It was 49 years ago on 6 September 1968 that Swaziland
gained independence from Great Britain at a time of great optimism for the
kingdom.
But that optimism was misplaced. What exactly does Swaziland
have to celebrate today? The kingdom has the highest rate of HIV infection in
the world, seven out of ten people are so abjectly poor they earn less than US$2
a day, six out of ten people need food aid from overseas and four in ten are so
hungry they face starvation. Add to this the news from Forbes that that King
Mswati III has a net wealth at one time estimated at
US$
200 million and you can see my point.
The King rules by decree (despite the introduction in 2006
of a new constitution), political parties are banned, the parliament has no
real powers, the Prime Minister is selected by the King and not elected by the
people.
Any legitimate protest against these conditions by the
people is met by state force. Police routinely teargas protesters or fire water
canon or rubber bullets at them.
Back in 1968, people hoped for so much more (no, expected so
much more from independence). The New York Times
reported (6 September 1968), ‘Swaziland achieves independence today with much
brighter immediate prospects than the other two former British High Commission
territories in south Africa. It is smaller (area 6,705 sq miles: population
400,000) than Botswana or Lesotho, but commands far greater natural resources
and a robust foreign trade and payments surplus.
‘This is not to suggest that the Swazis lack problems. Their
position as almost an island within South Africa would by itself insure
long-range headaches. They currently enjoy political stability under the shrewd
if traditional leadership of King Sobhuza II and the royalist Imbokodvo party
of Prime Minister Mahkosini Dlamini.’
Swaziland was seen as a stable, peaceful country. Much of
the credit for this was put at the feet of the then king, Sobhuza II.
The New York Times
reported. ‘The 69-year-old King has been on the throne since 1921. He
personifies his country: one foot in the past and the other in the future.
‘The king of the Swazis, once one of Africa’s great warring
tribes, is equally at home in formal Western clothes or Mahia, the colourful
national costume. He is reported to have about 170 wives and platoons of
children. Statistics are sketchy, but the records do show that the king took
his 50th bride in 1933.’
The Financial Times,
London, UK, reported, ‘If, then, today [1968] the King reigns supreme in this
tiny country ... it is very largely because it was he, and not some populist
movement, that provided the impetus, back in 1960, which set his country on the
road to independence.
‘This is important, for it meant that the King and his men
were able to a large extent to call the tune in their negotiations with the
British Government – the one attempt to impose a Whitehall-inspired
constitution in 1964 was very short lived. Furthermore, by being identified
from the start with the ‘struggle’ for independence in the minds of the people,
the Imbokodvo has been able to stay one jump ahead of any local opposition –
notably the Pan-Africanist Ngwane National Liberatory Congress – and in the end
to annihilate it.’
It was the control exerted over Swaziland by King Sobhuza
that for many was the key to the stability in Swaziland.
The Financial Times
pointed out that it is arguable that the Whites in Swaziland would not have
been willing to abandon their demand for an entrenched representation in
parliament without the influence of Sobhuza.
‘There can be little doubt that Swaziland’s Whites draw great
comfort from the knowledge that a conservative monarch who makes little secret
of his appreciation for the White’s continuing economic contribution to the
country is in charge.’
It was generally recognised internationally that ‘democracy’
in Swaziland in 1968 had shortcomings. The Financial Times
put it like this, ‘In theory, he [King Sobhuza II] is only a constitutional
monarch, and as Head of State he will have to live with a Parliament consisting
of a 12 man Senate and a 30-man House of Assembly. But, in practice, it is very
difficult to see the legislature going against the king’s wishes; for in
practically every sense it is the
King’s Parliament. To start with, all 24 elected members in the Assembly belong
to the Royalist Imbokodvo National Movement, founded in early 1964, and headed
by Prince Makhosini Dlamini, a member of the Royal family and now Swaziland’s
first Prime Minister.
‘Secondly, the King has the power to appoint six Senate
members with the remainder being elected by the House of Assembly.
‘Thirdly, there is his influence in the Swazi National
Council, the body of chiefs and elders through which kings have traditionally
governed the Swazi nation. And as long as Swaziland retains its unitary tribal
structure, the SNC is likely to remain an important body for it is here that
the vast majority of the people will make their grievances immediately felt,
which will then be transmitted via the king to parliament, rather than the
other way round...’
History
tells us that this confidence in Sobhuza was misplaced. In 1973, after the people
of Swaziland freely elected members of parliament of whom he disapproved, the King
abandoned the parliament, tore up the constitution and ruled by decree.
Swaziland is still (technically, at least) ruled by this decree.
The total lack of democracy in Swaziland, the banning of
political parties and the stripping of power from Parliament dates from 1973.
Most of the kingdom’s present day shortcomings can be directly attributed to
the crushing lack of democracy that stifled debate and penalised those who dare
to have a view contrary to those of the ruling elite.
The lack of political sophistication in Swaziland was noted
by the Financial Times, ‘the very
lack of political sophistication in the country – no small reason for the
King’s strong hold over its affairs – is likely to bolster this stability in
the short term.’
Even in 1968 there were concerns about whether the people of
Swaziland were being truly represented in Parliament. Elections in 1967 had
seen the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) get 20 percent of the vote,
but no seats.
The Financial Times
reported with more foresight than it probably realised at the time, ‘Votes came
mainly from the tiny, but growing, white-collar urban working class.
‘Moreover, with hindsight it is now apparent that the vote
was not so much for the NNLC but against
the Establishment, so that even if Dr
Zwane [the NNLC leader] disappears from the scene, the forces which had been
channelled through his party, will remain.’
Richard Rooney
See also
HISTORY
40/40 CELEBRATION
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/search/label/40%2F40%20celebration
