As Swaziland approaches election time the kingdom is less stable than people generally recognise.
Sooner rather than later poor ‘peasants’ in rural areas who are assumed to be loyal to the present regime of King Mswati III will show their dissatisfaction with their present situation .
These are the views of Richard Cornwell, a senior research associate at the Institute for Security Studies, published on the website of South Africa’s Mail and Guardian newspaper on Tuesday (12 February 2008).
Under the headline The Swazi quagmire, he writes that the elections due in Swaziland later this year have drawn little attention and it is unlikely that this will change as polling day approaches.
Nevertheless, Cornwell says there are structural tensions within the kingdom’s social and economic fabric which, sooner or later, will test the political framework at the national and local levels.
He writes, ‘In 1973, King Sobhuza II suspended the country’s constitution after a minor parliamentary challenge to the absolute authority of the monarchy. Almost 30 years passed before his son, King Mswati III, allowed the formation of a committee to examine the possibility of opening the political space to greater public participation. In the meantime, a neo-traditional system of government dominated a parliament chosen largely through a system of individual and localised elections supervised by traditional authorities.
‘The principal beneficiaries of this modified absolutism, politically and materially, were the extensive royal family, their courtiers and the rural chiefs, a situation which prompted increasing opposition from civil society and student and trade union activists, supported by foreign allies.’
Cornwell goes on to remind us that the Swaziland Constitution which came into force in 2006 does not allow for political parties in the kingdom.
There are attempts in Swaziland to form some kind of political groups ahead of the election which are expected sometime in October or November (a date has yet to be set).
At a meeting held on 2 February 2008 Civic society organisations met to work towards a united front by April, when they will adopt a name and organisational rules. This will be the first time a common position has been attempted since the collapse of the Swaziland Democratic Alliance in 2003.
Cornwell goes on to say,
‘It would be premature to expect too much from the democratic push, however. The Swaziland trade union movement, which led the earlier drive for constitutional rule, is badly fractured.
‘In any event, although the conspicuous consumption of the Swazi royal house has created a broader popular unease in the kingdom of late, there is little evidence to suggest that the democrats’ followers are as yet as numerous as they claim. It seems more probable that such progress as can be made in curbing the royal prerogative and moving towards more accountable and efficient government will depend for now on developments within the ranks of the “loyal reformists”.
‘Even they will have their work cut out, however, for there are powerful entrenched forces determined to thwart any dilution of neo-traditional authority.
‘Yet unless Swaziland’s government can break free of the inertia born of its scelerotic political condition, the problems of economic reform, particularly in a rural sector unable to feed its own people, and in a macro-economic environment both financially and fiscally hostile, there can be no serious attempt to address the dangerous problems of increasing impoverishment among the majority.
‘Sooner rather than later, this could indeed lead to an unprecedented destabilising response from a peasantry whose loyalty to the present system is so blithely assumed.’
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
Swaziland’s Times Sunday newspaper has started a debate that I hope will become a campaign ahead of the national election this year (2008).
On Sunday (10 February 2008) it reminded readers that only people with the surname Dlamini are eligible to become the kingdom’s Prime Minister. This ‘tradition’ should be stopped, it said.
The present Prime Minister A. T. (Themba) Dlamini may be reappointed by King Mswati III after the elections but this is by no means certain.
In an editorial comment the Times Sunday says,
‘If A. T. Dlamini is not reappointed, we will be expecting yet another surprise. Such a surprise, traditionally announced at the Ludzidzini cattle byre, comes after intense lobbying by traditionalists and those who are close to the Swazi power circles. Unfortunately such a selection is limited to individuals – deserving or not – whose surname is Dlamini.
‘We are aware of the lobbying that occurs around this period in the country, with different factions pushing for their candidates to be appointed. We are also aware of the people whose names are being raised by those close to the powers that be. Some are already enjoying honourable status as we speak.
‘However, it would appear we have run out of people (Dlamini candidates) who are capable of steering the next government, if any of the names put forth so far is anything to go by (and if A.T. is not retained).’
The Times Sunday goes on to say we should consider opening up the position of Prime Minister to sections of the Swazi population who do not have Dlamini as a surname.
The Times Sunday leaves the argument hanging in the air there.
The Times Sunday is correct. Of course, the best people for the job should be given the chance to be leader of Swaziland. The Constitution that came into force in 2006 does not limit the choice of Prime Minister to people called Dlamini.
What the Constitution does say is that the king appoints the Prime Minister from among members of the House of Assembly acting upon recommendation of the King’s Advisory Council (Section 67 (i)).
The King’s Advisory Council or Liqoqo is made up of chiefs and other traditionalists (Section 231 (i)).
What that means is that it is for the King to choose and he is not required to appoint a Dlamini.
Of course, in a real democracy it would not be the monarch’s choice. Members of Parliament themselves would elect a Prime Minister from among their number. The man or woman who could command support of the House would be Prime Minister until such a time as the House decided by a vote to remove him or her, or the Prime Minister decided to stand down.
The election that will take place later this year (2008) at a date yet to be announced will be the first held under the new Swaziland Constitution. This gives the kingdom’s rulers the opportunity to demonstrate to King Mswati’s subjects and to the world beyond the Swazi borders that Swaziland is becoming a modern democracy.
I doubt that the ‘traditionalists’ who really rule Swaziland will be willing to give up without a fight their influence of having the king select one of their own as Prime Minister.
I applauded the Times Sunday for giving an airing to the issue, now let’s get a proper debate going and make sure we get the right man (or woman) for the job of Prime Minister.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
On Sunday (10 February 2008) it reminded readers that only people with the surname Dlamini are eligible to become the kingdom’s Prime Minister. This ‘tradition’ should be stopped, it said.
The present Prime Minister A. T. (Themba) Dlamini may be reappointed by King Mswati III after the elections but this is by no means certain.
In an editorial comment the Times Sunday says,
‘If A. T. Dlamini is not reappointed, we will be expecting yet another surprise. Such a surprise, traditionally announced at the Ludzidzini cattle byre, comes after intense lobbying by traditionalists and those who are close to the Swazi power circles. Unfortunately such a selection is limited to individuals – deserving or not – whose surname is Dlamini.
‘We are aware of the lobbying that occurs around this period in the country, with different factions pushing for their candidates to be appointed. We are also aware of the people whose names are being raised by those close to the powers that be. Some are already enjoying honourable status as we speak.
‘However, it would appear we have run out of people (Dlamini candidates) who are capable of steering the next government, if any of the names put forth so far is anything to go by (and if A.T. is not retained).’
The Times Sunday goes on to say we should consider opening up the position of Prime Minister to sections of the Swazi population who do not have Dlamini as a surname.
The Times Sunday leaves the argument hanging in the air there.
The Times Sunday is correct. Of course, the best people for the job should be given the chance to be leader of Swaziland. The Constitution that came into force in 2006 does not limit the choice of Prime Minister to people called Dlamini.
What the Constitution does say is that the king appoints the Prime Minister from among members of the House of Assembly acting upon recommendation of the King’s Advisory Council (Section 67 (i)).
The King’s Advisory Council or Liqoqo is made up of chiefs and other traditionalists (Section 231 (i)).
What that means is that it is for the King to choose and he is not required to appoint a Dlamini.
Of course, in a real democracy it would not be the monarch’s choice. Members of Parliament themselves would elect a Prime Minister from among their number. The man or woman who could command support of the House would be Prime Minister until such a time as the House decided by a vote to remove him or her, or the Prime Minister decided to stand down.
The election that will take place later this year (2008) at a date yet to be announced will be the first held under the new Swaziland Constitution. This gives the kingdom’s rulers the opportunity to demonstrate to King Mswati’s subjects and to the world beyond the Swazi borders that Swaziland is becoming a modern democracy.
I doubt that the ‘traditionalists’ who really rule Swaziland will be willing to give up without a fight their influence of having the king select one of their own as Prime Minister.
I applauded the Times Sunday for giving an airing to the issue, now let’s get a proper debate going and make sure we get the right man (or woman) for the job of Prime Minister.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
PASTOR AND THE PRYING SWAZI PRESS
This is the story of the pastor, the widow and the prying Swazi Press.
The pastor and the widow snuggled down for a kiss and a cuddle under a wattle tree near the Spar supermarket in Mbabane, Swaziland’s capital city.
Then two men, looking for shade to eat their lunch, spotted the couple. They recognised the man as a pastor from their church.
The next thing we know reporters and a photographer from the Swazi Observer arrived on the scene and the next day (Wednesday 6 February 2008) a photograph of the pastor and the widow appeared on the newspaper’s front page along with the headline PASTOR CAUGHT HAVING SEX WITH WIDOW.
If that wasn’t enough the Observer published another ten photos – yes, you read that right, ten photos – on an inside page of the couple and also a news report alerting Observer readers to just how shocking this behaviour was.
Here’s some of what the Observer had to say:
‘On arrival, reporters found the pastor fondling, caressing and kissing the widow as they moved a step further.
‘When our photographer arrived at the scene, several metres from Spar parking, the couple was in deep pleasure.’
Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by ‘deep pleasure.’ They were kissing but they were not having sex. The eleven photographs show both the pastor and the widow fully clothed. So the Observer headline was not accurate. Sensational yes: accurate, no.
The couple were not named but they could be clearly identified from the photographs, even though the newspaper did block out their eyes.
The story took a new twist on Friday (8 February 2008) when the Observer again published a picture of the couple on its front page along with a report on an inside page that the League of Swaziland Churches was investigating the ‘randy pastor’.
The League’s president told the Observer, ‘We are even tempted to believe that this man is not a Christian because Christians do not engage in such practices.’ You learn something new every day: Christians do not have sex.
The story of the pastor and the widow has appeared on the Observer’s website and people across the world have picked it up and are having a good laugh about it. (See the blogsite Of Course, I could Be Wrong as an example.)
In journalism they say that sex always sells newspapers. Add to that a bit of religion and you have a perfect recipe for a circulation builder.
But there is a serious question that needs to be answered: has the Observer violated the rights to privacy of the pastor and the widow?
There are no hard and fast rules about exactly what constitutes an invasion of privacy. It depends to a large extent on who is involved and where people are at the time
Swazi journalists have some help here. Article 5 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct states that journalists should respect privacy and human dignity. The code goes onto say that intrusions into a person’s private life can only be justified when done in the public interest.
The SNAJ code seems quite clear, but trying to apply it to the pastor and the widow is less so.
Most people would probably agree that two people kissing and cuddling together is a private act and their actions should not be photographed and published in a newspaper. But is it still a ‘private act’ if the couple are cuddling under a tree close to a supermarket car park? They probably couldn’t have reasonably expected to remain unseen. So in this case the couple were not in a private place.
But even if the couple were in a public place and seen cuddling by people passing by, was the Observer right to publish eleven photographs, including one on the front page? The answer to that question is less simple.
The SNAJ code allows for a person’s privacy to be breached ‘in the public interest’. We need to be careful how we define ‘public interest’. We should not confuse it with something that is ‘interesting to the public’. I have no doubt that the exploits of the pastor and the widow are interesting to the public. The way the story is being shared on the Internet shows this to be true. But the cuddling couple are the subject of gossip. People are having a bit of a laugh at their expense and that is all. Newspapers shouldn’t be gossip sheets; they need to be held to higher standards.
So is the story in the ‘public interest’? The Press Complaints Commission in the UK defines matters ‘as being in the public interest if they are a matter of i) detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour ii) protecting public health and safety iii) preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organization.’
The Observer report about the pastor and the widow is not exposing crime, nor is it protecting public health or safety.
Some people may argue, however, that the Observer is preventing the public from being misled by the action of an individual.
The pastor is to an extent a public figure because people who attend his church know him and as a pastor he is also a man of God. People might reasonably expect the pastor to have a higher standard than the rest of us when it comes to kissing and cuddling in public. In that case, the Observer might have a case for saying that it is exposing the pastor as dishonest.
In Swaziland the newspapers often expose pastors for the unacceptable ways they behave. Usually, however, pastors are exposed for criminal activity, such as rape or paedophilia (having sex with children). It is not clear whether the ‘randy pastor’ in the Observer report has committed an offence. There probably are laws about ‘having sex’ in public, but that isn’t what the pastor and the widow were up to. Anyway, I have seen no media reports that the pastor has been charged with committing a crime.
But the Observer report doesn’t attempt to ‘expose’ the pastor for wrongdoing. The report just details the circumstances in which the pastor and the widow were discovered and the pastor’s reaction when he noticed he was being photographed.
So this doesn’t look to me like a report in the ‘public interest’.
So to recap, a man who is a little bit famous had a kiss and a cuddle with a widow who is not famous at all. They had their cuddle in a public place and a nosey photographer took photographs and the next day a newspaper published 11 of them for everyone to see.
The Observer has breached the right to privacy of the couple because of the way it handled its report. It seems to me that the Observer set out to humiliate the pastor in the way the journalist wrote the report and the way the editor published it, first by putting a picture on the front page, then by publishing a report on page three and then by putting ten photographs on page nine.
The treatment of the story was overkill. The pictures were meant to titillate readers over a bit of hanky panky by a ‘randy pastor’. Nowhere in the coverage did the Observer attempt to show that the pastor’s behaviour was inappropriate for a man of the church and therefore it wasn’t really concerned about the ‘public interest’ and only in a story that might be ‘interesting to the public’.
See also
SWAZI MORALISTS ATTACK WIDOW
The pastor and the widow snuggled down for a kiss and a cuddle under a wattle tree near the Spar supermarket in Mbabane, Swaziland’s capital city.
Then two men, looking for shade to eat their lunch, spotted the couple. They recognised the man as a pastor from their church.
The next thing we know reporters and a photographer from the Swazi Observer arrived on the scene and the next day (Wednesday 6 February 2008) a photograph of the pastor and the widow appeared on the newspaper’s front page along with the headline PASTOR CAUGHT HAVING SEX WITH WIDOW.
If that wasn’t enough the Observer published another ten photos – yes, you read that right, ten photos – on an inside page of the couple and also a news report alerting Observer readers to just how shocking this behaviour was.
Here’s some of what the Observer had to say:
‘On arrival, reporters found the pastor fondling, caressing and kissing the widow as they moved a step further.
‘When our photographer arrived at the scene, several metres from Spar parking, the couple was in deep pleasure.’
Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by ‘deep pleasure.’ They were kissing but they were not having sex. The eleven photographs show both the pastor and the widow fully clothed. So the Observer headline was not accurate. Sensational yes: accurate, no.
The couple were not named but they could be clearly identified from the photographs, even though the newspaper did block out their eyes.
The story took a new twist on Friday (8 February 2008) when the Observer again published a picture of the couple on its front page along with a report on an inside page that the League of Swaziland Churches was investigating the ‘randy pastor’.
The League’s president told the Observer, ‘We are even tempted to believe that this man is not a Christian because Christians do not engage in such practices.’ You learn something new every day: Christians do not have sex.
The story of the pastor and the widow has appeared on the Observer’s website and people across the world have picked it up and are having a good laugh about it. (See the blogsite Of Course, I could Be Wrong as an example.)
In journalism they say that sex always sells newspapers. Add to that a bit of religion and you have a perfect recipe for a circulation builder.
But there is a serious question that needs to be answered: has the Observer violated the rights to privacy of the pastor and the widow?
There are no hard and fast rules about exactly what constitutes an invasion of privacy. It depends to a large extent on who is involved and where people are at the time
Swazi journalists have some help here. Article 5 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct states that journalists should respect privacy and human dignity. The code goes onto say that intrusions into a person’s private life can only be justified when done in the public interest.
The SNAJ code seems quite clear, but trying to apply it to the pastor and the widow is less so.
Most people would probably agree that two people kissing and cuddling together is a private act and their actions should not be photographed and published in a newspaper. But is it still a ‘private act’ if the couple are cuddling under a tree close to a supermarket car park? They probably couldn’t have reasonably expected to remain unseen. So in this case the couple were not in a private place.
But even if the couple were in a public place and seen cuddling by people passing by, was the Observer right to publish eleven photographs, including one on the front page? The answer to that question is less simple.
The SNAJ code allows for a person’s privacy to be breached ‘in the public interest’. We need to be careful how we define ‘public interest’. We should not confuse it with something that is ‘interesting to the public’. I have no doubt that the exploits of the pastor and the widow are interesting to the public. The way the story is being shared on the Internet shows this to be true. But the cuddling couple are the subject of gossip. People are having a bit of a laugh at their expense and that is all. Newspapers shouldn’t be gossip sheets; they need to be held to higher standards.
So is the story in the ‘public interest’? The Press Complaints Commission in the UK defines matters ‘as being in the public interest if they are a matter of i) detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour ii) protecting public health and safety iii) preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organization.’
The Observer report about the pastor and the widow is not exposing crime, nor is it protecting public health or safety.
Some people may argue, however, that the Observer is preventing the public from being misled by the action of an individual.
The pastor is to an extent a public figure because people who attend his church know him and as a pastor he is also a man of God. People might reasonably expect the pastor to have a higher standard than the rest of us when it comes to kissing and cuddling in public. In that case, the Observer might have a case for saying that it is exposing the pastor as dishonest.
In Swaziland the newspapers often expose pastors for the unacceptable ways they behave. Usually, however, pastors are exposed for criminal activity, such as rape or paedophilia (having sex with children). It is not clear whether the ‘randy pastor’ in the Observer report has committed an offence. There probably are laws about ‘having sex’ in public, but that isn’t what the pastor and the widow were up to. Anyway, I have seen no media reports that the pastor has been charged with committing a crime.
But the Observer report doesn’t attempt to ‘expose’ the pastor for wrongdoing. The report just details the circumstances in which the pastor and the widow were discovered and the pastor’s reaction when he noticed he was being photographed.
So this doesn’t look to me like a report in the ‘public interest’.
So to recap, a man who is a little bit famous had a kiss and a cuddle with a widow who is not famous at all. They had their cuddle in a public place and a nosey photographer took photographs and the next day a newspaper published 11 of them for everyone to see.
The Observer has breached the right to privacy of the couple because of the way it handled its report. It seems to me that the Observer set out to humiliate the pastor in the way the journalist wrote the report and the way the editor published it, first by putting a picture on the front page, then by publishing a report on page three and then by putting ten photographs on page nine.
The treatment of the story was overkill. The pictures were meant to titillate readers over a bit of hanky panky by a ‘randy pastor’. Nowhere in the coverage did the Observer attempt to show that the pastor’s behaviour was inappropriate for a man of the church and therefore it wasn’t really concerned about the ‘public interest’ and only in a story that might be ‘interesting to the public’.
See also
SWAZI MORALISTS ATTACK WIDOW
SWAZI MORALISTS ATTACK WIDOW
There is an interesting postscript to the report about the Swazi pastor and the widow who were caught by a newspaper ‘having sex’ under a wattle tree.
I wrote earlier about how the Swazi Observer invaded the privacy of the couple who were having a kiss and a cuddle in the shade. Despite the Observer’s accusation that they were ‘having sex’ they were in fact fully clothed throughout the whole incident.
Now, predictably the Observer has alerted the moral brigade to condemn the couple. In so doing the Observer has unintentionally given readers an insight to Swazi culture (at its worse).
First up to the mat in the Observer yesterday (Monday 11 February 2008) was someone described by the Observer as a ‘famous custodian and commentator on cultural values,’ Lindzeni Ndlangamandla.
Ndlangamandla ‘teaches Swazi values’ (the Observer’s words, not mine) on the government controlled radio station SBIS, Typically, for a ‘traditionalist’ she condemned the woman. The Observer reported her saying the widow should not have accepted the mourning gowns if she was not certain about her behaviour.
She went on, ‘to the best of my knowledge, a widow is not supposed to fall in love, nor look at a man in the eyes. She is not even expected to hold hands with a man’.
In traditional Swazi custom women have no rights of their own. They are treated as minors and effectively ‘owned’ by their men (usually their husbands or fathers). It would seem that even when their man has passed on a woman has no right to a life.
The second moraliser brought forward by the Observer was Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) National Director Nonhlanhla Dlamini.
The Observer reported her saying, ‘It shows that we have lost values as a nation because a widow is expected to respect herself. In this era of HIV and AIDS pandemic, it is worrying for such adults to be seen behaving in such a manner.’
This is a worrying statement from a leader of SWAGAA. Somebody ought to explain to her that you don’t get HIV from kissing.
In its report the Observer also repeated comments from the pastor’s church regarding the ‘unChristian-like’ behaviour he had indulged in. His church, it seems, is hell-bent on disciplining him.
There was one less extreme voice. A pastor at the Kingdom Church in Manzini said that thing about casting the first stone.
Good point pastor. I wonder how many journalists have had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle that they then went on to regret?
See also
PASTOR AND THE PRYING SWAZI PRESS
I wrote earlier about how the Swazi Observer invaded the privacy of the couple who were having a kiss and a cuddle in the shade. Despite the Observer’s accusation that they were ‘having sex’ they were in fact fully clothed throughout the whole incident.
Now, predictably the Observer has alerted the moral brigade to condemn the couple. In so doing the Observer has unintentionally given readers an insight to Swazi culture (at its worse).
First up to the mat in the Observer yesterday (Monday 11 February 2008) was someone described by the Observer as a ‘famous custodian and commentator on cultural values,’ Lindzeni Ndlangamandla.
Ndlangamandla ‘teaches Swazi values’ (the Observer’s words, not mine) on the government controlled radio station SBIS, Typically, for a ‘traditionalist’ she condemned the woman. The Observer reported her saying the widow should not have accepted the mourning gowns if she was not certain about her behaviour.
She went on, ‘to the best of my knowledge, a widow is not supposed to fall in love, nor look at a man in the eyes. She is not even expected to hold hands with a man’.
In traditional Swazi custom women have no rights of their own. They are treated as minors and effectively ‘owned’ by their men (usually their husbands or fathers). It would seem that even when their man has passed on a woman has no right to a life.
The second moraliser brought forward by the Observer was Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) National Director Nonhlanhla Dlamini.
The Observer reported her saying, ‘It shows that we have lost values as a nation because a widow is expected to respect herself. In this era of HIV and AIDS pandemic, it is worrying for such adults to be seen behaving in such a manner.’
This is a worrying statement from a leader of SWAGAA. Somebody ought to explain to her that you don’t get HIV from kissing.
In its report the Observer also repeated comments from the pastor’s church regarding the ‘unChristian-like’ behaviour he had indulged in. His church, it seems, is hell-bent on disciplining him.
There was one less extreme voice. A pastor at the Kingdom Church in Manzini said that thing about casting the first stone.
Good point pastor. I wonder how many journalists have had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle that they then went on to regret?
See also
PASTOR AND THE PRYING SWAZI PRESS
Monday, 11 February 2008
SWAZI MEDIA IGNORE ECONOMIC CRISIS
Predictably, this past weekend, the Swazi media has been full of reports from King Mswati III’s opening of Parliament that took place on Friday.
The king’s speech was broadcast live by state-controlled television and radio – although true to form Swazi TV technicians weren’t up to the job and the king was cut off in mid sentence while I was watching.
So we had to wait until the following day for the newspaper coverage.
Both the Swazi News and the Weekend Observer (9 February 2008) produced the text of the speech in full. Both also had plenty of stories and pictures of women in hats and such like. There was among the newspaper journalists plenty of praise for the king, but very little analysis.
Alec Lushaba, the Weekend Observer editor, led the cheers for the ‘insightful’ and ‘remarkable’ speech.
Thulani Thwala at the Swazi News was a bit more world-weary. He criticised the king’s advisors and speechwriters (in Swaziland you are not allowed to criticise the king himself) for a speech that was more or less the same every year.
In the speech, the king ‘gave away’ E431 million (about 61 million US Dollars) in spending on education, grants for elderly people, food security and other things.
All media emphasised that the Swazi economy had grown by 2.5 percent over the past year. The tone of the king’s speech was that things are going well, but we still need to work harder.
Thwala saw through some of this in his column. He reminded readers that in the past the king has made announcements about extra spending, but then nothing happened on the ground.
Thwala has a point here, but my main criticism of the speech and the way it has been reported is that journalists have divorced the speech from the reality of the situation in Swaziland. This is best seen in the statement about economic growth and the state of the economy.
The truth is that the Swazi economy is dire and is in danger of collapse unless the government acts quickly to change its current policies.
This is not new information. Last year (2007) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported on Swaziland. In its official report the IMF stated that ‘Swaziland’s economic performance remains weak. Poverty has escalated in the face of high and rising unemployment, food shortages, and the world’s highest HIV/AIDS infection rate. In 2006, growth slowed to around 2 percent; inflation is rising; and the current account surplus is narrowing.’
The IMF report went on to say that the amount of money Swaziland was receiving through the Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU) made the economy of Swaziland look better than it really was. This, however, was a temporary windfall of money that was expected to run out in 2007/2008. After that date the amount of money coming from the SACU would ‘sharply decline’.
The present economic policy of Swaziland would be unworkable once the SACU revenues decline, the IMF report stated. The IMF recommended that to save the economy the Swaziland Government had to change its economic policies. Top of the list was for the government to reduce its wages bill, begin civil service reform and privatize state-owned assets.
Also on the list of improvements were structural reforms such as labour market reforms; simplifying business licensing requirements and procedures; improving transportation, energy, and telecommunication infrastructures; and enhancing land productivity by a strategy for land reform.
The IMF reported in March 2007 and the media in Swaziland picked up the story at the time. Perhaps, more accurately I should say they picked up the IMF press release and copied it into their newspapers. If the coverage of the king’s speech is anything to go by the journalists did not understand what the IMF was saying.
The IMF warned that after 2007/2008 the amount of revenue coming to Swaziland from the SACU would ‘sharply decline’. At present approximately 70 percent of all Swaziland’s revenue comes from the SACU. A sharp decline spells economic disaster for the kingdom.
The king (or his advisors) choose to ignore this looming crisis – the journalists should not.
See also
SWAZILAND’S OTHER ‘BLACK WEDNESDAY’
The king’s speech was broadcast live by state-controlled television and radio – although true to form Swazi TV technicians weren’t up to the job and the king was cut off in mid sentence while I was watching.
So we had to wait until the following day for the newspaper coverage.
Both the Swazi News and the Weekend Observer (9 February 2008) produced the text of the speech in full. Both also had plenty of stories and pictures of women in hats and such like. There was among the newspaper journalists plenty of praise for the king, but very little analysis.
Alec Lushaba, the Weekend Observer editor, led the cheers for the ‘insightful’ and ‘remarkable’ speech.
Thulani Thwala at the Swazi News was a bit more world-weary. He criticised the king’s advisors and speechwriters (in Swaziland you are not allowed to criticise the king himself) for a speech that was more or less the same every year.
In the speech, the king ‘gave away’ E431 million (about 61 million US Dollars) in spending on education, grants for elderly people, food security and other things.
All media emphasised that the Swazi economy had grown by 2.5 percent over the past year. The tone of the king’s speech was that things are going well, but we still need to work harder.
Thwala saw through some of this in his column. He reminded readers that in the past the king has made announcements about extra spending, but then nothing happened on the ground.
Thwala has a point here, but my main criticism of the speech and the way it has been reported is that journalists have divorced the speech from the reality of the situation in Swaziland. This is best seen in the statement about economic growth and the state of the economy.
The truth is that the Swazi economy is dire and is in danger of collapse unless the government acts quickly to change its current policies.
This is not new information. Last year (2007) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported on Swaziland. In its official report the IMF stated that ‘Swaziland’s economic performance remains weak. Poverty has escalated in the face of high and rising unemployment, food shortages, and the world’s highest HIV/AIDS infection rate. In 2006, growth slowed to around 2 percent; inflation is rising; and the current account surplus is narrowing.’
The IMF report went on to say that the amount of money Swaziland was receiving through the Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU) made the economy of Swaziland look better than it really was. This, however, was a temporary windfall of money that was expected to run out in 2007/2008. After that date the amount of money coming from the SACU would ‘sharply decline’.
The present economic policy of Swaziland would be unworkable once the SACU revenues decline, the IMF report stated. The IMF recommended that to save the economy the Swaziland Government had to change its economic policies. Top of the list was for the government to reduce its wages bill, begin civil service reform and privatize state-owned assets.
Also on the list of improvements were structural reforms such as labour market reforms; simplifying business licensing requirements and procedures; improving transportation, energy, and telecommunication infrastructures; and enhancing land productivity by a strategy for land reform.
The IMF reported in March 2007 and the media in Swaziland picked up the story at the time. Perhaps, more accurately I should say they picked up the IMF press release and copied it into their newspapers. If the coverage of the king’s speech is anything to go by the journalists did not understand what the IMF was saying.
The IMF warned that after 2007/2008 the amount of revenue coming to Swaziland from the SACU would ‘sharply decline’. At present approximately 70 percent of all Swaziland’s revenue comes from the SACU. A sharp decline spells economic disaster for the kingdom.
The king (or his advisors) choose to ignore this looming crisis – the journalists should not.
See also
SWAZILAND’S OTHER ‘BLACK WEDNESDAY’
SWAZILAND’S OTHER 'BLACK WEDNESDAY'
The opening of the Swaziland Parliament last Friday (8 February 2008) reminded me of another ‘Black Wednesday’ that took place in 2004.
This time the army didn’t invade the University of Swaziland and nobody was seriously injured. Instead, people quietly protested against the way the ‘rule of law’ was ignored in the kingdom.
The entire Court of Appeal bench of judges had resigned in protest over interference in the judicial system by King Mswati III. The opening of Parliament had been postponed and the Parliament Speaker had resigned after he had headed a special parliamentary committee that recommended against the purchase of an E720 million (US $111 million) private jet for the king - advice that was accepted by the House of Assembly.
Some MPs had threatened to boycott the King’s speech, on Wednesday 17 March 2004 but they changed their minds after Prime Minister Themba Dlamini issued a strong warning against ‘disrespecting’ the monarch.
The news agency IRIN (17 March 2004) reported as follows:
The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations, an umbrella group of labour organisations, human rights bodies and banned political parties, had called for Swazis to wear black as a symbol of protest over what they described as the palace's undermining of parliament.
The prime minister and traditional authorities warned that any person wearing black would face punishment. The national highway running one kilometer north of parliament, and connecting roads, were blocked by police, who questioned any person seen wearing a dark garment.’Have you seen inside the chamber?
'It looks like the Easter Parade,’ one MP commented to IRIN about the variety of bold colours nervous MPs chose to wear before the king. Some legislators complained to the local media that they had to mothball black suits purchased for the occasion. Swaziland's parliament is subordinate to King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
Although MPs are elected from 55 constituencies, augmented by 10 royal appointees, parliamentarians take an oath of allegiance to the king rather than to the people or laws of Swaziland.
See also
BLACK WEDNESDAY AT SWAZILAND UNI
opening of parliament 2008
This time the army didn’t invade the University of Swaziland and nobody was seriously injured. Instead, people quietly protested against the way the ‘rule of law’ was ignored in the kingdom.
The entire Court of Appeal bench of judges had resigned in protest over interference in the judicial system by King Mswati III. The opening of Parliament had been postponed and the Parliament Speaker had resigned after he had headed a special parliamentary committee that recommended against the purchase of an E720 million (US $111 million) private jet for the king - advice that was accepted by the House of Assembly.
Some MPs had threatened to boycott the King’s speech, on Wednesday 17 March 2004 but they changed their minds after Prime Minister Themba Dlamini issued a strong warning against ‘disrespecting’ the monarch.
The news agency IRIN (17 March 2004) reported as follows:
The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations, an umbrella group of labour organisations, human rights bodies and banned political parties, had called for Swazis to wear black as a symbol of protest over what they described as the palace's undermining of parliament.
The prime minister and traditional authorities warned that any person wearing black would face punishment. The national highway running one kilometer north of parliament, and connecting roads, were blocked by police, who questioned any person seen wearing a dark garment.’Have you seen inside the chamber?
'It looks like the Easter Parade,’ one MP commented to IRIN about the variety of bold colours nervous MPs chose to wear before the king. Some legislators complained to the local media that they had to mothball black suits purchased for the occasion. Swaziland's parliament is subordinate to King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
Although MPs are elected from 55 constituencies, augmented by 10 royal appointees, parliamentarians take an oath of allegiance to the king rather than to the people or laws of Swaziland.
See also
BLACK WEDNESDAY AT SWAZILAND UNI
opening of parliament 2008
Friday, 8 February 2008
POLITICIANS INTERFERE AT SWAZI TV
The head of the state-controlled Swazi TV has told politicians to leave the television station alone.
Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer, called a media conference to condemn politicians for ‘meddling into the affairs’ of Swazi TV.
The Times of Swaziland reported on Wednesday (6 February 2008) Mayiza saying ‘their interference was killing not only the station, but his efforts to improve it’.
The plea from Maziya seems a bit naive because Swazi TV is a government controlled station directly answerable to the Minister of Public Service and Information (presently S’gayoyo Magongo). This is an accepted fact in Swaziland and the only reason Swazi TV is allowed to broadcast is so that it can be a propaganda voice for the government and King Mswati III.
The editorial independence of Swazi TV is not guaranteed by law.
The African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland chapter last month that poor funding is particularly evident at Swazi TV where resources are scarce, quality of programmes is poor and there is very little local content. Swazi TV relies mostly on government subsidies, but supplements its income with license fees and advertising.
The poor quality of its programmes has also been attacked by Swaziland members of parliament.
The Times reports Maziya ‘like a man possessed’ saying that ‘political heavyweights should allow the station’s authorities to execute their duties free of interference’.
The Times continues, ‘Maziya emphasised that the political interference was killing not only the station, but his efforts to improve it.’
The Times contacted the Minister of Public Service for comment. He is quoted by the newspaper saying he was the only politician in the ministry ‘In as far as I’m concerned I’m not interfering, but doing my job.’
It can be no coincidence that Maziya’s comments came the day after the Times revealed (4 February 2008) that an auditor’s letter had disclosed financial irregularities, including the purchase of equipment worth more than E2.5 million (350, 000 US dollars), some of which was never delivered.
With his comments about political interference, Maziya may be trying to divert attention from the financial irregularities at Swazi TV, which has been heavily criticised in the past for its poor management.
Meanwhile, the Swazi Observer (Wednesday 6 February 2008) did not include Maziya’s comments on political interference in its report on Maziya’s media conference. It concentrated on the news that Swazi TV management had suspended the station’s financial controller over the unaccounted money.
CLARIFICATION
The auditor general cleared Swazi TV of misappropriating funds or irregularities in the purchasing of equipment, contrary to the letter from the auditors mentioned in this blog, according to a report in the Times Swaziland 3 April 2008.
Richard Rooney 6 April 2008.
See also
TWO WEEKS TO SAVE SWAZI TV
Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer, called a media conference to condemn politicians for ‘meddling into the affairs’ of Swazi TV.
The Times of Swaziland reported on Wednesday (6 February 2008) Mayiza saying ‘their interference was killing not only the station, but his efforts to improve it’.
The plea from Maziya seems a bit naive because Swazi TV is a government controlled station directly answerable to the Minister of Public Service and Information (presently S’gayoyo Magongo). This is an accepted fact in Swaziland and the only reason Swazi TV is allowed to broadcast is so that it can be a propaganda voice for the government and King Mswati III.
The editorial independence of Swazi TV is not guaranteed by law.
The African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland chapter last month that poor funding is particularly evident at Swazi TV where resources are scarce, quality of programmes is poor and there is very little local content. Swazi TV relies mostly on government subsidies, but supplements its income with license fees and advertising.
The poor quality of its programmes has also been attacked by Swaziland members of parliament.
The Times reports Maziya ‘like a man possessed’ saying that ‘political heavyweights should allow the station’s authorities to execute their duties free of interference’.
The Times continues, ‘Maziya emphasised that the political interference was killing not only the station, but his efforts to improve it.’
The Times contacted the Minister of Public Service for comment. He is quoted by the newspaper saying he was the only politician in the ministry ‘In as far as I’m concerned I’m not interfering, but doing my job.’
It can be no coincidence that Maziya’s comments came the day after the Times revealed (4 February 2008) that an auditor’s letter had disclosed financial irregularities, including the purchase of equipment worth more than E2.5 million (350, 000 US dollars), some of which was never delivered.
With his comments about political interference, Maziya may be trying to divert attention from the financial irregularities at Swazi TV, which has been heavily criticised in the past for its poor management.
Meanwhile, the Swazi Observer (Wednesday 6 February 2008) did not include Maziya’s comments on political interference in its report on Maziya’s media conference. It concentrated on the news that Swazi TV management had suspended the station’s financial controller over the unaccounted money.
CLARIFICATION
The auditor general cleared Swazi TV of misappropriating funds or irregularities in the purchasing of equipment, contrary to the letter from the auditors mentioned in this blog, according to a report in the Times Swaziland 3 April 2008.
Richard Rooney 6 April 2008.
See also
TWO WEEKS TO SAVE SWAZI TV
SWAZI LAWYERS DEFEND RIGHTS
Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights have accused the kingdom’s Attorney General of misrepresenting the constitution.
And at the same time the lawyers have unintentionally exposed major deficiencies in Swazi journalism.
The story starts on 22 January 2008 when Swazi media reported the speech made by the Attorney General (AG) Majahenkhaba Dlamini at the annual opening of the Swaziland High Court. Large amounts of air time were devoted to the opening on radio and television and both daily newspapers gave over at least two pages each to the event.
The AG’s full speech was published in the Swazi Observer in the indigenous language siSwati (23 January 2008) and in English (24 January 2008).
Despite all of this coverage, journalists didn’t understand the importance of what the AG was saying.
It took a statement from Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights to put them on track. In brief, the lawyers said that the AG misinterpreted and misrepresented the new Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 on several matters of fundamental importance.
Only then did the Swazi media pick up on the story again. This forced the AG into issuing a ‘clarification’ that appeared in newspapers on 4 February 2008.
Swazi journalists missed the significance of the AG until alerted by the lawyers. This is not unusual in Swaziland where journalists tend not to have inquiring minds. The Swazi media much prefer to simply report what powerful people say and leave it at that. That is what the Observer did when it reported word for word the speech of the AG.
There is also a lot of evidence from the Swazi media generally that journalists don’t always really understand what it is that they are writing. You only need to look at the business sections of newspapers and at the jargon that is reproduced in their pages from press releases and company statements to see this in action.
The Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights made several important criticisms of the AG’s speech and in doing so give an excellent account of just how undemocratic a state Swaziland is.
Below are some extended extracts from the lawyers’ media statement.
Concerns
What gives us great concern is the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Constitution by the Attorney General on several matters of fundamental importance.
These are:
- The fact that in his interpretation the executive (government) is first among equals.
- His assertion that the separation of powers can be found in the Constitution.
- His reliance on the Latimer House Principles to back up these assertions.
The Position of the Executive in the Swazi Constitution
Section 64 (1) of the Constitution states that - The executive authority of Swaziland vests in the King as Head of State.
In no way under Swazi law, custom, tradition or the Constitution can the King, and therefore the Executive, be said to be ‘first among equals’.
The King and iNgweyama has a special and revered role in Swazi traditional law and custom to such an extent that our custom dictates that ‘the King cannot tell a lie’.
This is not a prohibition of royal falsehoods but a statement on how truth and reality are recognized in Swazi Traditional Law.
The King and iNgweyama also has an elevated role under the Swazi Constitution where under section 11 he cannot be questioned in court and therefore his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny either.
Therefore it follows that our Executive is not first among equals but first among strongly weighted unequals. – ‘First among equals’ is a quaint term that was coined by the British constitutional historian and chief apologist for the aristocracy and the then status quo - Walter Bagheot to describe his interpretation of the nature of the British Prime Minister position in cabinet. It was no more appropriate to 19th Century Britain than it is to 21st century Swaziland.
Separation of Powers
The Attorney General continues by saying that the separation of powers can be found in the constitution. We strongly contest that assertion.Separation of powers is a philosophy of providing checks and balances between the three branches of government: the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).
In theory, it distributes the power of the state between these three branches and maintains a healthy tension of oversight and accountability between them.
In a democracy that practices separation of powers the ultimate power rests in the will of the people, and so parliament and the legislature become the final arbiter of how the country is governed - not the executive.
We have already seen that in Swaziland the King has supreme executive authority. Let us look at parliamentary authority in Swaziland today.Section 106(a) of the Constitution says ‘the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the King-in-Parliament’.
It goes on to state the King can appoint nearly one fifth of the House of Assembly and two thirds of the Senate. The majority of both houses is required for a bill to become law. In any case, under section 134(b), the King has the absolute authority to dissolve parliament. It is impossible to argue that emaSwati have any real political power in this arrangement.
We know that the real power lies with the traditional authorities and Liqoqo in advising the King.In other countries, parliamentary elections are typically closely fought and so often the people in the centre hold the balance of power. This promotes a culture of problem solving, compromise and respect for minorities.
The Swazi system ensures an inbuilt majority for those who are sympathetic to traditional causes in all but the most extreme situations. Democracy is not reflected in the simple rule of the majority. It is equal access to power and influence by all.
The arrangement is Swaziland is simply and clearly not democratic.
Who Judges the Judges?
Turning to the how independent our judiciary is Section 141 guarantees the independence of the judiciary. However, the senior judges of the country are chosen by the Judicial Services Commission.
The majority of this commission is directly appointed by the King and his advisors. Given this fact, how independent can new judges really be?
The Attorney General admonition to existing and potential judges to get involved in traditional ceremonies such as iNcwala shows that he does not want independence but obeisance. This should not be a matter of concern for the chief legal officer of government. He needs to respect the ideal of judiciary independence. The judges of the country have the right and the freedom to attend or not attend without, as he so readily quotes, fear or favour.
All Angles Covered
Thus we can see that the combined position of the Monarchy and its advisors directly controls the make up of, and has the potential to manipulate the decisions of, all three branches of government. We therefore must disagree in the strongest of terms with the Attorney General that the Swazi Constitution embodies the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Commonwealth Rules
The Attorney General is happy to quote the Commonwealth Latimer House Principals to back up portions of his argument when saying that our Judges should remain subservient to the Constitution.
He conveniently neglects the preceding section that states that: Parliamentary procedures should provide adequate mechanisms to enforce the accountability of the executive to parliament.There is no history of regular and rigorous accountability of our government to parliament.
The Latimer House Principles go on to envisage a system of a multi-party democracy that is thoroughly grounded in the doctrine of parliament, not the executive, being first amongst equals and sets out a system of proper oversight of the executive by bodies such as an Opposition in Parliament, Ombudsmen, Public Accounts Committees, Human Rights Commissions, Auditors General, Anti-Corruption Commissions, Information Commissions, Judicial Review, an independent and vibrant media protected by law and a constructive relationship with civil society.
We are happy that, as the chief law officer of government, the Attorney General is aware of the Latimer House Principles, we will be a lot happier when he, and his cabinet colleagues, start to live by them.The principles are a model for good governance across the Commonwealth and, if the Attorney General wishes to talk to us about how to work towards their full implementation in Swaziland, our doors, and the doors of the rest of civil society, remain open.
And at the same time the lawyers have unintentionally exposed major deficiencies in Swazi journalism.
The story starts on 22 January 2008 when Swazi media reported the speech made by the Attorney General (AG) Majahenkhaba Dlamini at the annual opening of the Swaziland High Court. Large amounts of air time were devoted to the opening on radio and television and both daily newspapers gave over at least two pages each to the event.
The AG’s full speech was published in the Swazi Observer in the indigenous language siSwati (23 January 2008) and in English (24 January 2008).
Despite all of this coverage, journalists didn’t understand the importance of what the AG was saying.
It took a statement from Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights to put them on track. In brief, the lawyers said that the AG misinterpreted and misrepresented the new Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 on several matters of fundamental importance.
Only then did the Swazi media pick up on the story again. This forced the AG into issuing a ‘clarification’ that appeared in newspapers on 4 February 2008.
Swazi journalists missed the significance of the AG until alerted by the lawyers. This is not unusual in Swaziland where journalists tend not to have inquiring minds. The Swazi media much prefer to simply report what powerful people say and leave it at that. That is what the Observer did when it reported word for word the speech of the AG.
There is also a lot of evidence from the Swazi media generally that journalists don’t always really understand what it is that they are writing. You only need to look at the business sections of newspapers and at the jargon that is reproduced in their pages from press releases and company statements to see this in action.
The Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights made several important criticisms of the AG’s speech and in doing so give an excellent account of just how undemocratic a state Swaziland is.
Below are some extended extracts from the lawyers’ media statement.
Concerns
What gives us great concern is the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Constitution by the Attorney General on several matters of fundamental importance.
These are:
- The fact that in his interpretation the executive (government) is first among equals.
- His assertion that the separation of powers can be found in the Constitution.
- His reliance on the Latimer House Principles to back up these assertions.
The Position of the Executive in the Swazi Constitution
Section 64 (1) of the Constitution states that - The executive authority of Swaziland vests in the King as Head of State.
In no way under Swazi law, custom, tradition or the Constitution can the King, and therefore the Executive, be said to be ‘first among equals’.
The King and iNgweyama has a special and revered role in Swazi traditional law and custom to such an extent that our custom dictates that ‘the King cannot tell a lie’.
This is not a prohibition of royal falsehoods but a statement on how truth and reality are recognized in Swazi Traditional Law.
The King and iNgweyama also has an elevated role under the Swazi Constitution where under section 11 he cannot be questioned in court and therefore his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny either.
Therefore it follows that our Executive is not first among equals but first among strongly weighted unequals. – ‘First among equals’ is a quaint term that was coined by the British constitutional historian and chief apologist for the aristocracy and the then status quo - Walter Bagheot to describe his interpretation of the nature of the British Prime Minister position in cabinet. It was no more appropriate to 19th Century Britain than it is to 21st century Swaziland.
Separation of Powers
The Attorney General continues by saying that the separation of powers can be found in the constitution. We strongly contest that assertion.Separation of powers is a philosophy of providing checks and balances between the three branches of government: the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).
In theory, it distributes the power of the state between these three branches and maintains a healthy tension of oversight and accountability between them.
In a democracy that practices separation of powers the ultimate power rests in the will of the people, and so parliament and the legislature become the final arbiter of how the country is governed - not the executive.
We have already seen that in Swaziland the King has supreme executive authority. Let us look at parliamentary authority in Swaziland today.Section 106(a) of the Constitution says ‘the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the King-in-Parliament’.
It goes on to state the King can appoint nearly one fifth of the House of Assembly and two thirds of the Senate. The majority of both houses is required for a bill to become law. In any case, under section 134(b), the King has the absolute authority to dissolve parliament. It is impossible to argue that emaSwati have any real political power in this arrangement.
We know that the real power lies with the traditional authorities and Liqoqo in advising the King.In other countries, parliamentary elections are typically closely fought and so often the people in the centre hold the balance of power. This promotes a culture of problem solving, compromise and respect for minorities.
The Swazi system ensures an inbuilt majority for those who are sympathetic to traditional causes in all but the most extreme situations. Democracy is not reflected in the simple rule of the majority. It is equal access to power and influence by all.
The arrangement is Swaziland is simply and clearly not democratic.
Who Judges the Judges?
Turning to the how independent our judiciary is Section 141 guarantees the independence of the judiciary. However, the senior judges of the country are chosen by the Judicial Services Commission.
The majority of this commission is directly appointed by the King and his advisors. Given this fact, how independent can new judges really be?
The Attorney General admonition to existing and potential judges to get involved in traditional ceremonies such as iNcwala shows that he does not want independence but obeisance. This should not be a matter of concern for the chief legal officer of government. He needs to respect the ideal of judiciary independence. The judges of the country have the right and the freedom to attend or not attend without, as he so readily quotes, fear or favour.
All Angles Covered
Thus we can see that the combined position of the Monarchy and its advisors directly controls the make up of, and has the potential to manipulate the decisions of, all three branches of government. We therefore must disagree in the strongest of terms with the Attorney General that the Swazi Constitution embodies the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Commonwealth Rules
The Attorney General is happy to quote the Commonwealth Latimer House Principals to back up portions of his argument when saying that our Judges should remain subservient to the Constitution.
He conveniently neglects the preceding section that states that: Parliamentary procedures should provide adequate mechanisms to enforce the accountability of the executive to parliament.There is no history of regular and rigorous accountability of our government to parliament.
The Latimer House Principles go on to envisage a system of a multi-party democracy that is thoroughly grounded in the doctrine of parliament, not the executive, being first amongst equals and sets out a system of proper oversight of the executive by bodies such as an Opposition in Parliament, Ombudsmen, Public Accounts Committees, Human Rights Commissions, Auditors General, Anti-Corruption Commissions, Information Commissions, Judicial Review, an independent and vibrant media protected by law and a constructive relationship with civil society.
We are happy that, as the chief law officer of government, the Attorney General is aware of the Latimer House Principles, we will be a lot happier when he, and his cabinet colleagues, start to live by them.The principles are a model for good governance across the Commonwealth and, if the Attorney General wishes to talk to us about how to work towards their full implementation in Swaziland, our doors, and the doors of the rest of civil society, remain open.
Thursday, 7 February 2008
BLACK WEDNESDAY AT SWAZILAND UNI
I wrote last Friday (1 February 2008) about the present dispute at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) and how history repeats itself.
The Times Higher Educational Supplement (THES) in 1995 reported on a breakdown between the university administration and its students.
But that wasn’t the worst example from history. That accolade definitely goes to 14 November 1990 – a day that will forever go down in Swazi history as Black Wednesday.
Students were making a peaceful protest at the university when the Swaziland army was sent in to attack them.
Students at UNISWA mark Black Wednesday each year, but in recent years doubts have been raised about whether today’s students really understand what it is that is being remembered.
What follows is not a piece of journalism. It is a powerful first hand eyewitness account of what happened that day. It was written (in 2006 I think) by Michael Prosser, a professor from the United States who was working at the University of Swaziland and is posted on his website. At the end of his account Prosser asks whether there is anyone who remembers Black Wednesday. If you do you can contact him here.
BLOODY WEDNESDAY IN SWAZILAND
University students began boycotting classes on November 12 in protest of a lack of faculty lecturers, poor food conditions, and the suspension of a popular young sociology lecturer for promoting democracy in Swaziland.
Early on November 12, all 1 600 university students held a protest meeting and boycotted all classes. At noon, they dumped their plastic wrapped lunches at the administration office door.
The Swazi radio, and tv stations, Swaziland’s newspapers gave extensive coverage to the dumping of the lunches. Many Swazis were subsistence farmers who often went to bed hungry; thus this student decision reflected very badly on them. All students received a University notice demanding the end of their class boycott on November 13. They decided to continue it. The University Council demanded their return to classes on November 14, or be considered in defiance of the twenty-three year old King Mswati III.
Another student meeting on November 14 continued the boycott. About 500 students peacefully barricaded themselves in the two-storey university library. Several hundred students left campus or stayed in their student hostel area. At about 5pm, armed Swazi soldiers entered the high fenced campus.
A university official drove through the campus announcing the immediate campus closure. Five young women rushed to me and asked for emergency protection in my home. I took them there immediately.
A fifteen hour rain and thunderstorm had just begun. The young women were quite terrified.
The young soldiers broke into the library and the student hostels, dragging students out, beating both men and women with their night sticks on their arms and legs, and forcing them to run a gauntlet toward the front gate while the soldiers gave them sharp blows.
The soldiers taunted the students: ‘We’ll beat the English out of you.’ They were especially vicious toward the women. The soldiers had been stationed that day at the high school next door to the campus and drank lots of beer before they attacked the campus, making them even more violent than otherwise so likely.
A neighbor warned us that at 10pm, soldiers would search our houses and arrest any students found there or on campus. Two Canadian families and I, in a caravan of three autos, took 11 frightened Swazi students in the three cars to the front gate to take them to safety.
With a gun pointed the first driver’s cheek, he got permission from the guard to leave the campus with the students. In the swirling rain, lightening, and thunderstorm, we took the students to safe shelters. When we returned to campus late in the evening, two soldiers were posted all night in the back and in the front of our houses.
With some students, I drove to the nearby hospital where more than 120 students had received emergency treatment. We visited more than a dozen badly injured students. We learned that soldiers possibly had injured as many as 300-400 and had killed perhaps as many as two-four students.
The Swazi radio and tv stations gave no information about what had happened after the students had dumped their food. However, the two Swazi newspapers did give the event considerable coverage over several weeks. They also printed many letters to the editor decrying the incident and called for a national judicial enquiry. Reuters News Agency and the South African press gave it some coverage.
Amnesty International cited it in their 1991 Annual Review. The University remained closed for two months, reopening on January 14. A national judicial enquiry, more heavily critical of the student boycott than the hostile military response, began on March 14, 1991 and ended on May 14.The enquiry panel never released any details to the public.
The print media called the incident ‘Black Wednesday’ but my students and I attempted to have the newspapers rename it Bloody Wednesday since so much innocent student blood had been shed.
I always recall that day as my worst and best day in Swaziland when much evil occurred but many good people at the campus, the hospital, and nearby clinics generously helped the students. Do these former African students, now in their thirties, still remember that day? I assume so. I certainly always do.
See also
NO CHANGE AT SWAZILAND UNIVERSITY
WHEN SWAZI ARMY INVADED UNIVERSITY
The Times Higher Educational Supplement (THES) in 1995 reported on a breakdown between the university administration and its students.
But that wasn’t the worst example from history. That accolade definitely goes to 14 November 1990 – a day that will forever go down in Swazi history as Black Wednesday.
Students were making a peaceful protest at the university when the Swaziland army was sent in to attack them.
Students at UNISWA mark Black Wednesday each year, but in recent years doubts have been raised about whether today’s students really understand what it is that is being remembered.
What follows is not a piece of journalism. It is a powerful first hand eyewitness account of what happened that day. It was written (in 2006 I think) by Michael Prosser, a professor from the United States who was working at the University of Swaziland and is posted on his website. At the end of his account Prosser asks whether there is anyone who remembers Black Wednesday. If you do you can contact him here.
BLOODY WEDNESDAY IN SWAZILAND
November 14, 1990, ‘Bloody Wednesday’ in Swaziland still lingers as a most important moment in my life. It was the only day that I thought I surely might die. I was a Fulbright Professor at the University of Swaziland in south east Africa that year.
University students began boycotting classes on November 12 in protest of a lack of faculty lecturers, poor food conditions, and the suspension of a popular young sociology lecturer for promoting democracy in Swaziland.
Early on November 12, all 1 600 university students held a protest meeting and boycotted all classes. At noon, they dumped their plastic wrapped lunches at the administration office door.
The Swazi radio, and tv stations, Swaziland’s newspapers gave extensive coverage to the dumping of the lunches. Many Swazis were subsistence farmers who often went to bed hungry; thus this student decision reflected very badly on them. All students received a University notice demanding the end of their class boycott on November 13. They decided to continue it. The University Council demanded their return to classes on November 14, or be considered in defiance of the twenty-three year old King Mswati III.
Another student meeting on November 14 continued the boycott. About 500 students peacefully barricaded themselves in the two-storey university library. Several hundred students left campus or stayed in their student hostel area. At about 5pm, armed Swazi soldiers entered the high fenced campus.
A university official drove through the campus announcing the immediate campus closure. Five young women rushed to me and asked for emergency protection in my home. I took them there immediately.
A fifteen hour rain and thunderstorm had just begun. The young women were quite terrified.
The young soldiers broke into the library and the student hostels, dragging students out, beating both men and women with their night sticks on their arms and legs, and forcing them to run a gauntlet toward the front gate while the soldiers gave them sharp blows.
The soldiers taunted the students: ‘We’ll beat the English out of you.’ They were especially vicious toward the women. The soldiers had been stationed that day at the high school next door to the campus and drank lots of beer before they attacked the campus, making them even more violent than otherwise so likely.
A neighbor warned us that at 10pm, soldiers would search our houses and arrest any students found there or on campus. Two Canadian families and I, in a caravan of three autos, took 11 frightened Swazi students in the three cars to the front gate to take them to safety.
With a gun pointed the first driver’s cheek, he got permission from the guard to leave the campus with the students. In the swirling rain, lightening, and thunderstorm, we took the students to safe shelters. When we returned to campus late in the evening, two soldiers were posted all night in the back and in the front of our houses.
With some students, I drove to the nearby hospital where more than 120 students had received emergency treatment. We visited more than a dozen badly injured students. We learned that soldiers possibly had injured as many as 300-400 and had killed perhaps as many as two-four students.
The Swazi radio and tv stations gave no information about what had happened after the students had dumped their food. However, the two Swazi newspapers did give the event considerable coverage over several weeks. They also printed many letters to the editor decrying the incident and called for a national judicial enquiry. Reuters News Agency and the South African press gave it some coverage.
Amnesty International cited it in their 1991 Annual Review. The University remained closed for two months, reopening on January 14. A national judicial enquiry, more heavily critical of the student boycott than the hostile military response, began on March 14, 1991 and ended on May 14.The enquiry panel never released any details to the public.
The print media called the incident ‘Black Wednesday’ but my students and I attempted to have the newspapers rename it Bloody Wednesday since so much innocent student blood had been shed.
I always recall that day as my worst and best day in Swaziland when much evil occurred but many good people at the campus, the hospital, and nearby clinics generously helped the students. Do these former African students, now in their thirties, still remember that day? I assume so. I certainly always do.
See also
NO CHANGE AT SWAZILAND UNIVERSITY
WHEN SWAZI ARMY INVADED UNIVERSITY
WHEN SWAZI ARMY INVADED UNIVERSITY
Following on from the eyewitness account of Black Wednesday at the University of Swaziland provided by Michael Prosser here is a detailed retrospective account of the day when the Swaziland army invaded the university’s Kwaluseni campus
The news agency Inter Press Service (IPS) called the student unrest in 1990 a ‘rebellion’ that ‘became a seminal event that signalled a new generation's political consciousness’. It was, IPS said, ‘a dawning political awareness born from a confluence of historical forces then sweeping the world and the Southern African region’.
The IPS report (2 December 1999) said ‘armed soldiers pushed police aside and forced students out of the library where they had barricaded themselves’.
The day began as a ‘disorganised demonstration’ against campus issues such as poor food ‘but soon turned into demands for democratic reforms in Swaziland's government’.
The IPS report quotes Manzini lawyer Lindiwe Khumalo-Matse, a university student at the time, saying, ‘The reason why soldiers were called in was because governmentsaw our protest as a political uprising.’
Khumalo-Matse is further quoted by IPS, ‘This was because of the involvement of Sabelo Dlamini, who was a member of the People's United Democratic movement (PUDEMO). Sabelo was prominent in the Students Representative Council,’ hesaid.
In 1990, one of its most draconian measures, a 60-Day Detention Law, was still in force, permitting authorities to lock up anyone they saw as a threat to public order. All political protestors were designated as such threats.
The violence that ensued after soldiers swept through campus has been a sensitive subject with government ever since. A commission of enquiry had its report secreted away for years, with a bowdlerized version finally released to the public in 1997.Two students who were seriously injured sued government for damages, and their cases were settled out of court.
IPS reported that not only was the traditional leadership’s fear of democracy revealed on ‘Black Wednesday’, but also a proletariat attitude of resentment, displayed by the soldiers, was shown against the educated student ‘elite.’ The military's code name for the university invasion was ‘Operation Tinfundiswa (educated ones).’
‘It was a time of wild rumors,’ recalls Khumalo-Matse. ‘We heard that government feared we would burn down the library, which belied common sense because we were inside and would have incinerated ourselves.’
The army officials in charge gave students a five-minute warning, and then unleashed what one onlooker later told an investigating committee was a ‘military riot against civilians’.
Students were beaten as they emerged from the library to escape teargas canisters hurled through windows, and had to run a gauntlet of soldiers. Other soldiers chased students until they cornered them along fences. As they beat students with batons, the soldiers informed them they were being ‘punished’.
People in Swaziland were shocked by the brutality. Particularly offensive was one newspaper photo depicting a young woman carried out of the library between soldiers ‘like a slaughtered pig’, according to a letter writer to the Times of Swaziland.
See also
The news agency Inter Press Service (IPS) called the student unrest in 1990 a ‘rebellion’ that ‘became a seminal event that signalled a new generation's political consciousness’. It was, IPS said, ‘a dawning political awareness born from a confluence of historical forces then sweeping the world and the Southern African region’.
The IPS report (2 December 1999) said ‘armed soldiers pushed police aside and forced students out of the library where they had barricaded themselves’.
The day began as a ‘disorganised demonstration’ against campus issues such as poor food ‘but soon turned into demands for democratic reforms in Swaziland's government’.
The IPS report quotes Manzini lawyer Lindiwe Khumalo-Matse, a university student at the time, saying, ‘The reason why soldiers were called in was because governmentsaw our protest as a political uprising.’
Khumalo-Matse is further quoted by IPS, ‘This was because of the involvement of Sabelo Dlamini, who was a member of the People's United Democratic movement (PUDEMO). Sabelo was prominent in the Students Representative Council,’ hesaid.
In 1990, one of its most draconian measures, a 60-Day Detention Law, was still in force, permitting authorities to lock up anyone they saw as a threat to public order. All political protestors were designated as such threats.
The violence that ensued after soldiers swept through campus has been a sensitive subject with government ever since. A commission of enquiry had its report secreted away for years, with a bowdlerized version finally released to the public in 1997.Two students who were seriously injured sued government for damages, and their cases were settled out of court.
IPS reported that not only was the traditional leadership’s fear of democracy revealed on ‘Black Wednesday’, but also a proletariat attitude of resentment, displayed by the soldiers, was shown against the educated student ‘elite.’ The military's code name for the university invasion was ‘Operation Tinfundiswa (educated ones).’
‘It was a time of wild rumors,’ recalls Khumalo-Matse. ‘We heard that government feared we would burn down the library, which belied common sense because we were inside and would have incinerated ourselves.’
The army officials in charge gave students a five-minute warning, and then unleashed what one onlooker later told an investigating committee was a ‘military riot against civilians’.
Students were beaten as they emerged from the library to escape teargas canisters hurled through windows, and had to run a gauntlet of soldiers. Other soldiers chased students until they cornered them along fences. As they beat students with batons, the soldiers informed them they were being ‘punished’.
People in Swaziland were shocked by the brutality. Particularly offensive was one newspaper photo depicting a young woman carried out of the library between soldiers ‘like a slaughtered pig’, according to a letter writer to the Times of Swaziland.
See also
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
MYTH OF RICH SWAZI NURSES
Nurses in Swaziland who are packing their bags ready to travel to the UK for jobs paying as much as E1,800 (260 US dollars) per hour should hold on to their suitcases.
The Times of Swaziland under the headline Swazi nurses strike it rich in Britain reported yesterday (Tuesday 5 February 2008) that nurses from the kingdom were able to earn E14,400 (about 2,000 US dollars) for an eight hour day and about E288,000 (about 41,000 US dollars) for 20 days worked in a month. This, the Times reported, was 40 times more than local UK nurses were being paid.
It seems too good to be true doesn’t it? That’s because it is.
I smelt a rat when I saw that the news report was sourced from the UK’s biggest selling newspaper, The Sun. The Sun is a tabloid newspaper that only has a passing acquaintance with the truth.
The Times relied heavily on the Sun report which is available on the internet here.
The Sun distorted the figures for the salaries by making it look like one abnormal payment to one nurse was the typical payment for all nurses. The salaries were for nurses who did temporary hourly-paid work through employment agencies.
The news agency Press Association (PA) gave a fuller picture of nurses’ salaries. The PA reported that more typical salary for nurses was up to E465 (about 65 US dollars) per hour. A third of this salary would go to the agency employing the nurse.
The Times made it look as though these salaries were being earned by nurses from Swaziland, but nowhere in the original reports from the UK was Swaziland mentioned.
I guess the Times just assumed that if these salaries were on offer in the UK, then Swazi nurses would be able to get them. The Times could just as easily have said ‘Nigerian nurses strike it rich in Britain’.
Occasionally journalists in Swaziland pick up reports from news organizations abroad and print them in their own newspapers. There is nothing really wrong about this as long as the journalists give the source of their information. But journalists need to be more sceptical about the reports they read.
In the case of the nurses, the Times should have wondered why it was that agency nurses were being paid ‘40 times’ more than local UK nurses. A little bit of further investigation would have proved the original Sun report to be a huge exaggeration.
And what about these Swazi nurses? No news organisation in the UK said that Swazi nurses were getting these high salaries. We can’t even be sure that anyone from Swaziland is receiving the E465 an hour. That was a fabrication made up by the Times.
Let the Times prove me wrong and produce a Swazi nurse who has earned E288,000 for 20 days work.
The Times of Swaziland under the headline Swazi nurses strike it rich in Britain reported yesterday (Tuesday 5 February 2008) that nurses from the kingdom were able to earn E14,400 (about 2,000 US dollars) for an eight hour day and about E288,000 (about 41,000 US dollars) for 20 days worked in a month. This, the Times reported, was 40 times more than local UK nurses were being paid.
It seems too good to be true doesn’t it? That’s because it is.
I smelt a rat when I saw that the news report was sourced from the UK’s biggest selling newspaper, The Sun. The Sun is a tabloid newspaper that only has a passing acquaintance with the truth.
The Times relied heavily on the Sun report which is available on the internet here.
The Sun distorted the figures for the salaries by making it look like one abnormal payment to one nurse was the typical payment for all nurses. The salaries were for nurses who did temporary hourly-paid work through employment agencies.
The news agency Press Association (PA) gave a fuller picture of nurses’ salaries. The PA reported that more typical salary for nurses was up to E465 (about 65 US dollars) per hour. A third of this salary would go to the agency employing the nurse.
The Times made it look as though these salaries were being earned by nurses from Swaziland, but nowhere in the original reports from the UK was Swaziland mentioned.
I guess the Times just assumed that if these salaries were on offer in the UK, then Swazi nurses would be able to get them. The Times could just as easily have said ‘Nigerian nurses strike it rich in Britain’.
Occasionally journalists in Swaziland pick up reports from news organizations abroad and print them in their own newspapers. There is nothing really wrong about this as long as the journalists give the source of their information. But journalists need to be more sceptical about the reports they read.
In the case of the nurses, the Times should have wondered why it was that agency nurses were being paid ‘40 times’ more than local UK nurses. A little bit of further investigation would have proved the original Sun report to be a huge exaggeration.
And what about these Swazi nurses? No news organisation in the UK said that Swazi nurses were getting these high salaries. We can’t even be sure that anyone from Swaziland is receiving the E465 an hour. That was a fabrication made up by the Times.
Let the Times prove me wrong and produce a Swazi nurse who has earned E288,000 for 20 days work.
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
Things are beginning to get interesting as Swaziland prepares for Parliamentary elections later this year (2008).
Opposition groups are set to boycott the polls and instead campaign for multi-party elections. South Africa’s Independent on Line (IOL) reported on Sunday (3 February 2008) that a dozen political parties, civic organisations and student groupings met to endorse the formation of a united front within two months to challenge the status quo in Swaziland.
IOL quoted Mphandlana Shongwe, founder member of the banned People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), saying that taking part in elections would give the state a sheen of false legitimacy. PUDEMO is one of six political parties taking part in the broad movement.
IOL reported that Shongwe told a rally on Saturday, ‘For the past 24 years we have been able to deny the state legitimacy so we are proud of ourselves and we must not rest until we attain the goals we set for ourselves.’
Boycotting the polls in their current format would send a message to the world that change was required, he added.
‘Does it mean we have to start butchering people before the western world can realize that there was something wrong with the way the country was governed?’
Any member of the front who wanted to stand in elections, likely to be held in October or November, would have to resign from his party, delegates concluded.
Political parties were banned in 1973 when the late King Sobhuza II, father of incumbent King Mswati, determined that Westminster-style democracy promoted hatred.The constitution, rewritten in 2006, allows for freedom of association but people can only stand for elections as individuals.The front will be officially launched at a conference in early April where a name and constitution would be adopted.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
Opposition groups are set to boycott the polls and instead campaign for multi-party elections. South Africa’s Independent on Line (IOL) reported on Sunday (3 February 2008) that a dozen political parties, civic organisations and student groupings met to endorse the formation of a united front within two months to challenge the status quo in Swaziland.
IOL quoted Mphandlana Shongwe, founder member of the banned People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), saying that taking part in elections would give the state a sheen of false legitimacy. PUDEMO is one of six political parties taking part in the broad movement.
IOL reported that Shongwe told a rally on Saturday, ‘For the past 24 years we have been able to deny the state legitimacy so we are proud of ourselves and we must not rest until we attain the goals we set for ourselves.’
Boycotting the polls in their current format would send a message to the world that change was required, he added.
‘Does it mean we have to start butchering people before the western world can realize that there was something wrong with the way the country was governed?’
Any member of the front who wanted to stand in elections, likely to be held in October or November, would have to resign from his party, delegates concluded.
Political parties were banned in 1973 when the late King Sobhuza II, father of incumbent King Mswati, determined that Westminster-style democracy promoted hatred.The constitution, rewritten in 2006, allows for freedom of association but people can only stand for elections as individuals.The front will be officially launched at a conference in early April where a name and constitution would be adopted.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
Now and again the Swaziland media offer very revealing insights into the true culture of the kingdom.
Unfortunately, the journalists writing the reports often don’t realise just how much they are teaching us about their kingdom.
There was an example of this in the Times of Swaziland on Thursday (31 January 2008). A report told how a 17-year-old girl (described by the Times as a ‘minor’) had been convicted for committing abortion after her lover, a married man, impregnated her and told her to get rid of it. She represented herself in court and was sentenced to a prison term of two years or an E2 000 fine. (In Swaziland about 70 percent of the population have an income of less than E1 per day so E2 000 – 285 US dollars – is a considerable sum).
The Times reported that the girl was reported to the police after the girl’s mother noticed that her ‘five-month-old stomach bulge’ had suddenly disappeared.
What interests me is this exchange of words between the magistrate who tried the case (there are no such thing as jury trials in undemocratic Swaziland) and the girl. According to the Times, the magistrate questioned the girl as to why she had not taken contraceptives measures during her ‘ill-fated fling’ with the married man.
Magistrate – Do you know that there are contraceptives in this world?
Girl – Yes, I know.
Mag – Why did you not use protection when you engaged in sexual activity with this man?
Girl – He refused that we use a condom.
Mag – Why did you not tell him that you would not agree to have sex if he did not use one?
Girl – He grabbed me such that he got his way.
Mag – Oh he forced you? That is rape, did he rape you?
Girl – Eish.. no, You see, we were lovers, he didn’t rape me.
Mag – But still you could have told him no protection no sleeping?
Girl – Like I said, he grabbed me such that I eventually gave in and said yes.
The Times reported that at the time the newspaper went to press ‘she had not paid the fine and was being prepared to be sent to prison’.
The newspaper report leaves the story there, but journalists could have reminded readers that in Swaziland women have few rights. Traditional custom allows that women of any age are ‘minors’ and to all intents and purposes are the property of men, usually their fathers or their husbands.
The magistrate in this case seems not to understand the reality of life in Swaziland. The girl, aged 17, has been coerced into having sex (‘he grabbed me such that he got his way’) with a married man. The age of the man is not given but as a married man he is clearly an adult. Yet the fact that he had sex with the ‘minor’ girl (which could possibly itself be a crime) goes unmentioned. The idea that she could negotiate the use of contraceptives in such circumstances is laughable.
The 17-year-old had no rights in the ‘relationship’ with the man. That is entirely typical of the position women generally have in Swaziland where women are predominately subordinate to men. Their important role is limited to child bearing and making sure that the house and family chores are done.
Women are economically dependent on their husband. A husband has the customary right to use the labour of his wives to till any fields he may keep for his own use. The husband gets to own any surplus produce.
Much of this is done quite legally. The Marriage Act 1964 confers marital power to the husband over property, the capacity of the wife and the property of the wife.
The journalists told us none of this, but I cannot believe they did not know.
Unfortunately, the journalists writing the reports often don’t realise just how much they are teaching us about their kingdom.
There was an example of this in the Times of Swaziland on Thursday (31 January 2008). A report told how a 17-year-old girl (described by the Times as a ‘minor’) had been convicted for committing abortion after her lover, a married man, impregnated her and told her to get rid of it. She represented herself in court and was sentenced to a prison term of two years or an E2 000 fine. (In Swaziland about 70 percent of the population have an income of less than E1 per day so E2 000 – 285 US dollars – is a considerable sum).
The Times reported that the girl was reported to the police after the girl’s mother noticed that her ‘five-month-old stomach bulge’ had suddenly disappeared.
What interests me is this exchange of words between the magistrate who tried the case (there are no such thing as jury trials in undemocratic Swaziland) and the girl. According to the Times, the magistrate questioned the girl as to why she had not taken contraceptives measures during her ‘ill-fated fling’ with the married man.
Magistrate – Do you know that there are contraceptives in this world?
Girl – Yes, I know.
Mag – Why did you not use protection when you engaged in sexual activity with this man?
Girl – He refused that we use a condom.
Mag – Why did you not tell him that you would not agree to have sex if he did not use one?
Girl – He grabbed me such that he got his way.
Mag – Oh he forced you? That is rape, did he rape you?
Girl – Eish.. no, You see, we were lovers, he didn’t rape me.
Mag – But still you could have told him no protection no sleeping?
Girl – Like I said, he grabbed me such that I eventually gave in and said yes.
The Times reported that at the time the newspaper went to press ‘she had not paid the fine and was being prepared to be sent to prison’.
The newspaper report leaves the story there, but journalists could have reminded readers that in Swaziland women have few rights. Traditional custom allows that women of any age are ‘minors’ and to all intents and purposes are the property of men, usually their fathers or their husbands.
The magistrate in this case seems not to understand the reality of life in Swaziland. The girl, aged 17, has been coerced into having sex (‘he grabbed me such that he got his way’) with a married man. The age of the man is not given but as a married man he is clearly an adult. Yet the fact that he had sex with the ‘minor’ girl (which could possibly itself be a crime) goes unmentioned. The idea that she could negotiate the use of contraceptives in such circumstances is laughable.
The 17-year-old had no rights in the ‘relationship’ with the man. That is entirely typical of the position women generally have in Swaziland where women are predominately subordinate to men. Their important role is limited to child bearing and making sure that the house and family chores are done.
Women are economically dependent on their husband. A husband has the customary right to use the labour of his wives to till any fields he may keep for his own use. The husband gets to own any surplus produce.
Much of this is done quite legally. The Marriage Act 1964 confers marital power to the husband over property, the capacity of the wife and the property of the wife.
The journalists told us none of this, but I cannot believe they did not know.
Monday, 4 February 2008
OFFICIAL – CHANNEL SWAZI IS BIASED
The head of the only independent television station in Swaziland has admitted publicly that his station airs biased programmes.
Qhawe Mamba, who co-owns Channel Swazi (Channel S), confirmed this week that the station would always praise King Mswati III.
This news may come as no surprise to the channel’s few viewers, but it is good to have the information confirmed nonetheless. It also means that we should not trust news and current affairs programmes that appear on Channel Swazi, as they will always support the king and by extension the kingdom’s corrupt ruling elite.
The Weekend Observer (2-3 February 2008) reports Mamba saying that Channel Swazi is seen frequently praising the king. The Weekend Observer reported Mamba saying ‘this is something they would do always because they paid allegiance to their king in their capacity as bona fide citizens’.
Mamba is reported saying, ‘We are citizens of the Kingdom and we have to be patriotic.’
This intentional bias directly contravenes the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct. Section one states that it is the duty of every journalist to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend, the truth. A journalist should provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.
Deliberately distorting news and information about King Mswati III in order to be ‘patriotic’ is the job of a propagandist, not an independent journalist.
Mamba was quoted in a news report in which he criticised the survey African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007, recently published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter.
Mamba told the Weekend Observer that the AMB report had said that Channel Swazi is co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The report then gave him space to criticise the report more generally. The Weekend Observer then enlisted Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland’s only other television station, the government-controlled Swazi TV, to join in criticism of the report.
The newspaper interviewed nobody from MISA, the publisher of the AMB report.
Nor, it would seem did the Weekend Observer reporter bother to read the AMB report itself because the AMB report doesn’t say that the king co-owns the station.
What the report actually says is that Channel Swazi is ‘privately owned “on behalf of his majesty”’.
As I wrote on 24 January 2008 Swaziland is not a democracy and the government on behalf of the monarchy keeps a strong control of broadcast media. However, in 2001, in an effort to mislead the outside world that Swaziland allowed freedom of expression, the government allowed Channel Swazi, to begin operating within the kingdom.
King Mswati III supported Channel Swazi, because he wanted to show that his regime was democratic and respected human rights.
Now, Mamba has confirmed that his television channel will always support the king. With such a man as Mamba in charge of an ‘independent’ television channel the king doesn’t need to invest any of his own E1.4 billion (200 million US dollars) wealth on a television station when he has someone to do his bidding for him for no payment at all.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
DIRE OUTPUT ON SWAZI CHANNEL S
Qhawe Mamba, who co-owns Channel Swazi (Channel S), confirmed this week that the station would always praise King Mswati III.
This news may come as no surprise to the channel’s few viewers, but it is good to have the information confirmed nonetheless. It also means that we should not trust news and current affairs programmes that appear on Channel Swazi, as they will always support the king and by extension the kingdom’s corrupt ruling elite.
The Weekend Observer (2-3 February 2008) reports Mamba saying that Channel Swazi is seen frequently praising the king. The Weekend Observer reported Mamba saying ‘this is something they would do always because they paid allegiance to their king in their capacity as bona fide citizens’.
Mamba is reported saying, ‘We are citizens of the Kingdom and we have to be patriotic.’
This intentional bias directly contravenes the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct. Section one states that it is the duty of every journalist to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend, the truth. A journalist should provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.
Deliberately distorting news and information about King Mswati III in order to be ‘patriotic’ is the job of a propagandist, not an independent journalist.
Mamba was quoted in a news report in which he criticised the survey African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007, recently published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter.
Mamba told the Weekend Observer that the AMB report had said that Channel Swazi is co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The report then gave him space to criticise the report more generally. The Weekend Observer then enlisted Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland’s only other television station, the government-controlled Swazi TV, to join in criticism of the report.
The newspaper interviewed nobody from MISA, the publisher of the AMB report.
Nor, it would seem did the Weekend Observer reporter bother to read the AMB report itself because the AMB report doesn’t say that the king co-owns the station.
What the report actually says is that Channel Swazi is ‘privately owned “on behalf of his majesty”’.
As I wrote on 24 January 2008 Swaziland is not a democracy and the government on behalf of the monarchy keeps a strong control of broadcast media. However, in 2001, in an effort to mislead the outside world that Swaziland allowed freedom of expression, the government allowed Channel Swazi, to begin operating within the kingdom.
King Mswati III supported Channel Swazi, because he wanted to show that his regime was democratic and respected human rights.
Now, Mamba has confirmed that his television channel will always support the king. With such a man as Mamba in charge of an ‘independent’ television channel the king doesn’t need to invest any of his own E1.4 billion (200 million US dollars) wealth on a television station when he has someone to do his bidding for him for no payment at all.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
DIRE OUTPUT ON SWAZI CHANNEL S
Friday, 1 February 2008
NO CHANGE AT SWAZILAND UNIVERSITY
Swazi media have been full of the dispute at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) over the past four months.
For those who haven’t been paying attention here’s a recap of what’s been going on. The students are in dispute with the UNISWA administration over the way the academic year has been reorganised into semesters. The campus was closed in December after some university buildings were damaged during a protest. Armed police still occupy the campus. Classes have resumed, but we await a ruling from the Appeal Court of Swaziland before the matter is finally put to rest.
I was surfing around the Internet when I came across a newspaper report from the UK about UNISWA. It told of the closure of the UNISWA Kwaluseni campus after unrest among students. Authorities claim the students are not thinking for themselves but are being led by outside political organisations. The vice chancellor is attacked for poor handling of the situation. The deputy Prime Minister is worried about the situation. The Swazi Government is thinking of cutting the amount of money it gives the university each year.
It didn’t seem that the newspaper report said anything new. The Swazi media have been reporting similar stories since September last year (2007).
Then I looked a little more closely and saw the report was dated 24 March 1995 – nearly 13 years ago. I swear that if you changed the date of the report from 1995 to 2008 you would hardly tell the difference. Nothing much has changed at UNISWA or in Swaziland more generally during that time.
The report was from the Times Higher Education Supplement, a weekly newspaper in the UK aimed mainly at people who teach in universities and institutes of higher education.
The original report headlined Student unrest rocks Swaziland royal rulers can be found here.
The University of Swaziland has become the focus of a political storm which has little to do with academe but may jeopardise future government funding of higher education in the small kingdom.
Virtually the entire student representative council has been expelled and several other students suspended for periods of one to two years for their role in the disturbances that led to the closure of the Kwaluseni campus last November.
While most students seemed relieved to resume their studies when UNISWA re-opened at the end of January and claimed to have had nothing to do with the unrest, the political controversy behind the students’ actions is still simmering.
The dispute dates back four years to what has become known as Black Wednesday. On November 14 1990, the Swazi government dispatched armed police and military units to the campus to disperse boycotting students. It was a crackdown of unprecedented violence in the history of the university. In the ensuing melee several students were crippled for life, hundreds injured and one woman successfully sued the government for an out-of-court settlement of 225,000 Lilangeni (Pounds 40,000) for the loss of an eye.
The reason why the students staged the boycott is still the subject of debate. Their grievances ranged from the poor quality of food provided in residence to extremely low allowances. Among their demands was that a student and lecturer who were members of the banned political organisation, Pudemo, and who had been charged and aquitted of high treason, should be reinstated at the university.
Following the crackdown, the government, under pressure from parents and political organisations, established a commission of inquiry to determine who was responsible. The hearings were held in camera and only the findings and recommendations have been released. According to lecturers, parents, past and present students, the wounds will fester while the report remains secret.
The minister of education, Prince Khuzulwandle Dlamini, said it was unlikely the report would ever be released because witnesses testifying to the commission had been guaranteed confidentiality. Legally, he explained, his hands are tied. This lack of transparency has fuelled a major public controversy extending well beyond the confines of the university.
The government believes the students are being used by political activists to advance their own agenda for multi-party democracy in Swaziland. The kingdom is ruled according to the Tinkhundla system which embraces traditional structures and enables a degree of democracy at the grassroots level. However, political parties such as Pudemo, which is banned from operating openly, are increasingly frustrated at the slow progress towards what they perceive as real democracy and the continued involvement of the royal family in political life.
Both Pudemo and the Swaziland Youth Congress have attempted to enlist the support of students, and have partially succeeded.
One moderate student said that over the past couple of years the students council had been ‘hi-jacked’ by these political organisations, leading to increasing militancy.
Since 1990, Black Wednesday has become the point of conflict between the students and university administration leading to disruption of lectures and the suspension or expulsion of several students. However, in the view of Vakashile Simelane, an economics lecturer at UNISWA for the past 16 years, the government's attitude is a little too self-serving. She believes the students are very well aware of the political realities in the region and make their own decisions without necessarily being manipulated by activists. And she says the senate acted too hastily when it closed the campus.
‘I think that if the students were allowed to commemorate Black Wednesday it would be better, because we would only lose one day, instead of the weeks and weeks we have lost now.’
Parents mainly feel the same way, and the columns of Swaziland’s only independent newspaper The Times have been filled with angry criticism of vice chancellor Lydia Makhubu’s handling of the whole affair. To root out the culprits responsible for threatening lecturers, intimidating students and destroying university property last November, she convened an informal inquiry and summoned each of the 2,150 students to her office for questioning.
The process dragged on throughout Christmas and New Year and evoked such strong sentiments that Professor Makhubu’s home became the target of a fire-bomb attack.
She refused to meet or discuss the issue with a crisis committee composed of concerned parents, who then took their grievances to the cabinet instead.
Deputy prime minister Seshayi Nxumalo, who also has a child at UNISWA, met the committee but says he was perturbed by the number of representatives of organised political groups. ‘This immediately raises the problem of who the government is dealing with, the students, or the political groups who are attempting to get some form of recognition?’ The government has left matters to the university senate and Professor Makhubu. However it could call for a wider inquiry if there was gross injustice.
But there is political fall-out. Swazi students are fully funded by government, unless they fail a year in which case they have to support themselves. Most also enjoy the benefits of campus accommodation. By contrast, primary and secondary school pupils are paid for by their parents.
There is a groundswell of feeling that privileged students should take their studies seriously, and if they paid their own way, maybe they would not be so preoccupied with politics.
The minister admitted that he had already started considering whether the 20 million Lilangeni earmarked for the university in the next budget could not be better spent elsewhere.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
For those who haven’t been paying attention here’s a recap of what’s been going on. The students are in dispute with the UNISWA administration over the way the academic year has been reorganised into semesters. The campus was closed in December after some university buildings were damaged during a protest. Armed police still occupy the campus. Classes have resumed, but we await a ruling from the Appeal Court of Swaziland before the matter is finally put to rest.
I was surfing around the Internet when I came across a newspaper report from the UK about UNISWA. It told of the closure of the UNISWA Kwaluseni campus after unrest among students. Authorities claim the students are not thinking for themselves but are being led by outside political organisations. The vice chancellor is attacked for poor handling of the situation. The deputy Prime Minister is worried about the situation. The Swazi Government is thinking of cutting the amount of money it gives the university each year.
It didn’t seem that the newspaper report said anything new. The Swazi media have been reporting similar stories since September last year (2007).
Then I looked a little more closely and saw the report was dated 24 March 1995 – nearly 13 years ago. I swear that if you changed the date of the report from 1995 to 2008 you would hardly tell the difference. Nothing much has changed at UNISWA or in Swaziland more generally during that time.
The report was from the Times Higher Education Supplement, a weekly newspaper in the UK aimed mainly at people who teach in universities and institutes of higher education.
The original report headlined Student unrest rocks Swaziland royal rulers can be found here.
The University of Swaziland has become the focus of a political storm which has little to do with academe but may jeopardise future government funding of higher education in the small kingdom.
Virtually the entire student representative council has been expelled and several other students suspended for periods of one to two years for their role in the disturbances that led to the closure of the Kwaluseni campus last November.
While most students seemed relieved to resume their studies when UNISWA re-opened at the end of January and claimed to have had nothing to do with the unrest, the political controversy behind the students’ actions is still simmering.
The dispute dates back four years to what has become known as Black Wednesday. On November 14 1990, the Swazi government dispatched armed police and military units to the campus to disperse boycotting students. It was a crackdown of unprecedented violence in the history of the university. In the ensuing melee several students were crippled for life, hundreds injured and one woman successfully sued the government for an out-of-court settlement of 225,000 Lilangeni (Pounds 40,000) for the loss of an eye.
The reason why the students staged the boycott is still the subject of debate. Their grievances ranged from the poor quality of food provided in residence to extremely low allowances. Among their demands was that a student and lecturer who were members of the banned political organisation, Pudemo, and who had been charged and aquitted of high treason, should be reinstated at the university.
Following the crackdown, the government, under pressure from parents and political organisations, established a commission of inquiry to determine who was responsible. The hearings were held in camera and only the findings and recommendations have been released. According to lecturers, parents, past and present students, the wounds will fester while the report remains secret.
The minister of education, Prince Khuzulwandle Dlamini, said it was unlikely the report would ever be released because witnesses testifying to the commission had been guaranteed confidentiality. Legally, he explained, his hands are tied. This lack of transparency has fuelled a major public controversy extending well beyond the confines of the university.
The government believes the students are being used by political activists to advance their own agenda for multi-party democracy in Swaziland. The kingdom is ruled according to the Tinkhundla system which embraces traditional structures and enables a degree of democracy at the grassroots level. However, political parties such as Pudemo, which is banned from operating openly, are increasingly frustrated at the slow progress towards what they perceive as real democracy and the continued involvement of the royal family in political life.
Both Pudemo and the Swaziland Youth Congress have attempted to enlist the support of students, and have partially succeeded.
One moderate student said that over the past couple of years the students council had been ‘hi-jacked’ by these political organisations, leading to increasing militancy.
Since 1990, Black Wednesday has become the point of conflict between the students and university administration leading to disruption of lectures and the suspension or expulsion of several students. However, in the view of Vakashile Simelane, an economics lecturer at UNISWA for the past 16 years, the government's attitude is a little too self-serving. She believes the students are very well aware of the political realities in the region and make their own decisions without necessarily being manipulated by activists. And she says the senate acted too hastily when it closed the campus.
‘I think that if the students were allowed to commemorate Black Wednesday it would be better, because we would only lose one day, instead of the weeks and weeks we have lost now.’
Parents mainly feel the same way, and the columns of Swaziland’s only independent newspaper The Times have been filled with angry criticism of vice chancellor Lydia Makhubu’s handling of the whole affair. To root out the culprits responsible for threatening lecturers, intimidating students and destroying university property last November, she convened an informal inquiry and summoned each of the 2,150 students to her office for questioning.
The process dragged on throughout Christmas and New Year and evoked such strong sentiments that Professor Makhubu’s home became the target of a fire-bomb attack.
She refused to meet or discuss the issue with a crisis committee composed of concerned parents, who then took their grievances to the cabinet instead.
Deputy prime minister Seshayi Nxumalo, who also has a child at UNISWA, met the committee but says he was perturbed by the number of representatives of organised political groups. ‘This immediately raises the problem of who the government is dealing with, the students, or the political groups who are attempting to get some form of recognition?’ The government has left matters to the university senate and Professor Makhubu. However it could call for a wider inquiry if there was gross injustice.
But there is political fall-out. Swazi students are fully funded by government, unless they fail a year in which case they have to support themselves. Most also enjoy the benefits of campus accommodation. By contrast, primary and secondary school pupils are paid for by their parents.
There is a groundswell of feeling that privileged students should take their studies seriously, and if they paid their own way, maybe they would not be so preoccupied with politics.
The minister admitted that he had already started considering whether the 20 million Lilangeni earmarked for the university in the next budget could not be better spent elsewhere.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
Thursday, 31 January 2008
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
Swaziland will hold its unique form of elections later this year (2008). I say ‘unique’ because although the ruling elites in the kingdom believe the elections to be democratic, just about nobody else does.
The date for the elections has not been set, but it is generally accepted they will be towards the end of the year, possibly in October or November.
As in elections anywhere in the world, the media will play an important part in keeping people informed about what is going on. In the free world it is generally accepted that the media have a prime responsibility to examine what government is and is not doing, by reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing citizens’ opinions, setting the agenda for government action, and socializing citizens about politics and encouraging a political culture to evolve.
This is even more important at election time when voters go to the polls to elect a new government.
In Swaziland where political parties are banned, candidates are only allowed to stand as individuals. You can learn more about the Swazi electoral system here.
Most of the time the Swazi media are not very good at calling political leaders to account and this is especially so at election time. In this, the first of an occasion series of posts about the media and the forthcoming Swazi elections, I want to look back to the last elections in 2003 and see how the media performed.
In a report of the Swazi media coverage of the 2003 elections the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) found that the print media in Swaziland played an important role in keeping the voters and all stakeholders informed about the elections by their extensive coverage of the elections but the broadcast media were less good.
Here is an extract from the report.
The Commonwealth Expert Team which observed the elections in 2003 came to similar conclusions about the media. It liked the ‘vigour’ print media coverage, but also criticised the Times of Swaziland for being sensational. The report said, ‘we hope that it will do more in future to discuss issues as well as to report on personalities’.
The report found broadcasting coverage of the election in Swaziland ‘disappointing’.
It went on,
The Commonwealth Expert Team also criticised Swaziland Radio coverage on the election day itself. ‘The fact that it was election day was not even mentioned on the early morning news,’ the report stated.
The report concluded that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’.
Such a code of conduct is not in place, but I’ll be writing in future posts about why a code would be useful and what the code could usefully include.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
The date for the elections has not been set, but it is generally accepted they will be towards the end of the year, possibly in October or November.
As in elections anywhere in the world, the media will play an important part in keeping people informed about what is going on. In the free world it is generally accepted that the media have a prime responsibility to examine what government is and is not doing, by reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing citizens’ opinions, setting the agenda for government action, and socializing citizens about politics and encouraging a political culture to evolve.
This is even more important at election time when voters go to the polls to elect a new government.
In Swaziland where political parties are banned, candidates are only allowed to stand as individuals. You can learn more about the Swazi electoral system here.
Most of the time the Swazi media are not very good at calling political leaders to account and this is especially so at election time. In this, the first of an occasion series of posts about the media and the forthcoming Swazi elections, I want to look back to the last elections in 2003 and see how the media performed.
In a report of the Swazi media coverage of the 2003 elections the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) found that the print media in Swaziland played an important role in keeping the voters and all stakeholders informed about the elections by their extensive coverage of the elections but the broadcast media were less good.
Here is an extract from the report.
We observed however that the approach the two main dailies; the Times of Swaziland and the Observer took was different from one another.
The Observer, seeing that it was government owned, took a conservative approach to the elections whereas the Times of Swaziland, a privately owned paper, took a progressive approach and tended to sensationalise the issues.
With regard to the content of their coverage we noted that the eight cases that arose from the primary election disputes, received more coverage in both dailies than pertinent electoral issues that are aimed at informing the electorate. The local observers and media personnel indicated that coverage by the broadcasting media on the other hand was scant. There were no programmes or any other discussions on
elections in the few weeks leading to the polling day.
The response from the contesting candidates regarding access to the media varied. Some individuals commented that there had been unfairness in terms of giving people equal access; that candidates with financial influence had greater access to the print media. And usually those featured were mostly the popular candidates, which tended to marginalise those in rural communities with no assets.
Others however commended the broadcasting media for providing equitable access.
The Swaziland Broadcasting Information Service (SBIS) they noted, allowed all candidates to canvass in the airwaves for about five minutes.
Reports from the local observers as well as representatives from the media indicated
that the use of the media by the Elections Office was very limited. Most commented that there was very little feedback from the Elections Office to the various media outlets regarding the election process.
Local observers blamed this lack of communication on the mistrust the Election Officers had for the media.
That said, at least one representative from the media outlets commented positively on the interventions of the Elections Office to ensure that pertinent information regarding the election process was regularly fed to the media.
In a related matter, we observed that there was no monitoring mechanism within the Elections Office to assess the media’s coverage of elections. This would have ensured that the media played a more constructive role in the elections.
Most media personnel commented that they were not aware of a policy, law or even a commission that ensures that elections were covered effectively and fairly or one that allocates fair and free time to all candidates.
The Commonwealth Expert Team which observed the elections in 2003 came to similar conclusions about the media. It liked the ‘vigour’ print media coverage, but also criticised the Times of Swaziland for being sensational. The report said, ‘we hope that it will do more in future to discuss issues as well as to report on personalities’.
The report found broadcasting coverage of the election in Swaziland ‘disappointing’.
It went on,
‘The limitation on resources was quoted in explanation. Radio Swaziland told us they carried short items by the candidates early in the morning, but there was little news about the election and in the week up to the poll we heard no discussion programmes or any other substantial coverage. This mattered because the majority of Swazi citizens have access to the radio, so this is the perfect medium for conveying information and
creating awareness. Although the state broadcasting media had internal guidelines there was no Code of Conduct regarding the behaviour of the media. There was no allocation of broadcast “free time” for candidate.’
The Commonwealth Expert Team also criticised Swaziland Radio coverage on the election day itself. ‘The fact that it was election day was not even mentioned on the early morning news,’ the report stated.
The report concluded that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’.
Such a code of conduct is not in place, but I’ll be writing in future posts about why a code would be useful and what the code could usefully include.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
Swaziland is due to hold elections later this year (2008). Elections in the kingdom are held every five years, but the exact dates for this year’s election have not been set but it is generally expected that they will be held towards the end of the year, possibly in October or November.
To help readers who are unfamiliar with Swaziland’s unique form of ‘democracy’ here is a short background to how the system works. The information is taken from the Swaziland Election Dossier 2003 No.1 from the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) and is based on the situation as it was at the last election in 2003. I am not aware that the Constitution which came into force in 2006 has changed any of this. Political parties remain banned in Swaziland and representation in the kingdom is based on individual candidates.
If anyone knows differently, please let me know.
The current electoral system is known as the ‘Tinkhundla’ system which has been rejected by many groups for lack of democratic credentials. The Tinkhundla system is the electoral system operational use in Swaziland today – the Kingdom uses it to elect its parliamentarians by holding regular parliamentary elections under a no-party dispensation.
The Tinkhundla system is a system that has been operating purely for the basis of providing a semblance of public representation in Parliament. Parliamentary representatives are initially elected from specific constituencies or Tinkhundla through a three stage electoral process.
There are a total of 55 constituencies (Tinkhundla) in the Kingdom of Swaziland, and each constituency is further divided into several chiefdoms.
The first stage of the process entails public nominations of candidates usually between four and ten in each chiefdom.
Technically in this stage, each chiefdom chooses the candidate who will represent it at the Tinkhundla / constituency level, by secret ballot. The elected candidate in the primary elections is then expected to compete in the secondary elections, after they have been dutifully introduced to the constituents. The election process ends with those candidates receiving the most votes representing the constituency in the National Assembly.
The elected parliamentary representatives conclude the process by becoming members of the bicameral parliamentary system constituted by the National Assembly and the Senate.
The National Assembly is constituted from the 55 members elected through the Tinkhundla and ten King’s appointees. These members then elect ten members to the Senate which consists of 30 members in total; the rest of which are appointed by the King.
Public representation is also dutifully administered at the local level through a local council, also known as the Inkundla – the second level of government.
The electoral system described above has been operative since 1993. Prior to this, elections were conducted under a slightly different system. After the repeal of the Constitution in 1973, which had provided for a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, Swaziland experienced a five year break during which period no elections were held until the establishment of the Parliament Order in 1978.
In the absence of any electoral laws, the Parliament Order was introduced without much opposition. It was this Order that ushered in the unique traditional electoral system commonly known as the Tinkhundla.. Elections under this system were conducted on a non-party basis at the primary elections stage through public queuing – each voter wishing to voter for a particular nominee queued behind their favourite candidate who normally would be sitting at a gate, and the counting officer counted the voters as they each passed the gate.
Winners of these elections would then form an Electoral College from which the House of Assembly was constituted. Their only responsibility, once elected was to select 40 members from the public to make up the Parliamentary numbers. The obvious shortcomings of this system, most notably the lack of a secret ballot, necessitated a review; and this resulted in the establishment of the current system through a number of minor legislative amendments.
Needless to say, the system currently in place has its own limitations; the most serious of which, given the variation in size of the constituencies, is that usually the candidate from the largest constituency wins the secondary elections. Moreover it lacks accountability, it is non participatory and it is the least competitive form of representation in both Parliament and government.
You can read much more about politics in Swaziland and other aspects of the kingdom here.
To help readers who are unfamiliar with Swaziland’s unique form of ‘democracy’ here is a short background to how the system works. The information is taken from the Swaziland Election Dossier 2003 No.1 from the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) and is based on the situation as it was at the last election in 2003. I am not aware that the Constitution which came into force in 2006 has changed any of this. Political parties remain banned in Swaziland and representation in the kingdom is based on individual candidates.
If anyone knows differently, please let me know.
The current electoral system is known as the ‘Tinkhundla’ system which has been rejected by many groups for lack of democratic credentials. The Tinkhundla system is the electoral system operational use in Swaziland today – the Kingdom uses it to elect its parliamentarians by holding regular parliamentary elections under a no-party dispensation.
The Tinkhundla system is a system that has been operating purely for the basis of providing a semblance of public representation in Parliament. Parliamentary representatives are initially elected from specific constituencies or Tinkhundla through a three stage electoral process.
There are a total of 55 constituencies (Tinkhundla) in the Kingdom of Swaziland, and each constituency is further divided into several chiefdoms.
The first stage of the process entails public nominations of candidates usually between four and ten in each chiefdom.
Technically in this stage, each chiefdom chooses the candidate who will represent it at the Tinkhundla / constituency level, by secret ballot. The elected candidate in the primary elections is then expected to compete in the secondary elections, after they have been dutifully introduced to the constituents. The election process ends with those candidates receiving the most votes representing the constituency in the National Assembly.
The elected parliamentary representatives conclude the process by becoming members of the bicameral parliamentary system constituted by the National Assembly and the Senate.
The National Assembly is constituted from the 55 members elected through the Tinkhundla and ten King’s appointees. These members then elect ten members to the Senate which consists of 30 members in total; the rest of which are appointed by the King.
Public representation is also dutifully administered at the local level through a local council, also known as the Inkundla – the second level of government.
The electoral system described above has been operative since 1993. Prior to this, elections were conducted under a slightly different system. After the repeal of the Constitution in 1973, which had provided for a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, Swaziland experienced a five year break during which period no elections were held until the establishment of the Parliament Order in 1978.
In the absence of any electoral laws, the Parliament Order was introduced without much opposition. It was this Order that ushered in the unique traditional electoral system commonly known as the Tinkhundla.. Elections under this system were conducted on a non-party basis at the primary elections stage through public queuing – each voter wishing to voter for a particular nominee queued behind their favourite candidate who normally would be sitting at a gate, and the counting officer counted the voters as they each passed the gate.
Winners of these elections would then form an Electoral College from which the House of Assembly was constituted. Their only responsibility, once elected was to select 40 members from the public to make up the Parliamentary numbers. The obvious shortcomings of this system, most notably the lack of a secret ballot, necessitated a review; and this resulted in the establishment of the current system through a number of minor legislative amendments.
Needless to say, the system currently in place has its own limitations; the most serious of which, given the variation in size of the constituencies, is that usually the candidate from the largest constituency wins the secondary elections. Moreover it lacks accountability, it is non participatory and it is the least competitive form of representation in both Parliament and government.
You can read much more about politics in Swaziland and other aspects of the kingdom here.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
NEED TO AUDIT SWAZI JOURNALISTS
Journalists in Swaziland need more and better training to help them work more professionally.
This was one of the findings of the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 report I wrote about last Friday (25 January 2008).
One of the report’s recommendations was that a ‘skills audit’ of existing Swaziland journalists should be made. A ‘skills audit’ is a method of analysing how well journalists do the work they are paid to do.
I don’t know how likely it is that the audit will actually take place, but if a similar exercise that took place in South Africa is anything to go by, the results could be startling.
In 2002, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) published its own audit of journalism skills. The audit was undertaken because there was concern about the quality and standard of journalism in the country, and there was a need to establish the extent of the problem and find ways of dealing with it. This is very similar to the situation Swaziland finds itself in today.
The skills audit looked at journalism reporting, writing and accuracy skills among reporters with between two and five years experience.
The findings of the South African skills audit will ring bells here in Swaziland.
The report stated that one of the most pressing problems facing the media industry was the juniorisation of the industry. This is exactly what Swazi journalists have been complaining about for years.
Other issues identified in the report were:
- Reporters’ skills to properly report on and write about news events
- Mistrust between government and the media
- Transformation in the media industry
- News coverage and comment on socio-economic challenges
- Management of news, staff and infrastructure
- Apparent lack of training
- Profile of reporters
The report is too long to reproduce here but you can find more details at the Sanef website.
To give you a flavour of what the report says, here is a breakdown of what news editors said about their reporting staff:
- Development of story ideas: 30-60% of reporters do not initiate stories
- Relevant issues considered: only 10-20% consider all relevant issues
- Deadline pressure: 10-34% submit despite possible errors
- Background: 20% not sufficient
- Editorialising: 8% editorialise
- Enterprise/inventiveness: 40% not result of reporters' enterprise
- Insight: 20% lack insight
- Factual accuracy: 10% not factually accurate
- Sources: 8% not credible sources; 23% do not double check sources
- Fair/honest, balance/completeness: 10% lack skills & experience
- Sensitivity: almost 20% lack it - urgent attention needed
- Personal accountability: 30% average/below
- Possible errors/imbalance: 50% do not highlight errors
If we were to do a similar audit in Swaziland, I strongly suspect the results would not be any better.
The audit led to a lot of debate in South Africa and a main conclusion was that journalists needed more ‘training’ and better ‘education’.
Training and education may be major factors in increasing the capacity of journalists in Swaziland, but as I wrote in an article in the academic journal Ecquid Novi, African Journalism Studies, there is also a major cultural hurdle to overcome before the kingdom can produce good professional journalists.
Children in Swaziland learn informally and formally. Informal education centres on the home and community where children are taught to respect and defer to their elders. This respect and deference does not encourage a questioning attitude in people. The non-democratic nature of the country also requires people to defer to the wishes of local chiefs (who are in effect representatives of the monarch).
Formal learning takes place at school, but analytical learning is discouraged because success for both individual teachers and schools is measured in terms of the numbers of examination passes. This encourages rote learning in the classroom and the cramming of students to pass examinations.
This type of learning does not produce people with inquiring minds.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALISTS
This was one of the findings of the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 report I wrote about last Friday (25 January 2008).
One of the report’s recommendations was that a ‘skills audit’ of existing Swaziland journalists should be made. A ‘skills audit’ is a method of analysing how well journalists do the work they are paid to do.
I don’t know how likely it is that the audit will actually take place, but if a similar exercise that took place in South Africa is anything to go by, the results could be startling.
In 2002, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) published its own audit of journalism skills. The audit was undertaken because there was concern about the quality and standard of journalism in the country, and there was a need to establish the extent of the problem and find ways of dealing with it. This is very similar to the situation Swaziland finds itself in today.
The skills audit looked at journalism reporting, writing and accuracy skills among reporters with between two and five years experience.
The findings of the South African skills audit will ring bells here in Swaziland.
The report stated that one of the most pressing problems facing the media industry was the juniorisation of the industry. This is exactly what Swazi journalists have been complaining about for years.
Other issues identified in the report were:
- Reporters’ skills to properly report on and write about news events
- Mistrust between government and the media
- Transformation in the media industry
- News coverage and comment on socio-economic challenges
- Management of news, staff and infrastructure
- Apparent lack of training
- Profile of reporters
The report is too long to reproduce here but you can find more details at the Sanef website.
To give you a flavour of what the report says, here is a breakdown of what news editors said about their reporting staff:
- Development of story ideas: 30-60% of reporters do not initiate stories
- Relevant issues considered: only 10-20% consider all relevant issues
- Deadline pressure: 10-34% submit despite possible errors
- Background: 20% not sufficient
- Editorialising: 8% editorialise
- Enterprise/inventiveness: 40% not result of reporters' enterprise
- Insight: 20% lack insight
- Factual accuracy: 10% not factually accurate
- Sources: 8% not credible sources; 23% do not double check sources
- Fair/honest, balance/completeness: 10% lack skills & experience
- Sensitivity: almost 20% lack it - urgent attention needed
- Personal accountability: 30% average/below
- Possible errors/imbalance: 50% do not highlight errors
If we were to do a similar audit in Swaziland, I strongly suspect the results would not be any better.
The audit led to a lot of debate in South Africa and a main conclusion was that journalists needed more ‘training’ and better ‘education’.
Training and education may be major factors in increasing the capacity of journalists in Swaziland, but as I wrote in an article in the academic journal Ecquid Novi, African Journalism Studies, there is also a major cultural hurdle to overcome before the kingdom can produce good professional journalists.
Children in Swaziland learn informally and formally. Informal education centres on the home and community where children are taught to respect and defer to their elders. This respect and deference does not encourage a questioning attitude in people. The non-democratic nature of the country also requires people to defer to the wishes of local chiefs (who are in effect representatives of the monarch).
Formal learning takes place at school, but analytical learning is discouraged because success for both individual teachers and schools is measured in terms of the numbers of examination passes. This encourages rote learning in the classroom and the cramming of students to pass examinations.
This type of learning does not produce people with inquiring minds.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALISTS
‘TIMES’ OF SWAZILAND GROVELS – AGAIN
It seems that my suspicion yesterday that the Times Sunday invented a source of information in a report about Swaziland Prime Minister Themba Dlamini’s trip to the Bahamas was well founded.
The Times Sunday’s companion newspaper the Times of Swaziland had a grovelling front page apology to the Prime Minister, the Swazi Cabinet and just about everybody else as well yesterday (29 January 2008).
The Times Sunday (27 January 2008) had reported that the Prime Minister took his pastor with him when he went on a trip to the Bahamas to collect an award for his ‘humanitarianism’. The Times Sunday reported that the Prime Minister said he personally paid the expenses for the pastor to join him on the trip. The newspaper then cited unnamed ‘sources’ saying that the cost of the pastor’s trip came from government funds.
Yesterday (29 January 2008), I queried whether we could believe the newspaper because it based its information on ‘sources’ which it did not name. I wrote, ‘it is very difficult to believe newspapers when they do not reveal the source of their information’.
Yesterday the Times published this fulsome apology on its front page.
In an article carried in the Times Sunday – PM Takes His Pastor to Bahamas – an impression was created that we were disputing the PM’s word when he said he had paid for his pastor Phila Mathunjwa to accompany him by quoting our sources as saying part of the pastor’s expenses were borne by government. The truth is that the PM paid for all his pastor’s fares. We wish to unreservedly apologise to the PM, his Cabinet and all concerned.
As apologies go this one is pretty abject. But it is not quite up to the standard of the apology made by both the Times and the Times Sunday last March when it published an article about King Mswati III after publishing this from the Afrol news agency
‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’
When this appeared the king threatened to close down the African Echo, the group that owns the Times and the Times Sunday, unless a grovelling apology was forthcoming. The apology duly appeared.
See also
SWAZI PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
The Times Sunday’s companion newspaper the Times of Swaziland had a grovelling front page apology to the Prime Minister, the Swazi Cabinet and just about everybody else as well yesterday (29 January 2008).
The Times Sunday (27 January 2008) had reported that the Prime Minister took his pastor with him when he went on a trip to the Bahamas to collect an award for his ‘humanitarianism’. The Times Sunday reported that the Prime Minister said he personally paid the expenses for the pastor to join him on the trip. The newspaper then cited unnamed ‘sources’ saying that the cost of the pastor’s trip came from government funds.
Yesterday (29 January 2008), I queried whether we could believe the newspaper because it based its information on ‘sources’ which it did not name. I wrote, ‘it is very difficult to believe newspapers when they do not reveal the source of their information’.
Yesterday the Times published this fulsome apology on its front page.
In an article carried in the Times Sunday – PM Takes His Pastor to Bahamas – an impression was created that we were disputing the PM’s word when he said he had paid for his pastor Phila Mathunjwa to accompany him by quoting our sources as saying part of the pastor’s expenses were borne by government. The truth is that the PM paid for all his pastor’s fares. We wish to unreservedly apologise to the PM, his Cabinet and all concerned.
As apologies go this one is pretty abject. But it is not quite up to the standard of the apology made by both the Times and the Times Sunday last March when it published an article about King Mswati III after publishing this from the Afrol news agency
‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’
When this appeared the king threatened to close down the African Echo, the group that owns the Times and the Times Sunday, unless a grovelling apology was forthcoming. The apology duly appeared.
See also
SWAZI PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
SWAZI PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW
News that the Swaziland Prime Minister Themba Dlamini took his pastor with him when he went on an all expenses paid trip to the Bahamas has reopened important questions about government secrecy in the kingdom.
The Times Sunday reported this week (27 January 2008) that the pastor went with the Prime Minister when he and his wife travelled to receive an award for ‘humanitarian’ work.
Details remain sketchy about what exactly the ‘humanitarian’ work consisted of. The government’s official spokesman Percy Simelane and the PM himself have never publicly explained what Mr Dlamini actually did to deserve the award.
The Times Sunday reports that the pastor accompanied the PM, and this fact is accepted, but nobody can explain why the pastor was needed.
The next part gets tricky. The Times Sunday reports Simelane saying that the PM paid for the costs of the pastor’s trip. But the newspaper also quotes ‘sources’ saying that the Swazi taxpayer footed the bill.
So we have a conflict here. Who really paid the bill? It is a pity that the Times Sunday did not name its source. As I have written before it is very difficult to believe newspapers when they do not reveal the source of their information. How can readers be sure that the newspaper didn’t just make it up?
There would be no dispute over who paid the pastor’s bill if people in Swaziland had the right to get information from their government.
Last October the Times of Swaziland tried to find out how much the PM’s trip to the Bahamas cost and was told to get lost because the information was ‘classified’.
But why should the cost of the PM’s trip remain a secret? In any open society the information would be freely available and people could judge for themselves whether the money was well spent.
But Swaziland isn’t an open society and those in ruling positions can do what they like. We are right to be suspicious because corruption is rife in Swaziland and it is estimated that it is costing ordinary honest Swazi people E40 million (about 6 million US dollars) each and every month.
The report of the African Media Barometer Swaziland 2007 published last week condemned the state of freedom of information in Swaziland.
Part of the report reads,
‘There is no freedom of information legislation in Swaziland. The government and public institutions cannot be forced to disclose information of public interest. The Official Secrets Act 1963 makes it entirely the government’s prerogative whether to release information or not, and there is no means of appealing against government decisions. There are no formal procedures for obtaining public information and requests often get caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Information that should be in the public domain, such as the defence budget and the budget of the King’s office, is never disclosed.
‘There is an attempt to introduce freedom of information (FOI) legislation in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Draft Bill 2007. However, there are concerns that the draft bill contains too many restrictions on accessing information and, in fact, turns the whole idea of FOI on its head by opening up ways for the government to access private information, rather than opening up the public’s access to public information.’
So that just about sums it up. Swazi people will only be told what the government wants them to know and that situation is not going to change any time soon.
See also
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FIGHT
RIGHT TO KNOW DAY
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
The Times Sunday reported this week (27 January 2008) that the pastor went with the Prime Minister when he and his wife travelled to receive an award for ‘humanitarian’ work.
Details remain sketchy about what exactly the ‘humanitarian’ work consisted of. The government’s official spokesman Percy Simelane and the PM himself have never publicly explained what Mr Dlamini actually did to deserve the award.
The Times Sunday reports that the pastor accompanied the PM, and this fact is accepted, but nobody can explain why the pastor was needed.
The next part gets tricky. The Times Sunday reports Simelane saying that the PM paid for the costs of the pastor’s trip. But the newspaper also quotes ‘sources’ saying that the Swazi taxpayer footed the bill.
So we have a conflict here. Who really paid the bill? It is a pity that the Times Sunday did not name its source. As I have written before it is very difficult to believe newspapers when they do not reveal the source of their information. How can readers be sure that the newspaper didn’t just make it up?
There would be no dispute over who paid the pastor’s bill if people in Swaziland had the right to get information from their government.
Last October the Times of Swaziland tried to find out how much the PM’s trip to the Bahamas cost and was told to get lost because the information was ‘classified’.
But why should the cost of the PM’s trip remain a secret? In any open society the information would be freely available and people could judge for themselves whether the money was well spent.
But Swaziland isn’t an open society and those in ruling positions can do what they like. We are right to be suspicious because corruption is rife in Swaziland and it is estimated that it is costing ordinary honest Swazi people E40 million (about 6 million US dollars) each and every month.
The report of the African Media Barometer Swaziland 2007 published last week condemned the state of freedom of information in Swaziland.
Part of the report reads,
‘There is no freedom of information legislation in Swaziland. The government and public institutions cannot be forced to disclose information of public interest. The Official Secrets Act 1963 makes it entirely the government’s prerogative whether to release information or not, and there is no means of appealing against government decisions. There are no formal procedures for obtaining public information and requests often get caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Information that should be in the public domain, such as the defence budget and the budget of the King’s office, is never disclosed.
‘There is an attempt to introduce freedom of information (FOI) legislation in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Draft Bill 2007. However, there are concerns that the draft bill contains too many restrictions on accessing information and, in fact, turns the whole idea of FOI on its head by opening up ways for the government to access private information, rather than opening up the public’s access to public information.’
So that just about sums it up. Swazi people will only be told what the government wants them to know and that situation is not going to change any time soon.
See also
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FIGHT
RIGHT TO KNOW DAY
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
Monday, 28 January 2008
SWAZILAND ‘TIMES’ TALKS SENSE ON RAPE
Is the Times of Swaziland coming to its senses on the subject of rape?
The paper that told its readers the reason why women get raped is because they wear short skirts now says rape is an ‘immoral life threatening act’. Only three weeks ago the Times said, ‘When a woman or girl dresses half-naked she is saying through her action “I am available to any man that needs me”. When you dress seductively you are exposing yourself to the danger of being raped.’
Now, the Times has changed its tune. The about-turn came on Friday (25 January 2008) in an editor’s comment after a gang of men were sentenced to a total of 103 years in jail for raping 11 girls aged six to 11 years old. Dogs and knives were used to threaten some of the girls into submission.
The editor’s comment applauded the judge in the case ‘for a befitting sentence to this immoral life threatening act. Rape in this country has become a fashion and unless the courts take a stern stand against it by imposing heavy sentences, it is bound to continue to wreck this already fragile HIV AIDS ravaged country.
‘The rapists got what they deserved but no matter how many years they spend behind bars, nothing can replace the harm and damage that has been caused to the lives of the innocent young survivors.
‘Society has a role to play in ensuring others do not experience such suffering. We owe it to the future generation to create a safe environment they can call home.’
I applaud the Times for coming out clearly against rape on this occasion. But the newspaper has a dreadful history of misinformation on the subject of rape. In the editor’s comment it says ‘society has a role to play in ensuring others do not experience such suffering’. He is right and I would go further and say that newspapers and the media generally have an important role in this regard. And none more so than the Times.
I now await a full retraction and apology from the Times on the lies it has told in the past on rape. Let us see a clear statement from the newspaper that women and children who get raped are victims and are in no way responsible for the rape.
On a related note. I saw in the Times that the rapists were said to have raped 11 girls. The Swazi Observer report said they raped 18 girls. Both newspapers can’t be right. I’m afraid this is just another example of how you can’t believe anything you read in the Swazi newspapers.
See also
‘TIMES’ PEDDLES IGNORANCE ON RAPE
MORE RAPE LIES FROM ‘TIMES’
The paper that told its readers the reason why women get raped is because they wear short skirts now says rape is an ‘immoral life threatening act’. Only three weeks ago the Times said, ‘When a woman or girl dresses half-naked she is saying through her action “I am available to any man that needs me”. When you dress seductively you are exposing yourself to the danger of being raped.’
Now, the Times has changed its tune. The about-turn came on Friday (25 January 2008) in an editor’s comment after a gang of men were sentenced to a total of 103 years in jail for raping 11 girls aged six to 11 years old. Dogs and knives were used to threaten some of the girls into submission.
The editor’s comment applauded the judge in the case ‘for a befitting sentence to this immoral life threatening act. Rape in this country has become a fashion and unless the courts take a stern stand against it by imposing heavy sentences, it is bound to continue to wreck this already fragile HIV AIDS ravaged country.
‘The rapists got what they deserved but no matter how many years they spend behind bars, nothing can replace the harm and damage that has been caused to the lives of the innocent young survivors.
‘Society has a role to play in ensuring others do not experience such suffering. We owe it to the future generation to create a safe environment they can call home.’
I applaud the Times for coming out clearly against rape on this occasion. But the newspaper has a dreadful history of misinformation on the subject of rape. In the editor’s comment it says ‘society has a role to play in ensuring others do not experience such suffering’. He is right and I would go further and say that newspapers and the media generally have an important role in this regard. And none more so than the Times.
I now await a full retraction and apology from the Times on the lies it has told in the past on rape. Let us see a clear statement from the newspaper that women and children who get raped are victims and are in no way responsible for the rape.
On a related note. I saw in the Times that the rapists were said to have raped 11 girls. The Swazi Observer report said they raped 18 girls. Both newspapers can’t be right. I’m afraid this is just another example of how you can’t believe anything you read in the Swazi newspapers.
See also
‘TIMES’ PEDDLES IGNORANCE ON RAPE
MORE RAPE LIES FROM ‘TIMES’
LEAKS AT UNIVERSITY OF SWAZILAND
Somebody is having a laugh at the expense of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA).
A report in the Times Sunday yesterday (27 January 2008) reveals that the University Registrar is upset about documents leaking from the UNISWA Senate. He thinks too much unauthorised information is making its way to lawyers representing students in the ongoing dispute over the introduction of semesterization at the university.
And how do we know this? Someone (the newspaper variously calls him/her a ‘mole’ a ‘spy’ and a ‘traitor’) has leaked a letter sent by the Registrar to the university’s lawyer to the newspapers.
As they used to say about good theatre back in the UK ‘this one will run and run’.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
A report in the Times Sunday yesterday (27 January 2008) reveals that the University Registrar is upset about documents leaking from the UNISWA Senate. He thinks too much unauthorised information is making its way to lawyers representing students in the ongoing dispute over the introduction of semesterization at the university.
And how do we know this? Someone (the newspaper variously calls him/her a ‘mole’ a ‘spy’ and a ‘traitor’) has leaked a letter sent by the Registrar to the university’s lawyer to the newspapers.
As they used to say about good theatre back in the UK ‘this one will run and run’.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)