we make this our last breakfast meeting. I therefore wish to make a few observations.
First, I appeal to both the public and the private sectors to empower our women. Women are an integral part of our development and we should promote them to leadership positions and I am disheartened that there is an unequal representation of women in leadership and decision making positions in all sectors including the media.
Secondly, I have observed that communication builds bridges, sometimes across difficult terrain. You will recall that the initial breakfast meetings were very difficult and tense even though I had given you the rules of engagement.
I think you will remember rule number one, which says, “I am not under any obligation to answer all your questions and I reserve the right to refuse to answer any question” This has been the rule of thumb for our breakfast meetings and I am happy that we have kept it alive throughout our sessions; and our interaction has matured over time.
I am also aware that there are some instances where tempers flared and participants lost their cool and our customary respect for each other. However, we have let those instances pass and looked forward with determination and pride because our goal was to engage in discussions for the benefit of our stakeholders. I am one person who does not hold grudges. It is normal in life to disagree on issues. Indeed the world would be a dull place if everyone agreed on everything, every time.
I would like to appeal to the owners of the media in the country to build capacity in all sectors. We need to develop specialists in our journalists. We should have specialists in Social, Legal, Economic and Political issues amongst other areas.
I am also concerned about the investigative reporting capacity in our newsrooms. It is through investigative reporting that we get to know about issues of national concern.
What is critical is the truth, because the report should come up as a balanced story so that it is credible. I therefore challenge our media houses to develop this capacity
As we prepare for our double celebrations marking the country's 40th Independence Anniversary and His Majesty's 40th Birthday, I appeal to the media to promote these celebrations faithfully. We need investigative reporters to look back where we come from and where we are now in areas such as education, health, economic development and agriculture. The list is endless. This is a challenge I am giving to all our newsrooms.
Finally, I wish to thank the Editors Forum once again for the wonderful opportunity afforded me, and my Cabinet colleagues to work together for a better Swaziland.
I believe as we started this journey of a thousand miles in November, 2003 and our success is attributable to team work with Cabinet, Parliament, judiciary and co-operation with civil servants.
I also acknowledge the role played by other sectors like the private sector, labour, civil society, the church to mention but few.
Special thanks go to our sponsors Holcim Cement. All these breakfast meetings would not have been a success without your support. May I request the Holcim Cement representative who has always been with us to pass our sincere gratitude to her principals at headquarters. May the Lord multiply your profits and resources and I wish you the best in your future endeavours.
My special appreciation also goes to all those who have always made these breakfast meetings a great success, particularly my Cabinet colleagues. My gratitude also goes to the media houses who have always supported these sessions without fail. Last but not least the excellent staff in my office who have always supported all my endeavours. I wish to advise the journalists to guard against abuse by influential and powerful personalities. We expect journalists to have firm principles because their work makes them vulnerable to manipulation.
As I conclude, I wish to leave journalist with these wise words "when money talks, wisdom walks away and the truth becomes silent". I sincerely hope that you will continue to work well with His Majesty's government. I wish you all the best in your future endeavours. We have run our race and I am pleased with our achievements.
May God bless you all, I thank you!
See also
SWAZI P.M. IS CLOSE TO MEDIA
Saturday, 5 July 2008
SWAZI MARCH BAN – P.M. SAYS PRAY
Controversy over the Swazi government’s decision to ban a march in protest against ritual murders in Swaziland refuses to die down.
The Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini told media editors that Swaziland would have been humiliated if the march had been allowed to go ahead.
Instead of marching, he suggested people should pray.
The Times of Swaziland yesterday (4 July 2008) reported Dlamini saying that it would have been folly for government to allow the march given the ‘international humiliation the country would have suffered’.
The Times quoted Dlamini saying, ‘Imagine going outside the country and when you introduce yourself, people say you are a murderer. This march would not have achieved anything but embarrassment for the country. And besides, what would it have achieved? It would not apprehend the suspects afterward.’
Dlamini said that people who wanted the problem to end could go to church to pray.
Regular observers of the Swazi scene will recognise that ‘prayer’ is his regular response when questioned about problems in Swaziland. I don’t want to criticise anyone’s religious beliefs, but any objective observer can see that Swaziland needs a lot more than ‘prayer’ to get it out of the mess it’s in today.
There’s also a huge irony in Dlamini’s assertion that to march would ‘humiliate’ the kingdom. In fact, what is now humiliating Swaziland is the ban itself. It confirms that Swaziland is not a democracy (how dare the government ban a march?) but also that its leaders are completely out of touch with their own people and international opinion.
Why on earth should a march against murder humiliate a country? Only this week in London, UK, there was a public march against knife crime. This has followed a spate of murders of teenagers. I don’t believe the UK has been humiliated by the march which got a great deal of international media attention.
Rather, the march and media activity has prompted the police in the UK to set up a special task force to combat teenage knife crime. The UK Government is also considering whether there needs to be changes to the law.
The march helped to focus the attention of people on the issue and prompted action.
In Swaziland, I suspect, the Prime Minister and his Government did not want to bring attention to the ritual murders because they have no solution to them.
I’ll leave aside for now the rumours sweeping Swaziland that the reason why the government is scared of the publicity over ritual murders is that many of those in government were themselves elected with a little ‘help’ from ‘muti murders’. . .
See also
MORE ANGER OVER SWAZI MARCH BAN
The Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini told media editors that Swaziland would have been humiliated if the march had been allowed to go ahead.
Instead of marching, he suggested people should pray.
The Times of Swaziland yesterday (4 July 2008) reported Dlamini saying that it would have been folly for government to allow the march given the ‘international humiliation the country would have suffered’.
The Times quoted Dlamini saying, ‘Imagine going outside the country and when you introduce yourself, people say you are a murderer. This march would not have achieved anything but embarrassment for the country. And besides, what would it have achieved? It would not apprehend the suspects afterward.’
Dlamini said that people who wanted the problem to end could go to church to pray.
Regular observers of the Swazi scene will recognise that ‘prayer’ is his regular response when questioned about problems in Swaziland. I don’t want to criticise anyone’s religious beliefs, but any objective observer can see that Swaziland needs a lot more than ‘prayer’ to get it out of the mess it’s in today.
There’s also a huge irony in Dlamini’s assertion that to march would ‘humiliate’ the kingdom. In fact, what is now humiliating Swaziland is the ban itself. It confirms that Swaziland is not a democracy (how dare the government ban a march?) but also that its leaders are completely out of touch with their own people and international opinion.
Why on earth should a march against murder humiliate a country? Only this week in London, UK, there was a public march against knife crime. This has followed a spate of murders of teenagers. I don’t believe the UK has been humiliated by the march which got a great deal of international media attention.
Rather, the march and media activity has prompted the police in the UK to set up a special task force to combat teenage knife crime. The UK Government is also considering whether there needs to be changes to the law.
The march helped to focus the attention of people on the issue and prompted action.
In Swaziland, I suspect, the Prime Minister and his Government did not want to bring attention to the ritual murders because they have no solution to them.
I’ll leave aside for now the rumours sweeping Swaziland that the reason why the government is scared of the publicity over ritual murders is that many of those in government were themselves elected with a little ‘help’ from ‘muti murders’. . .
See also
MORE ANGER OVER SWAZI MARCH BAN
FALSEHOODS ON THE SWAZI ECONOMY
There must be an election coming in Swaziland because state-controlled radio station SBIS is allowing the Swazi Prime Minister to tell outrageous falsehoods to the kingdom.
Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) radio reported yesterday (4 July 2008) that Prime Minister Themba Dlamini said the Swazi economy was in very good shape.
It was so good Dlamini said that Swaziland needed less overseas’ economic aid than many other countries. Things, Dlamini said, would get even better.
SBIS radio, which is in effect a propaganda outfit for the Swazi King Mswati III and his government, reported this without question.
But a moment’s pause for thought would show that the Prime Minister is simply not telling the truth.
Swaziland is a desperately poor kingdom and that’s because the economy is in ruins. About 70 per cent of the population earn less than one US dollar a day. Of those in work large numbers earn almost slave wages. Think of the textile workers whose wages are so low they have to live six to a room and sleep three to a bed.
Then there are the 600,000 people out of a total population in Swaziland of less than one million who had to receive food donated from overseas this year because the government of Swaziland cannot afford to feed them.
About 70 percent of the total income of Swaziland comes from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). This is income that is entirely outside of the government’s control. It is not raised within the kingdom as such and the amount that comes in through the SACU depends very much on how much trade there is within other countries in southern Africa.
Because the amount of money Swaziland will receive in any year from the SACU is unpredictable it is extremely difficult for the Swazi Government to budget how much it will have to spend on essential services such as health and education.
It is widely predicted within the international financial community that revenues from SACU will fall sharply after the year 2010.
SBIS reported that the prime minister was looking forward to a report from the international Monetary Fund (IMF) that would confirm the health of Swaziland’s economy. This is the same IMF that previously criticised the Swazi Government for spending too much on civil servants salaries. There was no need for so many people to be on the government payroll, the IMF said. The proportion of the total government spending on salaries was too big, the IMF said.
So how did the government respond to this? It used an unexpected windfall of cash from the SACU and increased civil servants’ salaries. This not only wasted the windfall but also meant that in subsequent years the total salaries bill for civil servants would be higher, not lower, as the IMF insisted.
On top of all this Swaziland has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world. It is estimated that about one in three people of working age are infected. This almost certainly means that they will die within the next few years. Apart form the personal tragedy this represents; it is also an economic disaster. One third of the people who would be doing the work that sustains an economy (in farming, in factories, in the retail trade, for example) will be dead.
And there are very few people in Swaziland who will be able to take over from them because the life expectancy of a child born today is barely thirty years.
Swaziland is quite literally dying.
So, if the Prime Minister and his cronies in parliament, who themselves are set to get pensions of up to E9,000 per month (about 1,200 US Dollars) when they are chucked out of office later this year, think everything in the garden is rosy maybe they should get out more.
See also
BATTERED WORKERS SUE SWAZI POLICE
Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) radio reported yesterday (4 July 2008) that Prime Minister Themba Dlamini said the Swazi economy was in very good shape.
It was so good Dlamini said that Swaziland needed less overseas’ economic aid than many other countries. Things, Dlamini said, would get even better.
SBIS radio, which is in effect a propaganda outfit for the Swazi King Mswati III and his government, reported this without question.
But a moment’s pause for thought would show that the Prime Minister is simply not telling the truth.
Swaziland is a desperately poor kingdom and that’s because the economy is in ruins. About 70 per cent of the population earn less than one US dollar a day. Of those in work large numbers earn almost slave wages. Think of the textile workers whose wages are so low they have to live six to a room and sleep three to a bed.
Then there are the 600,000 people out of a total population in Swaziland of less than one million who had to receive food donated from overseas this year because the government of Swaziland cannot afford to feed them.
About 70 percent of the total income of Swaziland comes from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). This is income that is entirely outside of the government’s control. It is not raised within the kingdom as such and the amount that comes in through the SACU depends very much on how much trade there is within other countries in southern Africa.
Because the amount of money Swaziland will receive in any year from the SACU is unpredictable it is extremely difficult for the Swazi Government to budget how much it will have to spend on essential services such as health and education.
It is widely predicted within the international financial community that revenues from SACU will fall sharply after the year 2010.
SBIS reported that the prime minister was looking forward to a report from the international Monetary Fund (IMF) that would confirm the health of Swaziland’s economy. This is the same IMF that previously criticised the Swazi Government for spending too much on civil servants salaries. There was no need for so many people to be on the government payroll, the IMF said. The proportion of the total government spending on salaries was too big, the IMF said.
So how did the government respond to this? It used an unexpected windfall of cash from the SACU and increased civil servants’ salaries. This not only wasted the windfall but also meant that in subsequent years the total salaries bill for civil servants would be higher, not lower, as the IMF insisted.
On top of all this Swaziland has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world. It is estimated that about one in three people of working age are infected. This almost certainly means that they will die within the next few years. Apart form the personal tragedy this represents; it is also an economic disaster. One third of the people who would be doing the work that sustains an economy (in farming, in factories, in the retail trade, for example) will be dead.
And there are very few people in Swaziland who will be able to take over from them because the life expectancy of a child born today is barely thirty years.
Swaziland is quite literally dying.
So, if the Prime Minister and his cronies in parliament, who themselves are set to get pensions of up to E9,000 per month (about 1,200 US Dollars) when they are chucked out of office later this year, think everything in the garden is rosy maybe they should get out more.
See also
BATTERED WORKERS SUE SWAZI POLICE
Friday, 4 July 2008
CENSORSHIP AND THE SWAZI MEDIA
We are about to take part in an interesting experiment about journalism in Swaziland.
Today (4 July 2008) in Mbabane I presented the results of a research project into imposed censorship and self-censorship in the Swazi media.
The research, conducted on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter, involved interviewing journalists in Swazi media houses about their personal experiences of imposed and self-censorship.
Every single one I spoke to said that the biggest cause of censorship was the Swazi monarchy, and in particular King Mswati III. The censorship was both imposed (i.e. direct threats made to the media) or self inflicted (fear of upsetting the king made journalists leave out angles to stories or leave out stories completely).
Many journalists from across the spectrum of Swazi media were present at my presentation.
And here comes the ‘experiment’. We must now wait and see how the media report the research. If, of course, they report it at all.
While we wait, here is an extract from the research that reports on what journalists told me about their personal experiences of censorship and the monarchy.
I have the full report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland as a Word file. If you want a copy please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
Fear of offending the monarchy is by far the biggest cause of censorship in Swazi media houses. Respondents returned time and again to the consequences to the journalist and the media house of offending King Mswati III.
One respondent said, ‘The biggest problem in Swazi journalism is the King – who everybody tries to avoid.’
One problem identified by a respondent was the rule that ‘you don’t criticise the King’. This led people to try to extend this to say you cannot criticise a cabinet minister, because the King appoints him and to criticise a cabinet minister, ‘indirectly you criticise the King’ for making a bad appointment. According to the respondent, ‘It took a long time before media houses decided it doesn’t work like that.’
One respondent related this example of how the King interfered.
‘The King himself told us he is not happy with us reporting on how he is spending his money and how his wife was buying clothes. So any time a story to that effect comes through we generally don’t venture into that area. So [he made] one order and it has stood for a long time.’
Orders to media houses sometimes come directly from the King (rather than from someone on behalf of the King). It would seem that these summons are not made consistently across the media. The Times group seems to have been called more often than the Observer.
Many respondents referred to an incident in March 2007 when King Mswati III ordered the Times Sunday to publish an apology for publishing an article sourced from Norway that said the King was partly responsible for Swaziland’s economic ills. The King also demanded that the features editor of the Times Sunday be dismissed for allowing the report to be published. The King also said that the newspaper must never again refer to him as a ‘dictator’ (even though the report did not use this word). The King said if his demands were not met he would close down the Times Sunday and the other newspapers published by its owner.
A summary of comments by respondents on the incident suggests that the publisher went along with the King’s demands because the publisher did not want to take the risk of not knowing what would follow if he did not apologise. So for a quiet life, the publisher did what he was told.
Another example, generally known in the media industry and cited by some respondents, concerned the King’s first daughter (who was of adult age) who willingly gave a media interview that the King did not like. The King summoned journalists to see him and demanded to hear a recording of the interview as proof that the interview really did take place. The King then told the media that they would not be allowed to interview her again without the King’s expressed permission.
Swazi media have interpreted this dictate to mean that they may not interview any of the King’s children.
Another example cited was a report about one of the King’s wives going to Matsapha airport to see off her daughter who was going on a trip. The King was ‘livid’ when the report appeared and made his feelings known to the media. He said the report had embarrassed him.
According to one respondent, the problem the media face now is what do they do the next time the Queen is seen in public? If they report it, the King might be offended and give them trouble. ‘So we don’t, we don’t want trouble.’
There are some areas about the royal family that are not covered by newspapers, either because of direct censorship (i.e. King Mswati III has said they must not) or through self-censorship (media houses fear the consequences of upsetting the King).
One topic cited by respondents as being off limit was the national budget where it relates to the royal expenditure.
King Mswati III in effect owns the Observer and Weekend Observer newspapers and there is ‘an extra sensitivity’ at these newspapers when reporting about the King and royalty. It is generally accepted throughout Swazi media that the Observer is ‘the King’s newspaper’.
The person who at any time holds the position of ‘chief editor’ of the Observer group is the person who would tackle royal assignments.
One respondent described one of the chief editor’s responsibilities as being to protect the ‘good standing’ of the royal family.
The Observer would also try to ‘correct the misconception’ that the King had a lavish lifestyle.
This situation seems to be generally recognised by the Swazi media – both inside and outside of the Observer group.
A summary of respondents’ views in this area suggests that the Observer will not report things that put the King and the Queen Mother in a ‘bad light’ or publish something that ‘ridicules’ them. Among topics that will not be published are reports of the activities of political ‘progressives’ and the things they say during their demonstrations. The Observer might report that there had been a rally and it might say police broke it up, but it would not report details of the purpose of the demonstration. The Observer also shies away from using the term ‘the ruling class’ in stories, unless readers confused the term to mean ‘the King’.
The Observer will not publish stories that embarrass the King. One example cited by many respondents was a car crash the King was involved in. The story was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland, on 2 April 2008, but not published at all in the Observer. It was thought that publishing the report would offend His Majesty.
The Observer will not report on the issue of polygamy as this may be interpreted as a criticism of the King (who has 13 wives).
The Observer would not give advance reports of the King’s activities, for example, a trip abroad, unless the King’s office had officially announced it. To publish information known to the newspaper, but not officially announced by the King, would be deemed ‘disrespectful’ to the King.
Away from the Observer, arguments sometimes take place within media houses about how far they can go when reporting about the King. Caution usually wins. Some journalists say they would prefer to see how far they can go and ‘take a chance’.
Today (4 July 2008) in Mbabane I presented the results of a research project into imposed censorship and self-censorship in the Swazi media.
The research, conducted on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter, involved interviewing journalists in Swazi media houses about their personal experiences of imposed and self-censorship.
Every single one I spoke to said that the biggest cause of censorship was the Swazi monarchy, and in particular King Mswati III. The censorship was both imposed (i.e. direct threats made to the media) or self inflicted (fear of upsetting the king made journalists leave out angles to stories or leave out stories completely).
Many journalists from across the spectrum of Swazi media were present at my presentation.
And here comes the ‘experiment’. We must now wait and see how the media report the research. If, of course, they report it at all.
While we wait, here is an extract from the research that reports on what journalists told me about their personal experiences of censorship and the monarchy.
I have the full report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland as a Word file. If you want a copy please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
Fear of offending the monarchy is by far the biggest cause of censorship in Swazi media houses. Respondents returned time and again to the consequences to the journalist and the media house of offending King Mswati III.
One respondent said, ‘The biggest problem in Swazi journalism is the King – who everybody tries to avoid.’
One problem identified by a respondent was the rule that ‘you don’t criticise the King’. This led people to try to extend this to say you cannot criticise a cabinet minister, because the King appoints him and to criticise a cabinet minister, ‘indirectly you criticise the King’ for making a bad appointment. According to the respondent, ‘It took a long time before media houses decided it doesn’t work like that.’
One respondent related this example of how the King interfered.
‘The King himself told us he is not happy with us reporting on how he is spending his money and how his wife was buying clothes. So any time a story to that effect comes through we generally don’t venture into that area. So [he made] one order and it has stood for a long time.’
Orders to media houses sometimes come directly from the King (rather than from someone on behalf of the King). It would seem that these summons are not made consistently across the media. The Times group seems to have been called more often than the Observer.
Many respondents referred to an incident in March 2007 when King Mswati III ordered the Times Sunday to publish an apology for publishing an article sourced from Norway that said the King was partly responsible for Swaziland’s economic ills. The King also demanded that the features editor of the Times Sunday be dismissed for allowing the report to be published. The King also said that the newspaper must never again refer to him as a ‘dictator’ (even though the report did not use this word). The King said if his demands were not met he would close down the Times Sunday and the other newspapers published by its owner.
A summary of comments by respondents on the incident suggests that the publisher went along with the King’s demands because the publisher did not want to take the risk of not knowing what would follow if he did not apologise. So for a quiet life, the publisher did what he was told.
Another example, generally known in the media industry and cited by some respondents, concerned the King’s first daughter (who was of adult age) who willingly gave a media interview that the King did not like. The King summoned journalists to see him and demanded to hear a recording of the interview as proof that the interview really did take place. The King then told the media that they would not be allowed to interview her again without the King’s expressed permission.
Swazi media have interpreted this dictate to mean that they may not interview any of the King’s children.
Another example cited was a report about one of the King’s wives going to Matsapha airport to see off her daughter who was going on a trip. The King was ‘livid’ when the report appeared and made his feelings known to the media. He said the report had embarrassed him.
According to one respondent, the problem the media face now is what do they do the next time the Queen is seen in public? If they report it, the King might be offended and give them trouble. ‘So we don’t, we don’t want trouble.’
There are some areas about the royal family that are not covered by newspapers, either because of direct censorship (i.e. King Mswati III has said they must not) or through self-censorship (media houses fear the consequences of upsetting the King).
One topic cited by respondents as being off limit was the national budget where it relates to the royal expenditure.
King Mswati III in effect owns the Observer and Weekend Observer newspapers and there is ‘an extra sensitivity’ at these newspapers when reporting about the King and royalty. It is generally accepted throughout Swazi media that the Observer is ‘the King’s newspaper’.
The person who at any time holds the position of ‘chief editor’ of the Observer group is the person who would tackle royal assignments.
One respondent described one of the chief editor’s responsibilities as being to protect the ‘good standing’ of the royal family.
The Observer would also try to ‘correct the misconception’ that the King had a lavish lifestyle.
This situation seems to be generally recognised by the Swazi media – both inside and outside of the Observer group.
A summary of respondents’ views in this area suggests that the Observer will not report things that put the King and the Queen Mother in a ‘bad light’ or publish something that ‘ridicules’ them. Among topics that will not be published are reports of the activities of political ‘progressives’ and the things they say during their demonstrations. The Observer might report that there had been a rally and it might say police broke it up, but it would not report details of the purpose of the demonstration. The Observer also shies away from using the term ‘the ruling class’ in stories, unless readers confused the term to mean ‘the King’.
The Observer will not publish stories that embarrass the King. One example cited by many respondents was a car crash the King was involved in. The story was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland, on 2 April 2008, but not published at all in the Observer. It was thought that publishing the report would offend His Majesty.
The Observer will not report on the issue of polygamy as this may be interpreted as a criticism of the King (who has 13 wives).
The Observer would not give advance reports of the King’s activities, for example, a trip abroad, unless the King’s office had officially announced it. To publish information known to the newspaper, but not officially announced by the King, would be deemed ‘disrespectful’ to the King.
Away from the Observer, arguments sometimes take place within media houses about how far they can go when reporting about the King. Caution usually wins. Some journalists say they would prefer to see how far they can go and ‘take a chance’.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
MORE ANGER OVER SWAZI MARCH BAN
Anger at the Swazi Government’s decision to ban a march to raise awareness about the ritual murders that are hitting the kingdom is growing.
The Times of Swaziland today (3 July 2008) has likened the Swaziland government to that of Robert Mugabe’s in Zimbabwe and called the ban on the march ‘a threat to democracy’.
The Times was the newspaper that broke the story that the Swazi Cabinet had banned a march against the ritual murders because it would embarrass King Mswati III and might put Swaziland in a bad light internationally. Up to 20,000 people were expected to join the march due to take place this Saturday (5 July 2008).
Today, in an editorial comment, the Times said,
‘Swaziland, it seems could hardly wait to put to test such overriding power by throwing out an innocent request to stage a march against the sudden rise of ritual murders.
‘The response given to us is the fear that such a march could taint the country’s image and that it would be disrespectful to the king. How ridiculous! This is typical of a Mugabe regime that protects murderers.
‘Cabinet’s action has thrown full support to ritual murders in this country and, as pointed out by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisation (SCCCO), this embarrassed His Majesty the King, who has repeatedly spoken out strongly against such evil acts and called upon everybody to join hands in ridding our society of these undesirable elements.
‘How dare they ban a nation against supporting the Ingwenyama! [King].
‘What has Cabinet got to hide? What is it that Cabinet knows that we don’t about these murders and who in the world does not know we host one of the world’s deadliest suspect serial killers?
‘What of people’s right to freedom of expression? Only people like Mugabe know of no existence of such rights but he certainly was not chairing this Cabinet session.
‘Cabinet has done extremely well in doing what they set out to avoid – tarnishing the image of the country and disrespecting the king.
‘We call on the Prime Minister Themba Dlamini to immediately withdraw the ban on the march before a march to his office demanding such withdrawal takes place and [he is] labelled a supporter of ritual murder.’
The Times also reported that civil society organisations, including the SCCCO, the Coordinating Assembly of Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO) and the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) had condemned the ban.
See also
SWAZI GVT BANS MARCH AGAINST MURDERS
FURY AT SWAZI MURDER MARCH BAN
The Times of Swaziland today (3 July 2008) has likened the Swaziland government to that of Robert Mugabe’s in Zimbabwe and called the ban on the march ‘a threat to democracy’.
The Times was the newspaper that broke the story that the Swazi Cabinet had banned a march against the ritual murders because it would embarrass King Mswati III and might put Swaziland in a bad light internationally. Up to 20,000 people were expected to join the march due to take place this Saturday (5 July 2008).
Today, in an editorial comment, the Times said,
‘Swaziland, it seems could hardly wait to put to test such overriding power by throwing out an innocent request to stage a march against the sudden rise of ritual murders.
‘The response given to us is the fear that such a march could taint the country’s image and that it would be disrespectful to the king. How ridiculous! This is typical of a Mugabe regime that protects murderers.
‘Cabinet’s action has thrown full support to ritual murders in this country and, as pointed out by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisation (SCCCO), this embarrassed His Majesty the King, who has repeatedly spoken out strongly against such evil acts and called upon everybody to join hands in ridding our society of these undesirable elements.
‘How dare they ban a nation against supporting the Ingwenyama! [King].
‘What has Cabinet got to hide? What is it that Cabinet knows that we don’t about these murders and who in the world does not know we host one of the world’s deadliest suspect serial killers?
‘What of people’s right to freedom of expression? Only people like Mugabe know of no existence of such rights but he certainly was not chairing this Cabinet session.
‘Cabinet has done extremely well in doing what they set out to avoid – tarnishing the image of the country and disrespecting the king.
‘We call on the Prime Minister Themba Dlamini to immediately withdraw the ban on the march before a march to his office demanding such withdrawal takes place and [he is] labelled a supporter of ritual murder.’
The Times also reported that civil society organisations, including the SCCCO, the Coordinating Assembly of Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO) and the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) had condemned the ban.
See also
SWAZI GVT BANS MARCH AGAINST MURDERS
FURY AT SWAZI MURDER MARCH BAN
SWAZILAND KING AS ‘PEACEMAKER’
Swaziland’s King Mswati III is set to have a bigger role in trying to solve Zimbabwe’s elections crisis.
The king will continue in a ‘peacemaking role’, following on from his chairmanship of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Organ Troika Summit that met days before Robert Mugabe stole the election in Zimbabwe at the end of last month (June 2008).
The king is soon to be appointed as permanent chair of the Organ Troika, the Swazi Observer reports today (3 July 2008). It says that ‘observers view this as a strategic position for the king to continue with his peacemaking role’.
The newspaper that is known to be close to the king reports a ‘political analyst’ saying that South African president Thabo Mbeki now needed to understand the importance of working with King Mswati.
As I reported last week, King Mswati’s role in trying to ensure that there is a ‘free and fair’ election in Zimbabwe has raised some eyebrows on the international scene. Swaziland is not a democracy and its own elections are far from free.
Only yesterday I reported that the European Union (EU) had turned down an invitation to ‘observe’ Swaziland’s forthcoming national election, because the EU thinks there are ‘shortcomings’ in the kingdom’s democracy.
Today, a leading trade unionist in South Africa has criticised King Mswati for showing an ‘arrogant and extreme display of double standards’ over Zimbabwe.
Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, has sent an ‘personal letter to the media’ in which he points out that Swaziland’s elections are a sham.
Since it is unlikely that any of the media in Swaziland are going to give space to Masuku, here is an extended extract from the letter.
The full letter was published by Africa Contact (Denmark) which is distributed throughout Southern Africa, Europe and the United States of America.
Discussing King Mswati III, Masuku says,
‘Here is a man who bans political parties and all forms of political activity from his country, he has appointed himself the goliath of Swazi political affairs and has, through brutal bully tactics, outlawed and persecuted political opposition in his country, presiding over a major political discussion to determine the plight of an election and what environment is necessary for that election to be deemed free and fair or democratic enough for the effective and full participation of the peoples of our sister country, Zimbabwe.
‘He has no shame, whatsoever, that his guilt would haunt him about the very situation in his backyard, where as he chaired the very proceedings, political parties remained banned, all forms of protest remain criminalized and decisions about the country’s future lies with him and a bunch of his rotten sycophants and cheerleaders.
‘For him, the situation of the Zimbabwean people is a distant reality that has no relevant bearing to the immediate conditions of his own home yard. It is about some people far away in space, whose fundamental concerns are not about living beings, similar to those who, for years, have been subjected to the most extreme forms of royal oppression, using state of emergency decreed in 1973 by himself.
‘In a typical Machiavellian style, Mswati is guilty of the same crimes he has, hypocritically, put on the doorstep of his colleague, Mugabe.
‘What are the conditions prevailing in Swaziland that the “benevolent” Mswati would like us to believe he does not condone or he condemns in Zimbabwe; political parties remain banned, rights to organize and speak freely are outlawed and only the royal family has a right to monopoly over public political life and all institutions that have failed the people of Zimbabwe, such as the media, judiciary and all the supposed safeguards of a democratic society, which are virtually a sham, if not a total royal mirage in Swaziland, serving to massage the fragile ego of the corrupt monarchy.
‘In a desperate attempt to bail out his discredited image, following his disgraceful elections controversy and political shambles into which he has driven the country, Mswati needed something that would divert his attention away from his mess and this scenario presented that opportunity.’
The letter goes on, ‘One wonders whether SADC will ever wake up to the reality of the need for credible, consistent and democratic leadership. George Bush certainly can’t tell any other head of state to resolve conflicts peacefully, in the same breadth and vein that Mswati can never tell any other head of state to hold democratic and free elections much against his record.
‘Swaziland is going for “royal elections” soon, however conditions for free elections are not anywhere nearer. The constitution affirms the historic ban on political parties, criminalization of free political activities, suppressing of all institutions of justice and information, and continued monopoly leverage by the royal family over public affairs. What will the newly found preacher of democracy tell the world about his own conduct and lessons from the Zimbabwean situation?’
See also
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
SWAZI-ZIMBABWE SUMMIT UPDATE
The king will continue in a ‘peacemaking role’, following on from his chairmanship of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Organ Troika Summit that met days before Robert Mugabe stole the election in Zimbabwe at the end of last month (June 2008).
The king is soon to be appointed as permanent chair of the Organ Troika, the Swazi Observer reports today (3 July 2008). It says that ‘observers view this as a strategic position for the king to continue with his peacemaking role’.
The newspaper that is known to be close to the king reports a ‘political analyst’ saying that South African president Thabo Mbeki now needed to understand the importance of working with King Mswati.
As I reported last week, King Mswati’s role in trying to ensure that there is a ‘free and fair’ election in Zimbabwe has raised some eyebrows on the international scene. Swaziland is not a democracy and its own elections are far from free.
Only yesterday I reported that the European Union (EU) had turned down an invitation to ‘observe’ Swaziland’s forthcoming national election, because the EU thinks there are ‘shortcomings’ in the kingdom’s democracy.
Today, a leading trade unionist in South Africa has criticised King Mswati for showing an ‘arrogant and extreme display of double standards’ over Zimbabwe.
Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, has sent an ‘personal letter to the media’ in which he points out that Swaziland’s elections are a sham.
Since it is unlikely that any of the media in Swaziland are going to give space to Masuku, here is an extended extract from the letter.
The full letter was published by Africa Contact (Denmark) which is distributed throughout Southern Africa, Europe and the United States of America.
Discussing King Mswati III, Masuku says,
‘Here is a man who bans political parties and all forms of political activity from his country, he has appointed himself the goliath of Swazi political affairs and has, through brutal bully tactics, outlawed and persecuted political opposition in his country, presiding over a major political discussion to determine the plight of an election and what environment is necessary for that election to be deemed free and fair or democratic enough for the effective and full participation of the peoples of our sister country, Zimbabwe.
‘He has no shame, whatsoever, that his guilt would haunt him about the very situation in his backyard, where as he chaired the very proceedings, political parties remained banned, all forms of protest remain criminalized and decisions about the country’s future lies with him and a bunch of his rotten sycophants and cheerleaders.
‘For him, the situation of the Zimbabwean people is a distant reality that has no relevant bearing to the immediate conditions of his own home yard. It is about some people far away in space, whose fundamental concerns are not about living beings, similar to those who, for years, have been subjected to the most extreme forms of royal oppression, using state of emergency decreed in 1973 by himself.
‘In a typical Machiavellian style, Mswati is guilty of the same crimes he has, hypocritically, put on the doorstep of his colleague, Mugabe.
‘What are the conditions prevailing in Swaziland that the “benevolent” Mswati would like us to believe he does not condone or he condemns in Zimbabwe; political parties remain banned, rights to organize and speak freely are outlawed and only the royal family has a right to monopoly over public political life and all institutions that have failed the people of Zimbabwe, such as the media, judiciary and all the supposed safeguards of a democratic society, which are virtually a sham, if not a total royal mirage in Swaziland, serving to massage the fragile ego of the corrupt monarchy.
‘In a desperate attempt to bail out his discredited image, following his disgraceful elections controversy and political shambles into which he has driven the country, Mswati needed something that would divert his attention away from his mess and this scenario presented that opportunity.’
The letter goes on, ‘One wonders whether SADC will ever wake up to the reality of the need for credible, consistent and democratic leadership. George Bush certainly can’t tell any other head of state to resolve conflicts peacefully, in the same breadth and vein that Mswati can never tell any other head of state to hold democratic and free elections much against his record.
‘Swaziland is going for “royal elections” soon, however conditions for free elections are not anywhere nearer. The constitution affirms the historic ban on political parties, criminalization of free political activities, suppressing of all institutions of justice and information, and continued monopoly leverage by the royal family over public affairs. What will the newly found preacher of democracy tell the world about his own conduct and lessons from the Zimbabwean situation?’
See also
EU SNUBS SWAZILAND ELECTION
SWAZI-ZIMBABWE SUMMIT UPDATE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)